One of you will end up here next!
Religion cannot be the basis of state sponsored bigotry.
Women (Nasty or otherwise) are going to be the reason that Donald Trump is NEVER President!
If I said Blacks could only marry Whites and Whites could only marry Blacks would that not be discriminating on race?
Then how is saying men only marrying women and women only marrying men not gender discrimination?
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
1: No, but it can prohibit certain clases of people from getting married.
Whatever else you want to argue, above, the statement is still true.
The fact that -you- havent heard any such reason isn't meaningful, that you will likely refuse to accept any argument as such is telling, and should you be supllied with some such irrefuteably argument, you'd move the goalpost.
Did I mention this is fascinating reading?
Turns out that here are two Veteran's cemeteries in Mass., and the VA gave, and continues to give significant money to the state for those as part of a federal program. The law allows for vet's, their spouses, and certain of their children to be buried there. If Mass violates these rules, the VA can(and threatened to) take back all the money they have spent for the cemeteries. Since Mass allows gay marriage, but the federal government does not allow it, a gay couple can be married in Mass, but not be buried together in one of these cemeteries, under penalty to the state of several million dollars.
Still reading, more to come.
~10 characters~Marital status is a relevant factor in determining whether an individual is eligible for coverage by MassHealth.83 The Commonwealth asserts that, because of DOMA, federal law requires MassHealth to assess eligibility for same-sex spouses as though each were single, a mandate which has significant financial consequences for the state.84 In addition, the Commonwealth cannot obtain federal funding for expenditures made for coverage provided to same-sex spouses who do not qualify for Medicaid when assessed as single, even though they would qualify if assessed as married.85
And now into the decision itself:
In the companion case, Gill et al. v. Office of Pers. Mgmt. et al.
, No. 09-cv-10309-JLT (D. Mass. July 8, 2010) (Tauro, J.), this court held that DOMA violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. There, this court found that DOMA failed to pass constitutional muster under rational basis scrutiny, the most highly deferential standard of review.141 That analysis, which this court will not reiterate here, is equally
applicable in this case. DOMA plainly conditions the receipt of federal funding on the denial of marriage-based benefits to same-sex married couples, though the same benefits are provided to similarly-situated heterosexual couples. By way of example, the Department of Veterans Affairs informed the Commonwealth in clear terms that the federal government is entitled to “recapture” millions in federal grants if and when the Commonwealth opts to bury the same-sex spouse of a
veteran in one of the state veterans cemeteries, a threat which, in essence, would penalize the Commonwealth for affording same-sex married couples the same benefits as similarly-situated heterosexual couples that meet the criteria for burial in Agawam or Winchendon. Accordingly, this court finds that DOMA induces the Commonwealth to violate the equal protection rights of its citizens.
And so, as DOMA imposes an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of federal funding, this court finds that the statute contravenes a well-established restriction on the exercise of Congress’ spending power. Because the government insists that DOMA is founded in this federal power and no other, this court finds that Congress has exceeded the scope of its authority.
As I read it, historically, defining what is marriage is up to the states, and the federal government has no business getting into it. Now this of course races the question in my mind...what about [b]Loving[/i]? If the federal government cannot get into defining marriage, then how was Loving ruled that way?This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status. The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid.
Too bad Obama is fighting to uphold DOMA.
In June, Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said that though President Obama wants a legislative appeal of DOMA, “until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system.”
ederal Judge Rules The Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional. Will it Stick? - Newsweek
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville