Posted on 05/31/2012 7:21:25 AM PDT by Perdogg
An appeals court has ruled that a law that denies a host of federal benefits to same-sex married couples is unconstitutional
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I quite agree. Trying to make TX and MA live by the same rules is just stupid.
“We have to bend over backwards to prove how liberal we are.”
Not backward. Forward.
Even more stunning is the rationale: They couldn’t find even a word in the Constitution to justify their decision. It’s based solely on other, recent judges’ decisions. (See Duncan’s comments and quote at National Review, “First Circuit vs. DOMA.”)
Great, inter-species marriages coming next! *partying snake*
Inter-species is da best!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3svW8PM_jc
:-)
"Gimme that, gimme that, gimme that snake!"
It vas operation Moose und Squirrel!
LOLOL and YEAH, baby!
:-)
Yet anther example of why Federal courts are too powerful and far far too involved in our domestic affairs.
Leftist will issue any edicts they want expecting the rest of us to yield to their dictatorial edict as if its the law.
Washington knows no bounds to their lawless authoritarian edicts.
Leftist in particular but in general so called “conservatives” think they can issue federal edicts on each and everything subject they please. They can hardly imagin a government that is limited in its power to defined & finite issues.
Indeed the much touted on sex-selective abortions is as much an example of this boundless Federal meddling from the right.
Washington has no business dictating law on domestic issues like abortion or murder for that matter in the States. Washington is suppose to be dealing with foreign issues like trade. Issues it largely neglected much to our economic loss.
*fetching*!!! Mr. Shark, do you take the Snake to have and to hold..... (fotflol)
*holds head, wonders what happened last night*
Musta been those Tequila shots laced with peyote and quaaludes you slipped me.....
The opinion was written by a judge appointed by G.W. Bush, who has a fairly conservative voting record up to now.
Interestingly, the opinion does not find that there is a constitutional right to gay marriage; in fact, it explicitly holds that there is no such right.
What the decision holds is that the definition of marriage is a state function, not one delegated to the federal government. It goes on to hold that, because Massachusetts recognizes gay marriages, the federal government has no right to treat people who are married under Massachusetts law as if they were unmarried.
Or, we could say that, this decision is that the federal government has no right to define marriage.
But is that really true? If I recall correctly, a Supreme Court decision in the late 1800s upheld a federal law which bans polygamy. It was a case dealing with Mormon plural marriage.
It just seems to me that, legally, the federal government should have a definition of marriage, because many areas of federal law depend on marital status. If this decision means that the federal government has to accept any definition of marriage, then I guess I’m lost on the reasoning.
*dying*!!!! Snake finally recovered from the roofies she accidentally had... It was Newt’s favorite movie “The Hangover” — Part III!!
That case involved the pre-statehood Utah territory. Congress has complete legislative jurisdiction over territories, but not over states.
Right! that’s the only way to stop this idiot judges from changing thousands of years of human history that says marriage is between a man and a woman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.