Well, of course a liberal judge has found the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional. Of course a liberal judge rules that we cannot define marriage as a man and a woman. We have to be liberal. Homosexuals are an officially aggrieved liberal special interest group. Somewhere along the way, it became cool to be gay.
We have to bend over backwards to prove how liberal we are.
The fact is, that current marriage law does not discriminate against anyone, because all men and all women are treated the same under current marriage law. But that doesn’t matter to the liberal judges.
I’m waiting for the polygamy and group marriage lawsuits. If we can’t define the sex of the partners in a marriage, then it must also be discriminatory to limit marriage to only two people.
“We have to bend over backwards to prove how liberal we are.”
They’re bending over, all right. But they’re not bending over backwards.
Well he was nominated by Nixon and looking at his record he has been quite conservative on many issues before. So it’s a little confusing why he’d go this route.
> We have to bend over backwards to prove how liberal we are.
Y’know, I see a basis for a usable slogan in there.
“I will not bend over backwards for your “right” to bend forwards.”
Well said.
“We have to bend over backwards to prove how liberal we are.”
Not backward. Forward.
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.