Supreme Court appears likely to strike down DOMA

[gabosaurus]

As they should.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-lanow-doma-react-gay-20130327,0,1092273.story

[fj1200]

They should also strike marriage from the Federal Register.

[Robert A Whit]

They should also strike marriage from the Federal Register.

I used to enjoy benefits of marriage. I speak in this context those about tax deductions and mortgage deductions and others directed mostly to married people.

Having been not married for almost as long as Gabby has lived, weaned me off needing any of that.

I paid child support to my past wife for about 17 years and that ended at least 8 years back and the former wife took all tax deductions though she too did not get married again.

She was a glutton for having sex and quit once we divorced. I bet that was rough on her.

Marriage to me never was something to be approved or not approved by the Feds. I respect states rights far too much since that is what is near to me. I am remote from the Feds.

[gabosaurus]

I used to enjoy benefits of marriage. I speak in this context those about tax deductions and mortgage deductions and others directed mostly to married people.

Having been not married for almost as long as Gabby has lived, weaned me off needing any of that.

I paid child support to my past wife for about 17 years and that ended at least 8 years back and the former wife took all tax deductions though she too did not get married again.


When you get divorced, you still have a responsibility for your children. That does not end. If you don't want to pay the bill while getting nothing in return, don't get divorced.

Otherwise, the first paragraph of your statement is exactly why homosexuals are fighting the DOMA. They want the same financial benefits that are given to heterosexual married couples. These benefits are NOT extended to those in civil unions.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=627195#post627195)

I used to enjoy benefits of marriage. I speak in this context those about tax deductions and mortgage deductions and others directed mostly to married people.

Having been not married for almost as long as Gabby has lived, weaned me off needing any of that.

I paid child support to my past wife for about 17 years and that ended at least 8 years back and the former wife took all tax deductions though she too did not get married again.



When you get divorced, you still have a responsibility for your children. That does not end. If you don't want to pay the bill while getting nothing in return, don't get divorced.

Otherwise, the first paragraph of your statement is exactly why homosexuals are fighting the DOMA. They want the same financial benefits that are given to heterosexual married couples. These benefits are NOT extended to those in civil unions.

My children were always highly supported by me and I was more than happy to have done that. I went well overboard on lavishing benefits on both daughters so your take away should not be that I did otherwise.

DOMA is federal but states of course make rules that are highly exclusive and rule out many people from marrying. Homosexuals can't act like they are picked on.

Matter of fact, they can simply adopt the other party and case closed. They collect the benefits of married people's off springs so they do have the full rights if they select adoption over marriage.

As to Civil unions, they apply to the state and were not able to reach to the Federal level.

[jimnyc]

These benefits are NOT extended to those in civil unions.

And if everyone agreed, all of our politicians as well, to give identical benefits to homosexuals with civil unions, would things end there? Naive little Gabriella!

[Little-Acorn]

Supreme Court appears likely to strike down DOMA


The LA Times also reported the Supremes were likely to strike down Obamacare, when those oral arguments were going on. :slap:

[avatar4321]

The Supreme Court looked ready to strike down ACA too. That monstrousity is still law and going to end up resulting in people being killed so who the heck knows what they will decide with this.

[Missileman]

And if everyone agreed, all of our politicians as well, to give identical benefits to homosexuals with civil unions, would things end there? Naive little Gabriella!

That's a bridge yet to be built, let alone crossed.

[gabosaurus]

And if everyone agreed, all of our politicians as well, to give identical benefits to homosexuals with civil unions, would things end there? Naive little Gabriella!

You are arguing semantics here. If identical benefits were extended to civil unions, why would anyone (straight or gay) bother to get married? Society places a lot of emphasis on identification. You are looked up a lot different if you are someone's spouse instead of someone's partner.

Also, if you are willing to grant identical benefits to civil unions, what would make that different to you than marriage? It's like you are attempting to create a lower class of people.

[Robert A Whit]

You are arguing semantics here. If identical benefits were extended to civil unions, why would anyone (straight or gay) bother to get married? Society places a lot of emphasis on identification. You are looked up a lot different if you are someone's spouse instead of someone's partner.

Also, if you are willing to grant identical benefits to civil unions, what would make that different to you than marriage? It's like you are attempting to create a lower class of people.

I should not give Jim cover since he makes hateful comments directed my way, but he is correct that civil unions do the job so long as the Feds include this in law. Homosexuals with civil unions certainly can have the law do for them what so called marriage laws do. But the court is acting like the Feds should play no role in marriage.

The difference in myself and Jimmy is that I fight for his rights, even if he offends. He refuses to accord me the same courtesy.

By the way, just what did marrying do for you? Really, you appear to support marriage and the Fed court claims they play no role, why do you want them to play any role?

[avatar4321]

I would also think that it will be interesting to see how they will respond to these cases. If they do strike down the DOMA section (only one part is actually being considered to be struck down), it sounded like they were going on an argument of state's rights.

But can they rule in favor of striking down the DOMA section on the basis of state rights, while at the same time striking down the State of California's Constitutional Amendment? It's going to be difficult to have a consistant basis to strike down both for gay marriage.

If a non-important section of DOMA has to get struck down for the Court to uphold the voice of the people in California, I think it's a very small price to pay.

[logroller]

I would also think that it will be interesting to see how they will respond to these cases. If they do strike down the DOMA section (only one part is actually being considered to be struck down), it sounded like they were going on an argument of state's rights.

But can they rule in favor of striking down the DOMA section on the basis of state rights, while at the same time striking down the State of California's Constitutional Amendment? It's going to be difficult to have a consistant basis to strike down both for gay marriage.

If a non-important section of DOMA has to get struck down for the Court to uphold the voice of the people in California, I think it's a very small price to pay.
I would think that the argument for striking down the DOMA would rest upon its violation of the Second Section of the Fourth Article of the Constitution, which declares that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States." I don't imagine DOMA will survive Constitutional scrutiny for just this reason.
So assuming DOMA does not survive, even if prop 8 is upheld California would still be required to recognize gay marriage from other states, thus relegating prop 8 to little more than red tape. But as prop 8 clearly states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California", if DOMA falls for abridging the privileges and immunities clause, so would prop 8.

[Robert A Whit]

I would think that the argument for striking down the DOMA would rest upon its violation of the Second Section of the Fourth Article of the Constitution, which declares that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States." I don't imagine DOMA will survive Constitutional scrutiny for just this reason.
So assuming DOMA does not survive, even if prop 8 is upheld California would still be required to recognize gay marriage from other states, thus relegating prop 8 to little more than red tape. But as prop 8 clearly states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California", if DOMA falls for abridging the privileges and immunities clause, so would prop 8.

I do like your argument but for one problem. If the FEDS can't defend marriage, then they can't reward marriage by giving married people special privileges over those not married. The IRS will be forced to get rid of a lot of things they currently do. They can't give homosexuals any of those tax privileges either so in the end, they got nothing by taking this to court. I understand that attorneys, even in CA determined Proposition 8 is legal. Even the left leaning Supreme court of CA upheld the law. This is being infringed upon not by state courts but by the very Feds who may rule they have to wash their hands of marriage in all respects.

[logroller]

I do like your argument but for one problem. If the FEDS can't defend marriage, then they can't reward marriage by giving married people special privileges over those not married. The IRS will be forced to get rid of a lot of things they currently do. They can't give homosexuals any of those tax privileges either so in the end, they got nothing by taking this to court. I understand that attorneys, even in CA determined Proposition 8 is legal. Even the left leaning Supreme court of CA upheld the law. This is being infringed upon not by state courts but by the very Feds who may rule they have to wash their hands of marriage in all respects.
A- correct me if I'm wrong, but prop 8 is an amendment to the California constitution that resulted from a similar law being overturned as unconstitutional. Its the supreme courts' responsibility to uphold the CA constitution, including the prop 8 amendment. They did so.
B- As for the charge before the US Supreme Court, I'm not aware a challenge to marriage is under consideration, only its scope of qualification. So while you may see it as a demise of marriage, gays getting married doesn't require tax benefits to be forsworn. You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.

[aboutime]

As much argument as anyone can muster here, on a topic NONE of us have any control over.

Personally. I don't care, one way or the other about DOMA, or any judgements the SCOTUS makes.

My wife and I celebrated our 44th anniversary on the 21st.

Nothing anyone does in California, or all the way East to New York...can change our lives together.

What other people. Other Americans do in their private life is NONE OF MY BUSINESS as long as they are not trying to
hurt, destroy, rob, or kill me by breaking any laws.

Does anyone feel really, really Tired about hearing all of this Nonsense, Day in, Day out, week after week,
month after month, and year after year?

PLEASE...somebody. Tell me, and everyone else reading this post.
HOW anything is affecting ANY OF US in relation to DOMA?

If you are gay, or straight. WHO CARES?
Unless, as I've said for years here on Internet Forums.
The ONLY people I will promise to listen to, and obey are...PEOPLE WHO PROMISE TO PAY MY BILLS, and never ask for anything back.

[logroller]

As much argument as anyone can muster here, on a topic NONE of us have any control over.

Personally. I don't care, one way or the other about DOMA, or any judgements the SCOTUS makes.

My wife and I celebrated our 44th anniversary on the 21st.

Nothing anyone does in California, or all the way East to New York...can change our lives together.

What other people. Other Americans do in their private life is NONE OF MY BUSINESS as long as they are not trying to
hurt, destroy, rob, or kill me by breaking any laws.

Does anyone feel really, really Tired about hearing all of this Nonsense, Day in, Day out, week after week,
month after month, and year after year?

PLEASE...somebody. Tell me, and everyone else reading this post.
HOW anything is affecting ANY OF US in relation to DOMA?

If you are gay, or straight. WHO CARES?
Unless, as I've said for years here on Internet Forums.
The ONLY people I will promise to listen to, and obey are...PEOPLE WHO PROMISE TO PAY MY BILLS, and never ask for anything back.
Congratulations on 44 years of marriage!!!!! :happy0100:
With just under twelve years myself, i can barely fathom the hard work, dedication and all-around fortitude it has taken to achieve such. I sincerely wish you and the wife many more years to come.

[avatar4321]

I would think that the argument for striking down the DOMA would rest upon its violation of the Second Section of the Fourth Article of the Constitution, which declares that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States." I don't imagine DOMA will survive Constitutional scrutiny for just this reason.
So assuming DOMA does not survive, even if prop 8 is upheld California would still be required to recognize gay marriage from other states, thus relegating prop 8 to little more than red tape. But as prop 8 clearly states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California", if DOMA falls for abridging the privileges and immunities clause, so would prop 8.

Two problems with that:

1) The section of DOMA that allows states not to recognize same sex marriages from other states is not up for considersation before the Court. It's not be addressed by the Court. Only the section where the Federal Government doesn't recognize same sex marriages even from states where same sex marriage is recognized is up for considersation before the Court.
2) You didn't quote the second part of the Full Faith and Credit Clause which says "And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

So Congress can do precisely what they did with DOMA under FF&C when they provided that States do not have to recognize Same sex marriage that is sanctioned in another state.

I wondered the same question myself till my Family law professor pointed that out.

And there is precedent for the FF&C not applying, even without DOMA. Before the Interracial marriage bans were struck down by the court, States who did not recognize Interracial marriage did not have to recognize an interracial marriage from another State. Though considering the lack of caselaw it wouldnt be beyond the Court's ability to change the precedent.

[avatar4321]

As much argument as anyone can muster here, on a topic NONE of us have any control over.

Personally. I don't care, one way or the other about DOMA, or any judgements the SCOTUS makes.

My wife and I celebrated our 44th anniversary on the 21st.

Nothing anyone does in California, or all the way East to New York...can change our lives together.

What other people. Other Americans do in their private life is NONE OF MY BUSINESS as long as they are not trying to
hurt, destroy, rob, or kill me by breaking any laws.

Does anyone feel really, really Tired about hearing all of this Nonsense, Day in, Day out, week after week,
month after month, and year after year?

PLEASE...somebody. Tell me, and everyone else reading this post.
HOW anything is affecting ANY OF US in relation to DOMA?

If you are gay, or straight. WHO CARES?
Unless, as I've said for years here on Internet Forums.
The ONLY people I will promise to listen to, and obey are...PEOPLE WHO PROMISE TO PAY MY BILLS, and never ask for anything back.

But that's just it. They aren't just doing this in their private lives. No one is stopping them from entering into covenants together and honoring those agreements. The issue is government regulation and recognition of such relationships. What purpose is there to regulate them? And what dangers are there if the government does get power to regulate them?

If gay marriage is viewed as a civil right, anyone who opposes gay marriage and chooses not to support it, namely the Churches and people who seek to live by the scriptures, will become the equivalent of the KKK. This will justify those attacking religion to take away their rights and privileges in the name of equality. And as you can see in the thread I started over, there is precedent for the government doing just that. This is not the first time marriage laws will be used to attack religion. But it will be far more wide spread this time around.

Im much more concerned if the Court doesnt uphold Prop 8, which is a Constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage recognition. This section of DOMA can be overturned without much, if any loss of ground in the fight to preserve traditional marriage. If a Constitutional amendment to the State Constitution is deemed as unconstitutional, it will create challenges to the laws and Constitution throughout every other state. It would be a huge victory against religions that believe the Bible (and some other faiths as well). It will completely undermine the power of State governments if their amendments were overturned.

There are lots of negative consequences that will come from this, and some will not be obvious immediately.

[gabosaurus]

But that's just it. They aren't just doing this in their private lives. No one is stopping them from entering into covenants together and honoring those agreements. The issue is government regulation and recognition of such relationships. What purpose is there to regulate them? And what dangers are there if the government does get power to regulate them?

If gay marriage is viewed as a civil right, anyone who opposes gay marriage and chooses not to support it, namely the Churches and people who seek to live by the scriptures, will become the equivalent of the KKK. This will justify those attacking religion to take away their rights and privileges in the name of equality. And as you can see in the thread I started over, there is precedent for the government doing just that. This is not the first time marriage laws will be used to attack religion. But it will be far more wide spread this time around.

Im much more concerned if the Court doesnt uphold Prop 8, which is a Constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage recognition. This section of DOMA can be overturned without much, if any loss of ground in the fight to preserve traditional marriage. If a Constitutional amendment to the State Constitution is deemed as unconstitutional, it will create challenges to the laws and Constitution throughout every other state. It would be a huge victory against religions that believe the Bible (and some other faiths as well). It will completely undermine the power of State governments if their amendments were overturned.

There are lots of negative consequences that will come from this, and some will not be obvious immediately.

The reason the federal government needs to rule is the same as the case concerning interracial marriage. If the states were allowed to decide at the time, you would have interracial marriages that were valid in some states and not valid in others. In the past, "traditional marriage" was defined as marriage between a white man and a white woman.
When that law was overturned, churches were not threatened. States rights were not threatened.

Consider this: If the State of California passed a constitution amendment banning personal possession of certain types of guns, would that fall under states rights?

Religion will NOT be affected by allowing homosexuals to marry. Churches have the right to refuse to marry gays and lesbians. But they should have no say in what non-religious people can say or do.

[Robert A Whit]

The reason the federal government needs to rule is the same as the case concerning interracial marriage. If the states were allowed to decide at the time, you would have interracial marriages that were valid in some states and not valid in others. In the past, "traditional marriage" was defined as marriage between a white man and a white woman.
When that law was overturned, churches were not threatened. States rights were not threatened.

Consider this: If the State of California passed a constitution amendment banning personal possession of certain types of guns, would that fall under states rights?

Religion will NOT be affected by allowing homosexuals to marry. Churches have the right to refuse to marry gays and lesbians. But they should have no say in what non-religious people can say or do.

The Feds ban polygamy. Do you agree people all over America have a right to polygamy and even indeed, bigamy?

CA has run all over our constitutional rights to own guns of our choosing, and I don't see you defending the second amendment. Why only the one? Bear in mind, the state supreme court backed up proposition 8. We are denied rights to marry several consenting women, so what is the difference and why don't you support polygamy?

I personally don't want to engage in polygamy but per you, it must be our right to do so.

[Robert A Whit]

A- correct me if I'm wrong, but prop 8 is an amendment to the California constitution that resulted from a similar law being overturned as unconstitutional. Its the supreme courts' responsibility to uphold the CA constitution, including the prop 8 amendment. They did so.
B- As for the charge before the US Supreme Court, I'm not aware a challenge to marriage is under consideration, only its scope of qualification. So while you may see it as a demise of marriage, gays getting married doesn't require tax benefits to be forsworn. You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.

We had two bites of the apple. The SC of CA ruled that unless the state constitution was amended, then homosexuals would be able to marry but put the ruling on hold. We citizen's wanting to preserve the law keeping this habit illegal created an amendment. Our constitution should be respected. But it was not. So it ended up back in the state SC who then backed us fully.

While Obama, supposed to uphold the Fed constitution apparently can get away with winking and ignoring a law agreed to by Bill Clinton, it does not make it right.

The challenge to DOMA means marriage will not be defended per the SC if it rules in favor of Obama.

So, you think that the Feds must give tax dodges to homosexuals as they deprive others of those same deductions?

Based on what facts?

[logroller]

We had two bites of the apple. The SC of CA ruled that unless the state constitution was amended, then homosexuals would be able to marry but put the ruling on hold. We citizen's wanting to preserve the law keeping this habit illegal created an amendment. Our constitution should be respected. But it was not. So it ended up back in the state SC who then backed us fully.

I don't need a history lesson; I'm acutely aware of the facts. Your assertion that a state Supreme Court upheld the constitution is a no brainer whether the jurists were left leaning or not. Its an appeal to authority resting upon a circular argument, both logical fallacies-- that was why I responded to you, not that they didn't uphold the mechanism they had, themselves, suggested as curative: an amendment to the state constitution.


While Obama, supposed to uphold the Fed constitution apparently can get away with winking and ignoring a law agreed to by Bill Clinton, it does not make it right.
Another illegitimate appeal to authority; not voting the party line doesn't make Obama right or wrong.
Executives are afforded discretion to prosecute and defend. If he believes DOMA to be violative of the fed constitution, then he is right not to defend the law.


The challenge to DOMA means marriage will not be defended per the SC if it rules in favor of Obama.
Obama isn't bringing the challenge before the Court; so the court can't very well rule in favor of him. Just another red herring from you.

So, you think that the Feds must give tax dodges to homosexuals as they deprive others of those same deductions?

Based on what facts?

I wouldnt consider a surviving spouse's not paying taxes on their widow(er)'s estate a tax dodge; but play your fiddle long enough and maybe youll see the demise of that too. But who's being deprived of those same deductions: non-married people, right? Since you've been married and divorced multiple times, I thinks it's hypocritical that you think the rules are illigimate now that you don't have any skin in the game...did you refund those taxes you previously dodged?

[Nukeman]

Everyone here is missing the HUGE pink elephant in the room. This is NOT about "gay" marriage this is about SAME SEX marriage. That opens a whole can of worms and leads to a bunch of other issues.

If this ruling goes forth and allows "same sex" marriages that means that any homo/hetero sexual couple can legaly marry. what is to stop 2 women or men who are best friends from "tying the not" just so they can use each others insurance adn benefit packages at work. NO WHERE does this say its for homosexual couples only....

You all may think this is far fetched but i say it isn't. Make a law and people will figure how to exploit it.....:poke:

[gabosaurus]

Same sex marriage has to be OK if WILLIE NELSON approves of it!!

http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/exclusive-willie-nelson-same-sex-marriage

[Robert A Whit]

Same sex marriage has to be OK if WILLIE NELSON approves of it!!

http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/exclusive-willie-nelson-same-sex-marriage

What can I tell you. That man approves drug use too. He probably has punked more teens than one can imagine.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=627334#post627334)
We had two bites of the apple. The SC of CA ruled that unless the state constitution was amended, then homosexuals would be able to marry but put the ruling on hold. We citizen's wanting to preserve the law keeping this habit illegal created an amendment. Our constitution should be respected. But it was not. So it ended up back in the state SC who then backed us fully.



I don't need a history lesson; I'm acutely aware of the facts. Your assertion that a state Supreme Court upheld the constitution is a no brainer whether the jurists were left leaning or not. Its an appeal to authority resting upon a circular argument, both logical fallacies-- that was why I responded to you, not that they didn't uphold the mechanism they had, themselves, suggested as curative: an amendment to the state constitution. I see that argument as a no winner for you since if you don't need history lessons, stop posting your version of history lessons. Certainly the state supreme court is our state authority to determine such issues. As a voter on the issue at stake, of course I understood the matter I voted for.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=627334#post627334)
While Obama, supposed to uphold the Fed constitution apparently can get away with winking and ignoring a law agreed to by Bill Clinton, it does not make it right.



Another illegitimate appeal to authority; not voting the party line doesn't make Obama right or wrong.
Executives are afforded discretion to prosecute and defend. If he believes DOMA to be violative of the fed constitution, then he is right not to defend the law.

You call it illegitimate? So, the parties don't matter to you one bit. Actually, I will not appeal to authority as you just did and comment that the US Supreme court ought to weigh in if it is legal for Obama to keep ignoring laws.

I recall the democrats argument over finding statements and even there they argued they were unconstitutional. Wait, only when Bush did it.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=627334#post627334)
The challenge to DOMA means marriage will not be defended per the SC if it rules in favor of Obama.



Obama isn't bringing the challenge before the Court; so the court can't very well rule in favor of him. Just another red herring from you.

Well well, you allege he had no hand in this. What the hell stopped him if you are correct?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=627334#post627334)
So, you think that the Feds must give tax dodges to homosexuals as they deprive others of those same deductions?

Based on what facts?



I wouldnt consider a surviving spouse's not paying taxes on their widow(er)'s estate a tax dodge; but play your fiddle long enough and maybe youll see the demise of that too. But who's being deprived of those same deductions: non-married people, right? Since you've been married and divorced multiple times, I thinks it's hypocritical that you think the rules are illigimate now that you don't have any skin in the game...did you refund those taxes you previously dodged?

If you don't, do not ever again make the argument that oil companies are paid by the Feds in some fashion. One more of your logical fallacies thus why bother trying to respond. My argument centers on what the US SC decides. It had not decided when I was married these many years ago.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Learn how to use the QUOTE feature, Robert. Post 27 looks like you're talking to yourself.:laugh2:

[Robert A Whit]

Everyone here is missing the HUGE pink elephant in the room. This is NOT about "gay" marriage this is about SAME SEX marriage. That opens a whole can of worms and leads to a bunch of other issues.

If this ruling goes forth and allows "same sex" marriages that means that any homo/hetero sexual couple can legaly marry. what is to stop 2 women or men who are best friends from "tying the not" just so they can use each others insurance adn benefit packages at work. NO WHERE does this say its for homosexual couples only....

You all may think this is far fetched but i say it isn't. Make a law and people will figure how to exploit it.....:poke:

I agree that marriage will be many things. Community marriages, polygamy and the old trick, marriages between close blood relatives.

A community marriage takes place where the husband and wife are involved in what is called wife swapping and a group decides the best deal from the Feds is for them to all marry each other.

[DragonStryk72]

Anyone notice that our scotus doesn't really *do* anything these days? Basically, they just seem to throw back every issue they get with the least possible stand taken.

[red states rule]

and of course the coverage in the liberal media is unbiased and down the middle

Here is an example of the "reporting" when it comes to gay marriage





MSNBC Anchor Touts His Gay Marriage, Insists High Court Should Support Him 9 to 0


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PN4-omzwOI&feature=player_embedded