A federal district court judge in Boston today struck down the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman.
He claims that it is clearly the authority of the individual states to make that determination, and not the Federal Government.
I 100% completely agree.
So, put it on the ballot in all 50 states and let’s see how that works out for you same-sex marriage proponents. Remember what happened in California, one of the bluest states in America, the last time it was on the ballot? Their hasn’t been an overwhelming one-sided electoral defeat like that since President Ronald Reagan, our country’s greatest President ever, won every state but Minnesota in 1984 (winning 525 of 538 possible electoral votes).
So, yeah…let’s put it to a state-by-state vote. When put to the voters in Maine and New York recently, gay marriage was also defeated. Not exactly red states…
I can tell you with 100% certainty how that’ll turn out here in Texas, though.
Yale law professor Jack Balkin, a gay marriage supporter,outlines why he thinks the ruling won’t stand, however:
In both opinions, Judge Tauro takes us through a list of federal programs for which same sex couples are denied benefits. But he does not see that even as he does so, he is also reciting the history of federal involvement in family formation and family structure. His Tenth Amendment argument therefore collapses of its own weight. If the federal government cannot interfere with state prerogatives in these areas, why was it able to pass all of these statutes, which clearly affect how state family law operates in practice and clearly give incentives that could further, undermine, or even in some cases preempt state policies?
I find it interesting the back and forth of States Rights vs. Federal rights. So, marriage as defined by this Judge is clearly a States Right issue, yet abortion is not? Controlling illegal immigration is not?
I appreciate a Judge that is willing to push issues to the States and wish more would take that stance. Let’s stop the Federal gov’t continuing to overstep its authority and bounds as its done under Republicans and Democrats and devolve power back to the states and down from there. Government should be at a level where the average citizen can have a real voice, which we’ve lost…
Im not sure what the big deal is. If you got a couple of dudes who want to have a wedding and invite all their friends and have a party, is that illegal? I don’t think it is. The commitment is between the two individuals and Im pretty sure they can wear wedding bands and everything else without going to jail. So whats the problem? You can buy a house together, file joint income tax, declare primary benificiarys and include each other in respective wills. You dont have to be legally married to do all this. Here in Austin, you can even have a person as a rider on your health insurance. So will somebody please explain what the benefit is to all this and what the gay community hopes to get that it already doesnt have? Seems to me that the only benefit would be legal access to a partners money and assets if the relationship falls thru. Is that what its all about?
The issue is not what they are allowed to do under the law, the issue is their marriage is not recognized the same as a “traditional” marriage. Much like slaves were only considered three fifths a person, we are saying that your marriage is only three fifths that of a “traditional” marriage. Let’s face it, if “traditional” marriage was so sanctified, then the divorce rate would not be where it is today. How about we let people decide who they want to be with for the rest of their life and not make judeo/christian laws against it.
The best way to raise healthy happy children is in a home with a mother and a father, in a committed relationship,, i.e., marriage.
Therefore, the government has an interest in promoting marriage between a man and a woman.
Declaring everything up for grabs doesn’t cut it. Divorce is higher because of the lefties attacks on traditional marriage, i.e., easy no fault divorce. It is irrelevant that not every traditional marriage is not perfect. It is still the best way to raise children.
The illegitimacy rate is off the charts. Kids growing up without fathers has created generations of angry young boys and men. It’s sick.
Well to be fair, I have seen children grow up just fine with two moms. For example, my aunt has childeren with her wife because of medicine. Their daugheter graduated from USC married a “man” and will soon be attending law school. Their son is engaged to a woman and is in his senior year at OSU. I would have to say it was a loving home and their upbringing that made them who they are today. I think a mother and father are not necessary, just being good parents will do the trick.
So what? You think that can be extrapolated to every kid growing up in a home with out a mother and a father? You may see children growing up just fine. I see a lot of very angry kids. Good parenting is a mother and a father. And it should be encourage and promoted.
Do you think that those pushing this agenda will be content if same sex marriage is made the law of the land?
That no other demands will be made?
I disagree that the same sex marriage debate is about equality, it is about societal change and ultimately destruction of all traditional laws and values.
N2L, i agree there is an extremist prortion of that community that will not be satisfied with the marriage issue. Yes, this portion of that community has an agenda that does not sit well with me. However, I do believe to make a law that prohibits a person from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is against what our country stands for. Their will always be a group of crazies in every group left/right/libertarian/lgbt/athiest/and more that will push their agenda too far but their population is usually rather small.
Actually, the homosexual population is quite small, currently.
We have at least one poster here who is homosexual and another who has a son that is.
Personally, how people chose to conduct their lives is fine with me. All laws apply to everyone equally, except in those cases when some want more than what is allowed.
There is thousands of years of human social interaction involved in this discussion. Marriage has been a commonality among many cultures and nations for all those years for one simple reason, the promotion of the family and procreation. That new scientific techniques allow for some to procreate artificially only serves to obscure this vital purpose.
The first requirement of all species is to insure their species continues.
Recognizing a same sex couples legal union is an acceptable compromise, not marriage.
Have you ever wondered when and where the push for this agenda came from?
This is a good starting point, with number 26 being pertinent to this discussion.
As you said, their population is quite small so I don’t think that they will keep are species from continuing. In fact, we as a species is probably overbreeding, LOL. However, why is marrage not an acceptable compromise? Just curious.
For the reasons I stated above. My question is, why isn’t a civil union an acceptable practice for those couples that love each other? It certainly is to non-militant homosexuals I’ve talked to. They despise the flamers and militants.
Mostly in muslim nations. The U.S. has dropped below the replacement rate for the first time in our history.
The replacement rate in the already socialist EU nations are very low.
I’ve lived most of my adult life in gay ghettos. Consequently, I think the entire world is faaabbbuuulous!
Did you do the finger snap when you typed that?
Equating gay marriage to Emancipation is idiotic and offensive to black Americans, who tend to oppose gay marriage.
Blacks don’t “tend’ to oppose gay marriage, they vehemently oppose gay marriage.
You do know that the biggest reason that the Prop 5 failed in California wasn’t due to “old white people” voting against it…it was black people of all ages. So, you’re hoping for black people to be “no more?” Racist.
Yes, which is why they are stereotyped as homophobic.
Only by racists like you.
The hell you didn’t. I knew perfectly well what you meant and did not feel a need to spell it out back to you in a 200 word comment. The perfect metaphor for your life is a toilet.
No, you are – a leftard troll. Who obviously has psych issues because you keep getting banned for your bad behavior and coming back.
No, banned by a moderator after you’ve trolled this site repeatedly.
It’s clear that you are obsessed with NO2Liberals. But, he’s just not into you.
There are thousands of other blogs you can troll. Go find one. Bunny boilers are not welcome here.
Hey Robbie..I see the liberals have come out to play….
I’m glad I got a chance to read some of what they wrote before you kill filed em..normally my timing is off on that. I guess it’s true what they say..’timing is everything.’
Sean, just the same nutter troll.
There he is and now I go *poof*
Bunny Boiler! Take a hint.
He’s on the *poof* express.
He doesn’t take hints, he’s psychotic.
Enough with you guys picking out your brides maids dresses, it appears the Colton Pitonyak gang are now all in prison. What a bizarre case. Pitonyak got 55 years. The girl, Hall, got 10 years. And the roommate violated his probation, picked up an aggravated robbery and was sentenced to 30 years. http://goo.gl/Hx6S
Nice to see the Sedwick family get a small amount of justice after the murder of their daughter. I’m sure Laura Hall will make some scumpal a wonderful jailwife. She’s dangerous!
I found the perfect mate for Laura Hall. He’s young, but she’s got all the makings of a cougar:
This 12 year old robbed a store and stabbed the clerk in the neck. She fought him off while he continued to try to stab her. Too bad she didn’t have a gun. She could have saved someone heartache in the future when he is released and tries to murder someone again.
This brat could have grabbed merchandise and ran. Instead, he tries to murder the woman. Jeesh!
http://goo.gl/zCG8
A young monster.
I hope they smack him so hard it knocks the evil out of him.
Another tragically sad case where the poor victim was stabbed in the back, so to speak, by people she considered as friends . . . Unfathomable . . .
The photos of Pitonyak and Hall relaxing, broadly smiling, and obviously enjoying their little “vacation” in Mexico after murdering and dismembering their own friend show how soul-less they truly are.
Too bad that these so-called human beings did not receive much harsher sentencing. 55 years for Pitonyak is not long enough — and 10 + 1 years for Hall is a joke. How glad I am that Hall chose to appeal her punishment sentencing (originally 5 + 1 years). It is truly poetic that, instead of being reduced, her sentence was doubled for her trouble. I just wish her sentencing could have been multiplied by ten.
Oh, make that: I wish her original sentencing (5 + 1 years) could have been multiplied by twenty.
What could explain the doubling of the original sentence?
A different prosecutor, a better presentation of the facts, better jury selection?
Or could it be, and hopefully is, that even in weird Austin the mindset is shifting and those who support law and order are slowly increasing in the population.
I never quite understand this system where the jury determines the sentence. I guess except for capital cases, the sentence is part and parcel with the trial. She appealed her conviction based on a sentencing error and the whole case gets thrown out? I think.
Anyway, I haven’t had time to read up, but it’s probably the luck of the draw.
I try to find comments from jurors as to why juries hang. It appears more and more antis are lying about their beliefs to get on capital cases.
You’ll find the cases and all the news articles linked here and here
Okay, I was wrong. If you appeal a sentencing error, there is a new trial for the jury to determine sentencing alone. But read this thread: She was eligible for early release shortly after her conviction. Ultimately, it was denied. However, some wondered why she would appeal when she was almost done serving her sentence and there was a risk that she would receive a higher sentence.
http://goo.gl/AyTT
That’s the way we do it, though I don’t know the history behind it.
As for why she wanted a re-sentencing trial when she was so near release, I have no clue. Perhaps she had a hot date scheduled for that night, or she got tickets to a libturd Jimmy Buffett concert.
Asked to comment following the verdict, the jury foreman replied: “Hey, … that’s how we roll”.
*No, he didn’t really say that. However, when Hall was asked how she could help her boyfriend do this, her answer was: It’s just how we roll.
Not to change the subject, but I am continually amazed at those who sing praises for those who perform depraved actions, such as openly running a crack house and chop shop for stolen vehicles from his home, exploiting addicts, and denigrating women.
Gee, you think so, huh? The entire neighborhood was complicit to his actions for years and years. They knew about his chop shop in his backyard and the drug dealings. His neighbors liked to watch the videos he took of the women addicts he denigrated and exploited.
Uh, who gives a fuck?
Every time it is put to the voters it is rejected. Take a hint, already.
He doesn’t take hints, he trolls.
You telling me that maria whatsherface was steven? I suspected it was him but it was too late to catch him on sitemeter.
Also Jack, they were both on the same ip.