Politics is politics. Law is law. Challenging the federal DOMA could cause a backlash politically. This is true. It doesn't answer the real legal questions that are in play. As the law is currently written, is it Constitutional for the federal government to deny rights to married couples? Is the failure of the federal government to recognize legal marriage on the basis of who is in the marriage constitutional? Is it constitutional for the federal government to deny GLBT married couples their right to property under the US Constitution? All legitimate questions. The way that the constitution is written, it's hard to see a justification for federal DOMA. In my opinion it would take a federal constitutional amendment to change that. But like I said in my previous post. We are dealing with new advocacy here. It's difficult to get a challenge before the court and even more difficult if you don't have a case that shows the impacts. As couples have only recently been able to get married in Massachusetts, there has been little time to show these impacts. Another reason there hasn't been a case is out of prudence. It's reasonable to wait to give the law time to work and make sure that it doesn't change significantly.

Many supreme court decisions are split. That doesn't make the ruling any more or less valid. The challenge against federal DOMA is not an attempt to topple the authority of the US Constitution or the US Congress. On the contrary, it's part of the checks and balance system of the government. The US Congress must create laws that do not violate the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court is responsible for reviewing cases and determining how the laws interact with the US Constitution. This is done all the time. It is not unreasonable to challenge the laws on the basis of states rights, equal protection and due process (all issues addressed by the US Constitution.)

I see no need for the ballot because the petitioners have not met the legal requirements to change the constitution of their state. Changing a constitution is supposed to be a very difficult process because the constitution is designed to be the basis for all laws within a state or nation. Try to misconstrue my advocacy if you wish, but the fact remains. There are legal steps to getting a ballot initiative and the anti-gay lobby has failed.

Like I said, if I were in MA I wouldn't have a problem with letting it go to ballot, but I wouldn't make that easier for anyone. The laws of MA clearly state the requirements of getting an initiative on the ballot. Enough people have expressed their lack of support for the initiative to kill it. Trying to get it on the ballot to "prove a point" is not only reckless, but it's not how the process works.

On the legislature issue, we see it differently which is fine. Like I said, we are going to agree to disagree on that.

I'm done with this thread. I've started a new one. So I won't be answering any of questions that may have been posed since I haven't read them.

Just letting you know.

You don't give up with non-sequitur replies!
It's irrelevant whether or not you oppose racism. That isn't the point.
The point is that it does not matter what the majority says or what laws the majority passes if they are unconstitutional.


And again you reply with a non-sequitur, and an idiotic insult.
Nothing I said was ignorant. You didn't even respond to what I ACTUALLY said:

The same is true of Loving v Virginia.
But let me guess. You SUPPORT that ruling, so therefore it's okay....

That is the REAL defining factor here, isn't it...


Why do you even try to say things that everybody ALREADY KNOWS the response to?
Scalia was a short-sighted idiot. The reasons for preventing polygamy and incest have already been given.

Has Scalia's quote come to pass?
Is prostitution legal in this country?
No?

I mean, he even mentions MASTURBATION and ADULTERY. NEITHER of which are illegal ANYWHERE in this state.
That should have been your first clue that you were quoting an idiot...

I guess quoting people whose predictions are wrong doesn't strike you as dumb, does it.


I am frequently amused by how you try to bolster your OPINION by calling it a fact.
It's amusing, and boring at the same time.
Do you think there is ANYBODY out there who sits there going "Well, Garysher called it a "fact", so it must be so."???


As it has already been proven with the FIRST comment of this post which you avoided responding to, "same restrictions" IS NOT equal rights.
If "same restrictions" were "equal rights", that would invalidate the Loving v Virginia ruling.

Ahhh.
A NEW place to avoid everything you're currently avoiding substantiating.
Much easier to not have that bug you when you just up and move threads. So much easier to ignore when it's not just a few pages back.
Good for you!

homosexuality to me???? well im hermorpfrodite (not hur )female in apperance and ive hummmmwell i dont have anydesire to be sexual or intiment with female at all and i do appreciate most forms of sex with men male in apperence hermorphrodites and male in app. bi-pods no female in app in fact or female in fact has ever been anyone that could satisify me . homosexual????????i, i, i, i, i dont think i aaaam humm had i not started this wellllah s*@t if a person can b satisified with whom they is , then i have no problem with they at all but for those that can not reach orgasium with the same of our same self or freek leave we alone gay and lesbian and dike

post in English, please, musica.