Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

It would take a lot to ruin my day nowFollow

#1 Jul 08 2009 at 9:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Quote:
Mass. challenges federal Defense of Marriage Act

Massachusetts, the first state in the nation to legalize gay marriage, has become the first state to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, saying Congress intruded into a matter that should be left to individual states.

"In enacting DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act], Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people," the state said in a lawsuit filed today in US District Court in Massachusetts.

The lawsuit said that more than 16,000 same-sex couples have married in Massachusetts since the state Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gay marriage was legal in 2004 "and the security and stability of families has been strengthened in important ways throughout the state."

"Despite these developments, same-sex couples in Massachusetts are still denied essential rights and protections because the federal Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] interferes with the Commonwealth's authority to define and regulate marriage," the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit argues that DOMA, which was enacted in 1996, precludes same-sex spouses from a wide range of protections, including federal income tax credits, employment and retirement benefits, health insurance coverage, and Social Security payments.

The defendants named in the lawsuit include the US Department of Health and Human Services, the US Department of Veterans Affairs, and the United States itself.

The lawsuit questions the constitutionality of Section 3 of the law, which defines the word "marriage" for the purpose of federal law as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." It does not challenge the constitutionality of Section 2, which provides that states are not required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Attorney General Martha Coakley is expected to release more details at a 2 p.m. news conference at her office.


I don't know why I'm moving to Mass, I'm ******* useless there. Oh well.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#2 Jul 08 2009 at 9:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
codified an animus


I love that phrase so much.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#3 Jul 08 2009 at 9:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Massachusetts is superior to other states. Yeah, it's such a deep blue state that voting seems incidental. The same sex marriage legalization should be an example to other states. When it's legal, you realize that it changes nothing with the exception of same sex couples feeling legitimized and included. It's such a non-issue. I haven't met many people or heard many voters think it should be some stupid divisive fight, going to referendum, like in California. Rather, our government is focusing on our budget crisis. You know, things that actually bother people.


I'm moving to a swing state. I'll finally be needed. lol

PS> That's very awesome news. I'll even forgive Martha Coakley for having that very big pink office when the rest of us were dealing with grey dinginess, back in the day, when we were all in the same building.

Edited, Jul 8th 2009 1:26pm by Annabella
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#4 Jul 08 2009 at 11:54 AM Rating: Decent
**
291 posts
Wow. A States' rights argument coming from Massachusetts! Fascinating.

Edited, Jul 8th 2009 3:54pm by Ahkuraj
#5 Jul 08 2009 at 1:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
Yeah, it's such a deep blue state that voting seems incidental.


IDK. Deval Patrick has accomplished so little that I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with another Republican Governor next election.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#6 Jul 08 2009 at 4:04 PM Rating: Good
It looks like Massachusetts' snook is firmly cocked at Washington.
#7 Jul 08 2009 at 4:59 PM Rating: Good
***
3,212 posts
Quote:
Wow. A States' rights argument coming from Massachusetts! Fascinating.


Actually the first movement for secession from the United States was called by Massachusetts in 1812. There was to be a meeting of New England states since the Jefferson Embargo of trade had hurt them more than other areas. This was made a bit mute by the declaration of war against England.
It is interesting that the Charleston S.C. newspapers of the time all said that secession was not to be allowed. Their view changed in 20 years.


Edited, Jul 8th 2009 9:00pm by Jonwin
#8 Jul 08 2009 at 5:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Ahkuraj wrote:
Wow. A States' rights argument coming from Massachusetts! Fascinating.


Except that it's not a state's rights issue. They're demanding that their citizens qualify for federal benefits because their state laws say they should get them. A state's rights issue would be if the federal laws prohibited the states from granting their own benefits to their citizens based on their own criteria, which is not what's at stake here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#9 Jul 08 2009 at 6:02 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Ahkuraj wrote:
Wow. A States' rights argument coming from Massachusetts! Fascinating.

I don't know if that's the right tack for them to take. If they really believe it's a basic civil right, it should be a federal issue. The problem being of course that at the federal level it'll take a lot longer to sway enough votes the right direction. Shrug.

#10 Jul 08 2009 at 6:41 PM Rating: Decent
Sometimes I wonder if the state of Mass., like some of the posters here, just has an overactive need to openly empathize with the LGBT community in whatever way possible. What % of Mass.'s population is LGBT, anyway? Is it merely a personal agenda shared by the state's top governing officials, or is there a voting population driving this kind of stuff?
#11 Jul 08 2009 at 6:51 PM Rating: Good
God damn it, BD, if you turn this into a 30+ page thread about gay marriage I am going to hunt you down.
#12 Jul 08 2009 at 7:00 PM Rating: Decent
Kavekk wrote:
God damn it, BD, if you turn this into a 30+ page thread about gay marriage I am going to hunt you down.


Pffft. I could care less either way. I'm just curious why Mass. is so gung ho about pretty much everything LGBT.
#13 Jul 08 2009 at 7:10 PM Rating: Good
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
God damn it, BD, if you turn this into a 30+ page thread about gay marriage I am going to hunt you down.


Pffft. I could care less either way. I'm just curious why Mass. is so gung ho about pretty much everything LGBT.


Why are you doing this to me?
#14 Jul 08 2009 at 7:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if the state of Mass., like some of the posters here, just has an overactive need to openly empathize with the LGBT community in whatever way possible. What % of Mass.'s population is LGBT, anyway? Is it merely a personal agenda shared by the state's top governing officials, or is there a voting population driving this kind of stuff?
You mean the desire not to be an annoying bigot? I know. We should be more like St. Louis.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#15 Jul 08 2009 at 8:40 PM Rating: Good
***
3,909 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ahkuraj wrote:
Wow. A States' rights argument coming from Massachusetts! Fascinating.


Except that it's not a state's rights issue. They're demanding that their citizens qualify for federal benefits because their state laws say they should get them. A state's rights issue would be if the federal laws prohibited the states from granting their own benefits to their citizens based on their own criteria, which is not what's at stake here.


No. Bad gbaji. Heel.
#16 Jul 08 2009 at 8:41 PM Rating: Decent
Annabella wrote:
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if the state of Mass., like some of the posters here, just has an overactive need to openly empathize with the LGBT community in whatever way possible. What % of Mass.'s population is LGBT, anyway? Is it merely a personal agenda shared by the state's top governing officials, or is there a voting population driving this kind of stuff?
You mean the desire not to be an annoying bigot? I know. We should be more like St. Louis.


I was being genuinely curious. Grow up and stop taking everything so damn personally.
#17 Jul 08 2009 at 8:45 PM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
Annabella wrote:
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if the state of Mass., like some of the posters here, just has an overactive need to openly empathize with the LGBT community in whatever way possible. What % of Mass.'s population is LGBT, anyway? Is it merely a personal agenda shared by the state's top governing officials, or is there a voting population driving this kind of stuff?
You mean the desire not to be an annoying bigot? I know. We should be more like St. Louis.


I was being genuinely curious. Grow up and stop taking everything so damn personally.



Please, BD, you were being a douchebag and then taking it back. Put on your big boy pants and be honest.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#18 Jul 08 2009 at 8:49 PM Rating: Default
Annabella wrote:
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
Annabella wrote:
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if the state of Mass., like some of the posters here, just has an overactive need to openly empathize with the LGBT community in whatever way possible. What % of Mass.'s population is LGBT, anyway? Is it merely a personal agenda shared by the state's top governing officials, or is there a voting population driving this kind of stuff?
You mean the desire not to be an annoying bigot? I know. We should be more like St. Louis.


I was being genuinely curious. Grow up and stop taking everything so damn personally.



Please, BD, you were being a douchebag and then taking it back. Put on your big boy pants and be honest.


No, I wasn't. Your judgment is clouded by your immaturity and hypersensitivity regarding homosexual discussion.
#19 Jul 08 2009 at 9:28 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,512 posts
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
No, I wasn't. Your judgment is clouded by your immaturity and hypersensitivity regarding homosexual discussion.


No, it really does read as "WHY THE FUCK ARE THEY SO FUCKING INTERESTED IN GAYS?! What, I'm just genuinely curious!"
#20 Jul 08 2009 at 9:59 PM Rating: Good
It's not what you say, BD, it's how you say it.

(Or type it)

I can't speak for the rest of Mass., but the Boston area is silly with poofs. There's quite a large population in the South End, Cambridge, Alston, & Somerville.

Also, the influx of half a million college students each year tend to introduce a new batch of people who are predominantly for equal rights for the LBGT community year after year. Some of which remain in Mass. after school & the cycle repeats itself each September.

You have to also consider that many of the middle class baby boomers that make up the majority of our state's voters tend to be Kennedy-Democrats.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#21 Jul 08 2009 at 10:03 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
zepoodle wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Ahkuraj wrote:
Wow. A States' rights argument coming from Massachusetts! Fascinating.


Except that it's not a state's rights issue. They're demanding that their citizens qualify for federal benefits because their state laws say they should get them. A state's rights issue would be if the federal laws prohibited the states from granting their own benefits to their citizens based on their own criteria, which is not what's at stake here.


No. Bad gbaji. Heel.


I kind of agree with him though (of course my judgment is the opposite.)

Mass isn't prohibited from enacting legislation that identically emulates federal benefits right? It's not a states rights issue and it shouldn't be one; a federal mandate is the only just solution.

#22 Jul 08 2009 at 10:13 PM Rating: Decent
Omegavegeta wrote:
It's not what you say, BD, it's how you say it.

(Or type it)

I can't speak for the rest of Mass., but the Boston area is silly with poofs. There's quite a large population in the South End, Cambridge, Alston, & Somerville.

Also, the influx of half a million college students each year tend to introduce a new batch of people who are predominantly for equal rights for the LBGT community year after year. Some of which remain in Mass. after school & the cycle repeats itself each September.

You have to also consider that many of the middle class baby boomers that make up the majority of our state's voters tend to be Kennedy-Democrats.


That's kind of what I thought. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people who support a cause they believe in, but I'm a bit cynical (about everything, not just this) and part of me can't help but think that a good majority of these "supporters" have latched onto the cause for lack of something better to support, not really because they have a vested interest in it.

When I see a post like the OP (and I'm not slamming Nexa here), I have a tendency to immediately step back and say to myself: "Why do you care so much? What possible benefit does the movement offer you?". I realize that people may have friends who are affected by it and therefore take a side one way or the other, but something compels me to evaluate such on an individual basis rather than blindly accept the notion that the cause is worth supporting. I don't really care if homosexuals want to get married and receive the benefits that should come with, but I have a hard time expressing direct support for the cause for the simple notion that "it's the right thing to do".

Again, just call me cynical.

Edited, Jul 9th 2009 1:13am by BrownDuck

Edited, Jul 9th 2009 1:14am by BrownDuck
#23 Jul 08 2009 at 10:26 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
I don't really care if homosexuals want to get married and receive the benefits that should come with, but I have a hard time expressing direct support for the cause for the simple notion that "it's the right thing to do".


Sounds like a personal problem to me, lack of empathy and that sort.
#24 Jul 08 2009 at 10:38 PM Rating: Decent
Pensive wrote:
Quote:
I don't really care if homosexuals want to get married and receive the benefits that should come with, but I have a hard time expressing direct support for the cause for the simple notion that "it's the right thing to do".


Sounds like a personal problem to me, lack of empathy and that sort.


Yeah, well, when you post to an internet forum, you invite all opinions, not just those that agree with you.
#25 Jul 08 2009 at 10:47 PM Rating: Good
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
Pensive wrote:
Quote:
I don't really care if homosexuals want to get married and receive the benefits that should come with, but I have a hard time expressing direct support for the cause for the simple notion that "it's the right thing to do".


Sounds like a personal problem to me, lack of empathy and that sort.


Yeah, well, when you post to an internet forum, you invite all opinions, not just those that agree with you.


Why are you crying about his opinion, then?
#26 Jul 09 2009 at 12:26 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
Yeah, well, when you post to an internet forum, you invite all opinions, not just those that agree with you.


I don't mind that you are cynical or even apathetic. I am simply explaining to you that sometimes other people are not. It's possible to experience empathic joy even with an abstract social group, not only for the group in particular, but the triumph of the ideal of justice.
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 166 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (166)