They didn't say DOMA was unconstitutional...Only section 3...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Breaking: Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Held Unconstitutional Above the Law: A Legal Tabloid - News, Gossip, and Colorful Commentary on Law Firms and the Legal Profession

I've been making this argument for years...

And what's truly interesting is how some states' DOMAs more clearly establish they are about plain irrational prejudice towards gays.

Nebraska better watch out!
(But that's probably years down the road... )

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

Nature has prejudice against gays. It's not irrational. it just is.

For the record, I much prefer the idea of civil unions for gays, since the word, "marriage," carries religious undertones; and most religions' holy books proscribe homosexuality.

That said, however, I really don't know how it can be "illegal" in those states that have legalized it...

That's just ridculous. Nature does not take sides. Homosexuality is natural.

They used to say that about Blacks. Their brains were smaller, they were closer to the ape than us...

__________________
"You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life."

I agree with two exceptions: Federal employee benefits and Social Security benefits should be subject to the DOMA.

It is interesting that liberals will applaude this as a victory for the "gay agenda". Yet they do not feel that Roe v. Wade forcing all 50 states to allow abortion is a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

__________________
ΜΌΛΌΝ ΛΆΒΈ (come and take them)

Al Gore didn't invent the internet, but he did invent global warming

I am often amazed at comments like this which belong in a comedy sketch...

By the same mentality, I could say nature has prejudice against celibacy or masturbation or oral sex.

Or here's an even better one...
IT IS IRRELEVANT what a person believes "nature has a prejudice" against...
Whether or not OUR GOVERNMENT can share that prejudice in its policies is the issue at hand.


Nature does have a propensity to produce an awful lot of homosexual animals ...
The Natural "Crime Against Nature": Homosexual Behaviors In Animals


For my opinion, I would accept civil unions as a viable alternative IF the right-wing would put it up as a real compromise.
Given their track record, there is no expectation from me that will happen.

Plus, if the opinions shift to where gay marriage is desired by the majority and THEN the right-wing wants to just have it be "civil unions", then the conservatives lost their chance...


Okay
Show of hands.
How many people here don't know what the 14th amendment is and why it makes states honor people's rights?

What some conservatives don't seem to grasp is that the same mechanism at work in what you describe ALSO makes states protect people's civil rights like freedom of religion...
You want Roe v Wade "state's rights" to win out?
Then the domino of the federal constitution making states honor freedom of religion ALSO would fall...

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

Well, I certainly don't hope so.

In part, that is because of my lack of enthusiasm for the concept of gay marriage (which strikes me as a bit of an oxymoron; although I would not object to the concept of civil unions for gays who desire them).

And in part, it is also due to my deep fealty to the concept of states' rights. (The fact that states' rights have, in the past, been used in service to some very odious causes--say, slavery in the nineteenth century; and Jim Crow laws in the twentieth century--is indeed troubling to me; but this horrid misuse of states' rights cannot reasonably be used to attack the concept itself.)

Like Jesus' eunuchs born that way? Got a test for it?

As religion is all about the "one flesh" of marriage for the federal government to wage war against a State of Deseret solely based upon their definition of "Marriage," or be against Gay Marriages having federal benefits would be a violation of the First Amendment which contains the word "Congress" for a reason. Congress does though have power to "by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof" or to maybe to say how such marriage contracts cross state lines and whether States must give Gay marrages State benefits. That is why we have Senators, if States lose too many they lose "the effect thereof" that a minority of States may want. Also, a tyranny of nine appointed for life Platonic Republican Philosopher kings or justices can do just about anything they want with regard to making law if we the people let them.