ad_email
ad_facebook_468

3 responses to “Mass. likens DOMA to Colorado initiative that Supreme Court struck down”

  1. John

    Yes. These are mean, inhuman, nasty gay jim crow laws enacted for no reason other than raw animosity. Congress has no more power to abrogate ‘fundamental’ rights than states do. Intended to protect ‘traditional marriage’? Rubbish, That canard can’t even get past the rational basis test. Legally it’s all a house of cards and it’s about time we stopped fearing the federal courts. Enough. This state by state approach is too slow and expensive. This is where the battle belongs. This is the only place we can win a decisive victory to win with no ‘separate but equal’ accommodationism. We can be sure that legislative repeal will come with a religious compose that only raises serious First Amendment issues – and the litigation will go on. Only the courts, applying basic bedrock legal principals, will be able to bring down this despicable house of cards. Of all those claiming to be activists, it’s the lawyers who are the most worthy of praise – and most worthy of funding. Get out your check books folks. THESE are the people who deserve the funding in tight times. When money is tight, I don’t have to think twice about who I might give my money to or ask where it will be the most effective. The litigators are the real heroes!

  2. Mombian » Blog Archive » Weekly Political Roundup

    [...] other big news this week was the hearing in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services, the second of two Massachusetts lawsuits aimed at striking down a major part of the federal [...]

  3. John

    States define and regulate a lot of things, but they may not do so in a manner that violates the U.S. Constitution which trumps all ‘separate but equal” jim crow rubbish. My authority? Easy. Loving v. Virginia. If the states had a right to “define and regulate marriage” as being between persons of the same race then, obviously, the Supreme Court would have sided with Virginia and against the Lovings and not struck down all states’ nefarious Jim Crow anti-miscegenation statues. Loving v. Virginia stands for the proposition that no state may define and regulate any right in a manner that violates the U.S. Constitution. In Loving and here that means the bedrock ‘equal protection’ principals laid out in the Fourteenth Amendment.

    All ‘persons’ are entitled to equal protection of the law – no matter what their class. The classification only matters where (as in both Loving and here) it is particularly suspect and invidious.

Leave a Reply

Your support keeps us going. Thank you!

Your support keeps us going. Thank you!

A Closer Look

June 26: An historic date marking victories that almost didn’t happenJune 26: An historic date marking victories that almost didn’t happen

Three important U.S. Supreme Court decisions have made June 26 the most historic date on the LGBT civil rights movement’s calendar. But the powerful impact of two of those decisions has almost obscured the fact that they were narrow victories.

» more


Breaking News

President signs historic executive order

President Obama this morning (July 21) signed a long-sought executive order prohibiting contractors who do business with the federal government from discriminating based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and adding to existing protection (which includes sexual orientation) for federal employees a prohibition of discrimination based on gender identity.

» more


Legal activists call Hobby Lobby decision ‘radical’ and will require vigilance to protect LGBT equality

Some LGBT legal activists say today’s decision in a U.S. Supreme Court religious exemption case amounts to a “dangerous and radical departure from existing law that creates far more questions than it answers.”

Saying it is not providing a “shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice,” a 5 to 4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today (June 30) that a federal law may not require a closely held commercial employer to provide health insurance coverage for contraception if that employer claims that to do so violates his or her personal religious beliefs.

» more


First federal appeals court panel weighs in; finds Utah’s ban unconstitutionalFirst federal appeals court panel weighs in; finds Utah’s ban unconstitutional

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a 2 to 1 decision Wednesday, upholding a district court decision that Utah’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples is unconstitutional.

» more


June 26: An historic date marking victories that almost didn’t happenJune 26: An historic date marking victories that almost didn’t happen

Three important U.S. Supreme Court decisions have made June 26 the most historic date on the LGBT civil rights movement’s calendar. But the powerful impact of two of those decisions has almost obscured the fact that they were narrow victories.

» more


Mizeur falls, Maloney hits a bump, but 9 out of 12 advance in primaries

Nine of 12 openly LGBT candidates won their primary races Tuesday; but, lesbian Maryland State Delegate Heather Mizeur was not one them. And U.S. Rep. Sean Maloney was bested by his Republican opponent in a head-to-head ballot for the Independence Party.

» more