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

Why some think the dissent cries ‘wolf’ over Supreme Court marriage decision

The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26 decision striking down state bans against same-sex marriage has been touted as “probably the strongest manifesto in favor of marriage” and pilloried as “a threat to American democracy.” The huff and puff will soon die down, and here’s a look at the legal bricks that will remain standing and why some might think the dissent is crying “wolf.”

» more


Breaking News

“Justice that arrives like a thunderbolt”: On same-sex marriage “the fight is over”

June 26 has been solidified as the historic date for LGBT history in the United States. It is the day in 2003 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could not enforce laws prohibiting same-sex adults from having intimate relations. It is the day in 2013 when a Supreme Court procedural ruling enabled same-sex couples to marry […]

» more


Supreme Court: States must license and recognize licenses of marriages for same-sex couples

In a widely expected yet stunning victory for LGBT people nationally, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today (June 26) that state bans on marriage for same-sex couples are unconstitutional. The decision requires states to both issue marriage licenses to couples and to recognize marriage licenses obtained in other states by same-sex couples.

» more


Supreme Court upholds health insurance subsidies critical to people with HIV

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6 to 3 decision, upheld the right of the federal government to provide health care insurance subsidies to people with low income in states that have chosen not to participate in the Affordable Care Act by setting up insurance “exchanges.”

The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, is a big political victory for the Obama administration and a big relief for people with low incomes, including many people with HIV.

» more


Abercrombie case: LGBT and evangelicals on the same side

It is a rare occasion when LGBT legal activists find themselves on the same side of a case as the conservative Christian Legal Society and the National Association of Evangelicals. It is also rare to find LGBT legal activists on the same side as conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and his fondness for hewing to the original explicit language of a law.

But so it was with EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch June 1, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an employer cannot escape federal law’s requirement to accommodate a job applicant’s religious practices by claiming the applicant never told the employer about his or her religious practices.

» more


Roberts’ questions stole the spotlight; will they steal the show on marriage?

Most legal observers who watched or listened to the oral arguments from April 28 in Obergefell v. Hodges, an appeal seeking to strike down bans on same-sex marriages in four states, focused on the likelihood that Justice Anthony Kennedy will vote with the court’s four liberal wing justices and find the bans unconstitutional. But a few, like University of California School of Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, believe the vote could even be 6 to 3, with Chief Justice John Roberts on board.

» more