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

GOP field: split on Kim Davis, NOM pledge; agreed on Planned Parenthood

  While the many Republican presidential hopefuls hold similar positions on LGBT-related issues, the past two weeks has seen them begin to distinguish themselves in some ways. For instance, during the past two weeks, five said they believe Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis has a religious freedom right to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples, […]

» more

Breaking News

Clinton promises to fight for LGBT Americans, Biden says the victories won in the past ensure the ease of future gains

There were some notable contrasts in the speeches of Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton and potential contender Joe Biden during their separate appearances before Human Rights Campaign events in Washington Saturday.

» more

Fiorina shines, Bush ‘contorts’ to the right, Walker and Perry are gone

People posting on the Log Cabin Republican’s Facebook timeline last Wednesday night overwhelmingly agreed that business executive Carly Fiorina was the winner. But not everyone was praising Fiorina after the debate.

» more

Supreme Court denies stay in Kentucky clerk bid to refuse marriage licenses

In a significant blow to those who seek to use a free exercise of religion argument to discriminate against same-sex couples seeking to marry, U.S. Supreme Court on Monday evening denied an emergency request to stop enforcement of a federal district court order that a Kentucky county clerk resume issuing marriage licenses.

» more

Cruz says gay florist should be able to refuse service to evangelical

Republican presidential hopeful told a gathering last Friday that a gay florist should be able to refuse service to an evangelical couple if the florist disagrees with the couple’s faith.

» more

Religion v. equal protection showdown reaches 6th Circuit

An important showdown between the constitutional rights to religious freedom and equal protection reached a federal appeals court Tuesday (August 18). A county clerk in Kentucky filed an appeal to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in hopes of securing the right to refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

» more