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

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


Breaking News

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


Supreme Court: Kennedy’s questions offer hope -and worry- for both sides in state marriage ban argumentSupreme Court: Kennedy’s questions offer hope -and worry- for both sides in state marriage ban argument

Though attorneys for same-sex couples tried numerous times to focus attention to the damage that bans on same-sex marriage inflict on the rights of LGBT people, the spotlight during Tuesday’s U.S. Supreme Court argument stayed largely on the rights of states to regulate marriage.

» more


Sparring continues among appeals courts as Supreme Court puts off marriage cases another week

The U.S. Supreme Court put off until at least this Friday (January 16) a decision on whether it will hear appeals challenging a Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that said states can ban same-sex couples from marrying. Meanwhile, three judges of the Ninth Circuit issued a blistering dissent against the full appeals courts refusal to hear appeals from Idaho and Nevada, and a three-judge panel at the Fifth Circuit heard arguments from challenges to three state bans on Monday.

» more


Sixth Circuit panel upholds bans on same-sex marriage, setting up national showdown for Supreme Court

In a decision that will compel the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of bans against marriage for same-sex couples, a panel of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that it is not unconstitutional for a state to ban marriage licenses to same-sex couples or refuse to recognize marriage licenses such couples obtain from other states.

» more


Healey makes history, Maloney survives, DeMaio’s in a squeaker, but Michaud comes up short

Maura Healey became the first openly gay person elected as a state attorney general, Sheila Kuehl won a hotly contested race in Los Angeles, Sean Maloney survived his U.S. House challenge, and Carl DeMaio may have won a squeaker in San Diego, but Mike Michaud lost his bid in Maine.

» more