SUPREME COURT RULES DOMA UNCONSTITUTIONAL

re Mysteryman
Of course the Republicans, no hypocrites they, still have both feet firmly planted in the fourteenth century, where they've always been. Far better a little flexibility in admitting "Maybe I was wrong" than a stubborn adherence to punishing anyone who dares disagree with you.

They're Americans, MM, it's genetic.

You use that word - I do not think it means what you think it means.

It's hypocrisy when a person holds contradictory positions simultaneously, it's not hypocrisy when a person repudiates a previous position and adopts its opposite in its place. Bill Clinton supported DOMA. Now, evidently, he doesn't. That may be inconsistency, but it's not hypocrisy.

No President likes to veto bills passed by Congress, even less liked is to have a veto overridden. That is exactly what would have happened had Bill Clintion vetoed DOMA when it passed both Houses of Congress.

The process of attaining freedom for all Americans has been one of slow, but persistent, movement towards what is written in the Fourteenth Amendment :
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note the section about abridgment, no State can fail to recognize the legally made marriage entered into in another State. In Loving vs. Virginia, the couple had been legally married in Washington, DC. Virginia refused to recognize the union.
Too bad, said the USSC. Legal marriage is legal anywhere in the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia<br />
JCBOY: File suit on Monday to force Florida to step up or step out of the way.

Joe(My best wishes)Nation

were I Clinton , I would have vetoed the bill and , as it was overridden, make a political stand for principle. That's what Mr Smith would have done.
Would I have been re-elected?
He could have made a point that, despite the override, the time would come when we would all look like the Bridge of the Starship Enterprise.

I agree, JoefromChicago. Societal changes may cause one to alter one's previous opinion possibly do to a series of events, life experience, or just plain common sense. But it is also the height of naiveté for anyone to suggest "hypocrisy" because at one time in one's life one was opposed to something and now, today, hold contrary views.

Slick Willy was just two months away from an election. That was probably the factor that clinched it for him.

It's in the works.

In 2008 the State of Florida amended their state contittution to ban same sex marriage, same as they did in CA. Regardless of what some people think you cannot amend your state Constitution for reasons of morality, like they did here in Florida and CA, in doing so violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment has substance and it does prohibit the states from enacting laws that serve only to oppress. Florida’s same sex marriage ban is just as unconstitutional as California’s ban.

They will amend their 2012 Federal tax returns from the date they were legally married in New York and file jointly at the end of the year.

If people want to live in a society where the whims of the electorate reign supreme, we will have to change the Constitution and that’s not going to happen.

And the next asshole, I'm talking to Chris Christie, who says it should be up to the voters....I want to remind him and the rest, that what we possess are inalienable rights.
If voters were able to choose what rights each of us has there wouldn't be any black voters, never mind a black President. Massachusetts would have, in 1814, voted to prevent any Irishman from setting foot in the Commonwealth making it a little difficult for people like John Kennedy and Tip O'Neil to born there.
And there wouldn't be an female voters either. It wasn't a general plebiscite to bestowed the vote on Women. It was Constitutional Amendment.

Joe(Forward! Full rights for all)Nation

MontereyJack: I believe that the government should charge EVERYONE an estate tax who inherits something from someone else when they die, or charge NO ONE.

When two people marry, they form a legal entity. When the entity is dissolved (both die) then taxes are levied.

I never knew this about Bert and Ernie

Equality Florida has raised 251 thousand dollars since DOMA to fight amendment 2 which banned same sex marriage in Florida.

The lawyers are with Lambda Legal. We were interviewed and they are looking for a couple with standing, in other words a couple with a justiciable case. They stated we have standing. Not sure what all that means, all legal mumbo jumbo to me. If we are the couple chosen they will be filing suit claiming that restriction’s has harmed our child, denying him all the rights and privileges other children in two parent families enjoy.

In the mean time the Puerto Rican can legally adopt me since I do not have a living parent. By doing so he avoids paying any estate tax if something were to happen to me. Sounds silly but that’s what we have been told.

Then you can say legitimately, "who's your daddy?'

re jcboy
hm, better wait on that one, jc, because if he adopts you that would legally make you father and son, so if Florida ever gets sensible and legalizes gay marriage (and deep sixes Stand Your Ground), you couldn't legally get married then because it would be incest, which would probably still be on the books tho I doubt anybody would have thought of your particular variant when they passed that law. Yeah, Florida is definitely peculiar.

Or do as Joe Nation suggests, challenge FL's refusal to honor gay marriages from other states as a violation of the Constitution, which requires reciprocity of recognizing other states' laws--come on up to a sensible state, Massachusetts, and get married here. I'm pretty sure the Boston contingent would turn out to throw rice and then take the three of you out for dim sum. We're suckers for happy endings. And good at starting revolutions.

jcboy already got married in New York.

If his spouse adopted him, would it nullify the marriage in NY?

I know that in Ontario, spouses can't adopt each other. They have to divorce to adopt (it's been done). There's also the question of gay divorce. In Ontario when gay marriages were legalized a decade ( hooray !) ago, they didn't think through to divorce and a special law had to be put into place. Now almost everything legal refers to spouse vs husband or wife here. It's become the standard.

oh, hadn't seen notice of the ceremony.
CONGRATULATIONS, JC, MAY YOU HAVE MANY HAPPY YEARS TOGETHER.
<throws handfuls of virtual rice>

If we’re not selected we could still make history. I could be the first Gay Jew adopted by a shaved headed Puerto Rican. I just may have a T-Shirt made.

Time to head to our forth of July BBQ!