A California judge has ruled against DOMA.

(I chose to quote the Christian Post source because it has quotes from the judge and tries not to be that biased.)

A federal district court judge on Wednesday ruled that a key provision in the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it did not expend health benefits to a same-sex spouse. The case involved an employee of the federal court in San Francisco.
....
White ruled that DOMA violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution by denying health benefits to the same-sex spouse of Karen Golinski. She and her partner, Amy Cunninghis, were married in August of 2008 during the brief period when same-sex marriages were allowed in California.

"The imposition of subjective moral beliefs of a majority upon a minority cannot provide justification for the legislation," wrote White in his decision.
....
This week's ruling was the first since President Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, said he would not defend DOMA because he and the president believed the act to be unconstitutional.

Since Holder announced his office would not defend DOMA, a group known as the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, comprised of five members of the House of Representatives, has defended the act. Last December, lawyers representing the group argued that DOMA was passed to protect and nurture traditional marriage.

However, White did not agree and in another part of his ruling stated that "tradition alone" does not legally justify legislation that singles out gay couples.

"The obligation of the court is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code," White wrote. "The 'ancient lineage' of a classification does not render it legitimate."

Source: http://www.christianpost.com/news/defense-of-marriage-act-violates-constitution-says-calif-federal-judge-70128/
Thoughts on this? DOMA seems to be getting attacked from all sides. I don't know how much longer it is going to last.

Good. One more step toward equality.

No surprise that I'd say Judge White was right on the money. Whether or not you believe in gay marriage as a concept more broadly, DOMA has got to go, and one day soon one of these straws is finally going to be the one to break the camel's back for good.

Anyone else have to read the name Amy Cunninghis twice? :P

usmarine4160:
Anyone else have to read the name Amy Cunninghis twice? :P

Such a horrible joke to be made there. And the fact that she's lesbian...oh my :-P

Clearly this godless heathen liberal islamo-fascistic extremist judge should be impeached for his judicial activism.

I say this calls for a Spirit of Freddy Mercury.
image

OT: No but Really, Fair Play to the Judge, The Majority have no Right to do wrong because of something a guy wrote 2000 years ago.
I don't think Jesus actually said anything about Gays and it was merely the thoughts of one of the apostles or disciples.

I love how elegantly the Judge worded that.

Concise and well put, yet it was like a gigantic middle finger to all the fundamentalists who support crap like this.

Diablo1099:

I don't think Jesus actually said anything about Gays and it was merely the thoughts of one of the apostles or disciples.

He didn't. However, He did say that we should not judge others, as that will be taken care of by God (Matthew 7); instead, we should love openly and without hesitation (Mark 12 30:31).

Christian arguments against homosexuality are all based in the Old Testament, which Jesus declared null so that He could establish a kingdom of love (Luke 5:36-40). As an average believer, it hurts me to see holy writ used as an excuse to attack others.

EDIT: That should be Luke 5:36-39. Thanks to Amnestic for pointing out my error.

Thunderous Cacophony:

Diablo1099:

I don't think Jesus actually said anything about Gays and it was merely the thoughts of one of the apostles or disciples.

He didn't. However, He did say that we should not judge others, as that will be taken care of by God (Matthew 7); instead, we should love openly and without hesitation (Mark 12 30:31).

Christian arguments against homosexuality are all based in the Old Testament, which Jesus declared null so that He could establish a kingdom of love (Luke 5:36-40). As an average believer, it hurts me to see holy writ used as an excuse to attack others.

I'm going to have to agree with you on that.

OT: I thought it was pretty much obvious that the 14th Amendment was going to be used in this matter. No real shock for people who follow the courts. Good argument, too.

Well good, it should be patently obvious that the state can't discriminate regarding an offer of rights and obligations to sexual partners, based on something as arbitrary as their sex. The "The obligation of the court is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code" premise is solid gold.

Thunderous Cacophony:
...
Christian arguments against homosexuality are all based in the Old Testament...

Romans 1:26-27:
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (NIV)

1 Corinthians 6:9-10:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (NIV).

Right, nothing but tolerance and love in regard to homosexuality in the New Testament...

The "sexually immoral" and "idolaters" bits certainly aren't any indication of stuck-up puritanism and condescending intolerance towards other religious beliefs either.

Thunderous Cacophony:

Christian arguments against homosexuality are all based in the Old Testament, which Jesus declared null so that He could establish a kingdom of love (Luke 5:36-40). As an average believer, it hurts me to see holy writ used as an excuse to attack others.

Luke 5:36-39, NIV:
36 He told them this parable: "No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one. Otherwise, they will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old.

37 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined.

38 No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins.

39 And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for they say, 'The old is better.'"

Why didn't I include Luke 5:40? Because it doesn't exist. See?

You will note that this is a parable, and thus quite open to interpretation whereas Matthew 5:17-18 says:-

Matthew 5:17-18, NIV:
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Which is pretty damn clear.

Imperator_DK:
*Snip* of Post 11

Amnestic:
*Snip* of Post 12

Fair points, and probably worthy of discussion, but for the purposes of this thread, we all agree that the persecution by DOMA is bad, that Judge White is a legal badass and that the OP's avatar is kinda creepy?

Thunderous Cacophony:
...
Fair points, and probably worthy of discussion, but for the purposes of this thread, we all agree that the persecution by DOMA is bad, that Judge White is a legal badass and that the OP's avatar is kinda creepy?

Sounds fine by me, the bible quotes speak for themselves anyway.

And if it's from what I think it's from, the second poster's avatar is far more creepy.

Pfft. Kokonoe is awesome. So is Chiyo-chan in a cat costume (yesterday's avatar).

evilneko:
Pfft. Kokonoe is awesome. So is Chiyo-chan in a cat costume (yesterday's avatar).

Well, to each his own.

I admittedly don't know nearly enough of Kodomo no Jikan to be able to judge whether it has any serious artistic merit to justify its themes, and I don't plan to either. "Creepy" is what instinctively comes to mind though, and not the good kind the Japanese otherwise excels at providing (in their horror works).

To get back on topic: ...well actually it seems there is currently nothing more to be said, since no one here seem to be anything but supportive of the ruling, and for pretty much the exact same reasons too.

Thunderous Cacophony:

Imperator_DK:
*Snip* of Post 11

Amnestic:
*Snip* of Post 12

Fair points, and probably worthy of discussion, but for the purposes of this thread, we all agree that the persecution by DOMA is bad, that Judge White is a legal badass and that the OP's avatar is kinda creepy?

Persecution by DOMA is bad: Yes.
Judge White is a legal badass: Also yes.
OP's avatar is kinda creepy: Well he's a brony so...yep, pretty much.

evilneko:
Pfft. Kokonoe is awesome.

I've actually watched Kodomo no Jikan and...well she does seem to have more depth than a fair few other characters I could name. Doesn't stop her from being scary and a little creepy though :P So "interesting to watch", certainly, but "awesome"? You might need to argue that one I'm afraid.

Edit: Though thinking about it, my quibble may come more from a different definition of 'awesome' to the one you're using; that is, "What does a character need to be classified as awesome"? Some might say a really good character is 'awesome' by virtue of merely having depth, development and being interesting to watch. Others might say that shallow characters who act in a certain specific manner are awesome.

...not that this is the thread for that discussion so...uh...

Yeah, DOMA sucks. More power to the judge.

Thunderous Cacophony:

Imperator_DK:
*Snip* of Post 11

Amnestic:
*Snip* of Post 12

Fair points, and probably worthy of discussion, but for the purposes of this thread, we all agree that the persecution by DOMA is bad, that Judge White is a legal badass and that the OP's avatar is kinda creepy?

Creepy? Why do you say that? And this thread has become a discussion about avatars. A weird turn of events. XD

Amnestic:

OP's avatar is kinda creepy: Well he's a brony so...yep, pretty much.

I'm not a "brony". I find that name to be pretty stupid (as in I kind of wince when I hear it). I'm just a fan of the show.

RedEyesBlackGamer:

Thunderous Cacophony:

Imperator_DK:
*Snip* of Post 11

Amnestic:
*Snip* of Post 12

Fair points, and probably worthy of discussion, but for the purposes of this thread, we all agree that the persecution by DOMA is bad, that Judge White is a legal badass and that the OP's avatar is kinda creepy?

Creepy? Why do you say that? And this thread has become a discussion about avatars. A weird turn of events. XD

Might be me, but the pony in the front seems to have a serious O-face going on. Which is creepy.

Amnestic:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

Thunderous Cacophony:

Fair points, and probably worthy of discussion, but for the purposes of this thread, we all agree that the persecution by DOMA is bad, that Judge White is a legal badass and that the OP's avatar is kinda creepy?

Creepy? Why do you say that? And this thread has become a discussion about avatars. A weird turn of events. XD

Might be me, but the pony in the front seems to have a serious O-face going on. Which is creepy.


The scene it is from. If that helps the context. Suppressing anger is fun.

Thunderous Cacophony:

Diablo1099:

I don't think Jesus actually said anything about Gays and it was merely the thoughts of one of the apostles or disciples.

He didn't. However, He did say that we should not judge others, as that will be taken care of by God (Matthew 7); instead, we should love openly and without hesitation (Mark 12 30:31).

Christian arguments against homosexuality are all based in the Old Testament, which Jesus declared null so that He could establish a kingdom of love (Luke 5:36-40). As an average believer, it hurts me to see holy writ used as an excuse to attack others.

EDIT: That should be Luke 5:36-39. Thanks to Amnestic for pointing out my error.

And it's not just that parts the Old Testament should be moot to Christians based on Jesus's word; as far to my knowledge, the Jews don't even follow most of those laws, which were laid down in Leviticus and Numbers; they mostly stick to the very important laws, like kosher laws, handling of the holy books and fire, etc. You don't see them leading the charge against homosexuality or being part of an anti-feminist group like the Eagle Forum.

RedEyesBlackGamer:

Amnestic:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

Creepy? Why do you say that? And this thread has become a discussion about avatars. A weird turn of events. XD

Might be me, but the pony in the front seems to have a serious O-face going on. Which is creepy.


The scene it is from. If that helps the context. Suppressing anger is fun.

It did indeed look like a cartoon pony was reaching climax, which is a disturbing image. In context it makes more sense, but a 1-second loop without sound will always make things look strange and creepy.

I will say this: if DOMA is going to die, it really should do so before Obama leaves office. So sometime in the next 4 years or so. Otherwise, who knows what the pubbies are going to do...

In any case, this is a great ruling, and I'm left wondering what it means for DOMA's future... can we strike it from the books? Can we use this ruling as precedence in other states? What does this mean in the broad scheme of things?

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked