You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
More proof of the lawlessness of the Obama administration. It is beyond corrupt for them to choose not to defend DOMA simply because of their own radical beliefs. It is the job of Holder and the Justice Dept. to defend ALL duly passed federal laws unless and until they are actually overturned. There is NO right to 'gay marriage' anywhere in the constitution, and no 'right' to get health care. DOMA should be upheld.
minn12, there's also nothing in the Constitution that permits discrimination, especially that based on theology. If the GLBT community is refused rights by state and federal government, why should they pay taxes? Your notions are antiquated and will soon be added to the forgotten list of those who opposed interracial marriage, a woman's right to vote and choose, and desegregation. It's not a matter of "if," it's a matter of "when."
Of course she would save thousands of dollars, she works for the governement and the tax payers are picking up the tab. Just another government employee looking to have the tax payer pick of the generous benefits of working for the government. NO thanks. What did her wife do for insurance before they got married? I assume she works in the private sector and has to pay the going rate like the rest of us. The downward movement of civilization continues. Thank you Obama, holder and the Chicago 7.
DOMA would more appropriately be called Discrimination of Marriage Act. That is essentially what it is. It's no surprise that there still people that oppose gay marriage. People still wanted slaves. People still thought women shouldn't vote. People still thought blacks should ride in a different part of the bus and use different bathrooms.
minn12: you're a dinosaur. Go back to the Jurassic era. This is the 21st century and gay Americans are first and foremost Americans and they deserve all the same rights of their citizenship that everyone else enjoys.
@luxaeterna: Typical lib, name call instead of dealing with the facts of the arguement. Quote me where in the constitution you have a 'right' to gay marriage, or a 'right' to have health care? Doesn't exist, not there. The government establishes its own benefits programs, and is following the federal DOMA law. Except, of course, for yet another activist judge thinking he is above the law. It is up to the states to determine their own laws on marriage, NOT the federal government. If you want gay marriage and free benefits, go to a state that offers it. The problem is, the Supreme Court has radical liberals on it that don' care a whiff about the constitution they are sworn to uphold. Sadly, it won't surprise me if they 'find' yet another new 'right' never before found in history as a way to justify more benefit handouts.
minn12-- Minn12, while it is true that the right to marry isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, the rights listed in the Constitution aren't a complete list (that's what the 9th says). What IS in the Constitution is the 14th Amendment, however, which guarantees the "equal protection of the law for all persons," and the "inalienable rights" of liberty and to pursue happiness (those are the arguments that have historically won in court when discussing marriage rights for interracial couples, inmates, etc). As for this case, if the US government offers health care benefits to legally married employees, which they do, then the argument is that the benefits should be equally available to all couples who are legally married (according to the laws of their states). You suggested that they move to a state where they can legally get married, they DID get married in a state where it was legal. Call folks "libs," "radicals," and "activist judges" all you want (while complaining that others are calling names instead of dealing with facts), but that's not much of a legal argument.
Hey you libs have only your former fearless leader mr Clinton to thank for the current law as he's the one who signed it into law.
minn12-- Also, the argument of the plaintiffs in this case IS an argument based on "state's rights." They were married in a STATE where same-sex marriage was LEGAL, and their argument is that the Federal Government cannot ignore the existence of their state-approved marriage. If the state recognizes the marriage, the Feds cannot overrule, to simplify.
minn12: There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says who can or cannot get married. But there certainly are articles that prohibit discrimination. These two women legally married under the laws of their state of residence. The U.S. government is wrong to question the validity of their marriage. Here's where things stand now according to their attorneys' website: "July 10, 2012 132 members of Congress, 70 companies, the state of California—as well as hundreds of associations, legal scholars, religious, labor and civil rights groups and others—join 13 friend-of-the-court briefs urging the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to find DOMA unconstitutional". This will go to the U.S. Supreme Court which will find the DOMA unconstitutional, and will be a great victory for civil rights in this country. People like you, minn12, will look as enlightened as those who wanted to forbid interracial marriage decades ago. Freedom always wins in America.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks