Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Well, at least one part and it is headed to the Supreme Court. 3 judges (2 REPUPLICANS and 1 Democrat) handed this tiny victory down in Boston.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/31/us/massac ... ?hpt=hp_t2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A key part of the law banning federal recognition of same-sex marriage was struck down as unconstitutional by a U.S. appeals court Thursday.

The Defense of Marriage Act -- known as DOMA -- defines marriage for federal purposes as unions exclusively between a man and woman.

Hold your horses, Mark. It's not "overturned" until SCOTUS decides....

SuperHornet wrote:Hold your horses, Mark. It's not "overturned" until SCOTUS decides....

Yeah, no shit. Try adding some value to the conversation.

Actually, Mark, the according to TV news reports today, this doesn't even apply in MA yet. The very justices who made the decision put a halt on enforcement until SCOTUS decides. That's not in the CNN report you link.

SuperHornet wrote:Hold your horses, Mark. It's not "overturned" until SCOTUS decides....

Get over it you right wing Shill, it will be overturned at some point, period.

I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want this to pass. I mean, if you allow the gays to marry, what's next? The darkies marrying our white women or the crippled being allowed to marry? We all know that marriage should be between a man and a woman, of only the same color, and not crippled. What's so hard to understand?

SuperHornet wrote:Actually, Mark, the according to TV news reports today, this doesn't even apply in MA yet. The very justices who made the decision put a halt on enforcement until SCOTUS decides. That's not in the CNN report you link.

CNN is one link. Actually, Casey, this doesn't apply to ANY state under the jurisdiction of the court until the SCOTUS makes a decision. Furthermore, there is more than one news outlet reporting this. I bet you get all your news from the Christian Monitor.

93henfan wrote:I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want this to pass. I mean, if you allow the gays to marry, what's next? The darkies marrying our white women or the crippled being allowed to marry? We all know that marriage should be between a man and a woman, of only the same color, and not crippled. What's so hard to understand?

+1

Ibanez wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:Actually, Mark, the according to TV news reports today, this doesn't even apply in MA yet. The very justices who made the decision put a halt on enforcement until SCOTUS decides. That's not in the CNN report you link.

CNN is one link. Actually, Casey, this doesn't apply to ANY state under the jurisdiction of the court until the SCOTUS makes a decision. Furthermore, there is more than one news outlet reporting this. I bet you get all your news from the Christian Monitor.

Just to clarify - usually when an Appeals Court rules one way, the ruling is considered binding on any part of the US under the Appeals Court's jurisdiction. In this case, the Appeals Court ruled that the mandate in its ruling would be stayed pending a Supreme Court review of the case since the there will likely be an appeal in this case. This type of stay does not happen often but it is not unusual either. If the Supreme Court denies cert (does not accept the case), it will only be binding in the Appeal Court's jurisdiction. If the Supreme Court accepts the case and affirms the ruling, it will be binding on the US. If the Supreme Court reverses this ruling, we go back to status quo.

From my understanding, if the Supreme Court upholds the ruling, it would only effect the handful (not sure how many) states that recognize same-sex marriages. Would not change the current landscape in other states.

I don't touch the Christian Science Monitor with a ten-foot pole....

An what's this about me being a "shill" on this issue? I've never chimed in on it until now, and all I said was that SCOTUS would have to decide before it goes into effect. You might think that's only a formality, but given SCOTUS history, NOTHING is ever a done deal until it happens. I agree that things seem to be headed in that direction.

And what's with the over-the-top hyperbole about "darkies"? I know plenty of African-Americans who are appalled that the racial civil rights fight over the years has been used as a point of comparison. That's just another ad hominem attack from the left. And you'll note that it wasn't any of the acknowledged gays on this board that went their, either. It was just another left-wing hack trying to throw his weight around. The gays here are generally fairly collegial, though they rightly make their views known and understood.

SuperHornet wrote:I don't touch the Christian Science Monitor with a ten-foot pole....

The Catholic Review?

I'm not familiar with that publication. I'm not Catholic....

SuperHornet wrote:I'm not familiar with that publication. I'm not Catholic....

HHmm. Turns out it's a Maryland bi-weekly. My grandmother used to send me cut out articles of my high school football team write ups, WAY back in the day.

That's a WAY cool thing for a grandma to do. ESPECIALLY if her grandson is dominating the sports page like I expect you were, Andy.

SuperHornet wrote:That's a WAY cool thing for a grandma to do. ESPECIALLY if her grandson is dominating the sports page like I expect you were, Andy.

SuperHornet wrote: And you'll note that it wasn't any of the acknowledged gays on this board........

But what about the un-acknowledged gays on this board?

Good point, Flag.

CAA Flagship wrote:

SuperHornet wrote: And you'll note that it wasn't any of the acknowledged gays on this board........

But what about the un-acknowledged gays on this board?

What about them?

Come on, GATW. If you bothered to remember my history with Andy, you wouldn't have posted that.

There might be a couple of others that might apply to, but certainly not Andy.

SuperHornet wrote:Come on, GATW. If you bothered to remember my history with Andy, you wouldn't have posted that.

There might be a couple of others that might apply to, but certainly not Andy.

What is your history with Andy? We are in a DOMA thread, so it sort of applies.

SuperHornet wrote:And what's with the over-the-top hyperbole about "darkies"? I know plenty of African-Americans who are appalled that the racial civil rights fight over the years has been used as a point of comparison. That's just another ad hominem attack from the left. And you'll note that it wasn't any of the acknowledged gays on this board that went their, either. It was just another left-wing hack trying to throw his weight around. The gays here are generally fairly collegial, though they rightly make their views known and understood.

I was hoping someone else would have taken the bait. You're a small fish. I was hoping for a saltwater dal4018.

True dat, 93. I'll accept "small fish."

Mark: Andy and I haven't always agreed on everything, no matter what the forum. Sure, sometimes we do, but not all the time.

There are probably about three or four others who would qualify for that before me, and even with THEM, we don't agree all the time (or even very often, for that matter).

Just ask SD....

SuperHornet wrote:Mark: Andy and I haven't always agreed on everything, no matter what the forum. Sure, sometimes we do, but not all the time.

There are probably about three or four others who would qualify for that before me, and even with THEM, we don't agree all the time (or even very often, for that matter).

Just ask SD....

I think you can both agree that chicks dig Winnie the Poo costumes, no?

SuperHornet wrote:Mark: Andy and I haven't always agreed on everything, no matter what the forum. Sure, sometimes we do, but not all the time.

There are probably about three or four others who would qualify for that before me, and even with THEM, we don't agree all the time (or even very often, for that matter).

Just ask SD....

I go straight to the source, I'll always take your word. Don't worry SH.

Btw, what does this mean:

There are probably about three or four others who would qualify for that before me