90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Supreme Court Rules DOMA Is Unconstitutional

Decision day at the Supreme Court. Two landmark rulings on gay marriage. We’re on it with top legal minds from across the country.

Michael Knaapen, left, and his husband John Becker, right, embrace outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, June 26, 2013. (Charles Dharapak/AP)

Michael Knaapen, left, and his husband John Becker, right, embrace outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, June 26, 2013. (Charles Dharapak/AP)

Read the Supreme Court’s opinions in the DOMA case (United States v. Windsor – PDF) and in the Prop 8 case (Hollingsworth v. Perry – PDF).

A big decision day in a week of big decisions at the U.S. Supreme Court. Tuesday, the Voting Rights Act.  Wednesday, gay marriage.

The high court is weighing two major cases — on California’s gay marriage ban and its overturn and on the Defense of Marriage Act and federal benefits for gay and lesbian couples.

The court’s decisions deal with the heart of a profound movement in cultural and legal understandings of same-sex marriage. Advocates of change, looking for affirmation. Opponents, for ammunition.

This hour, On Point: Decision day in the high court on same-sex marriage.

– Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Emily Bazelon, senior editor and legal analyst at Slate. (@emilybazelon)

Neomi Rao, professor of law at George Mason University School of Law who focuses on constitutional law. She was a formerly Associate White House Counsel and Special Assistant to George W. Bush. She also clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

David Codell, legal director at The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. He represented Equality California in multiple cases related to the Prop 8 ruling, and he co-authored amicus curiae briefs for both of the same-sex marriage cases.  He also clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Interview Highlights

Emily Bazelon on the decision, its implications and Justice Kennedy’s opinion:

“It’s a 5-4 decision; it’s written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. He is saying the Defense of Marriage Act, because it essentially discriminates against gay people, is a violation of the equal protection guarantee in the Fourteenth Amendment. The implications of this are that gay people who are legally married in states that have legalized gay marriage should be receiving federal benefits from the federal government — very soon, I hope … You’re seeing Kennedy joining with the liberals and moderates on the court to strike down DOMA. And you’re seeing the conservatives on the other side. I think what’s really crucial to Kennedy — there are two principles here. One is the traditional sway that states have had over marriage, over domestic relations, and the idea that when Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, it intruded on what is traditionally a province of the state. And then the other thing that is really important to Justice Kennedy is the idea that the law cannot single out certain groups just because it disapproves of them, that there is some latent prejudice. I think he sees in the Defense of Marriage Act exactly that problem.”

Correction: The above has been updated to correctly reflect that Kennedy wrote the opinion, not the dissent, and that equal protection is part of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Fifth Amendment. Bazelon stated it correctly.

Bazelon on changing norms:

“This law passed in 1996 — at the time it would never have occurred to most people that preventing gay marriage could be unconstitutional, but now we know that it is. The polls have changed; public opinion is much more in favor of same-sex marriage than it was then. I think that thousands of couples across the country have gotten married now in 12 states has really changed this whole social norm, and we can all see that this is a normal part of life and it means a tremendous amount to the gay community but, I think, also to everyone.”

Bazelon on the path toward equal marriage on a national scale:

“The thinking was that it would be too much to ask the court all at once to legalize gay marriage across the entire country. And so instead what we’re seeing is a kind of step-by-step building of the legal principles that they hope will eventually lead to that result.”
– Emily Bazelon

“This is the incremental step toward legalizing gay marriage in terms of federal benefits that the gay rights legal community very carefully teed up. The thinking was that it would be too much to ask the court all at once to legalize gay marriage across the entire country. And so instead what we’re seeing is a kind of step-by-step building of the legal principles that they hope will eventually lead to that result. In the meantime, we have this very meaningful interim moment in which couples like the woman, Eddie Windsor, who was the plaintiff in this case — she is over 80 years old, she was widowed, she had to pay a very large estate tax when she lost her wife because that marriage was not recognized by the federal government. And so all of those tax benefits, all of those social security benefits, all those things that are benefits for straight couples when they get married will now also be accruing to gay couples who are legally married in the states they live in.”

David Codell on the significance of striking down DOMA:

Justice Kennedy’s opinion recognizes the type of harm that DOMA imposed on same-sex couples. The opinion acknowledges that ‘DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others.’ The court’s opinion I think is significant because there was some concern I think in the LGBT that the court would focus on federalism issues, the powers of government — some of which is addressed here — without addressing the fundamental harm of DOMA, which was its denial of equal protection to gay and lesbian people. So today’s opinion is a positive development for the LGBT community because the court is acknowledging the harm that is done when, in this case, the federal government refuses to even recognize their families.”

Neomi Rao on the court’s equal protection interpretation:

“It is a different understanding of equal protection if one is looking, say, at the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is not a dramatic departure when you look at some of the court’s decisions over the last decade or 20 years, where Justice Kennedy and Lawrence in some sense very much set the groundwork for this opinion in DOMA today.”

Codell on the evolution of LGBT issues in the courts:

“Romer v. Evans in 1996, Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 were laying the groundwork for understanding gay and lesbian people … This is the first time the court has had a chance to recognize gay people as members of families.”
– David Codell

“I have thought from the beginning that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. Even though it was enacted at a time when no same-sex couple was married in any place in the entire world, the measure was so clearly designed to cause harm to a particular group of people, as the court recognized today. I think from the beginning many people thought that this measure would not survive. I think a constitutional challenge to DOMA had to await the day when same-sex couples actually could marry. That day of course is here; we’ve now got 12 states and the District of Columbia, within a few months, that will be the number that permits same-sex couples to marry. This day I think was coming. I think the courts’ cases — Romer v. Evans in 1996, Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 — were laying the groundwork for understanding gay and lesbian people. The interesting thing about this case is this case, along with the Prop 8 case, are the first instances in which the court has had before it a case where it was asked … to rule on the rights of gay people in a family. This is the first time the court has had a chance to recognize gay people as members of families.”

Bazelon on how the Obama administration could proceed:

“There’s going to be a really interesting and complicated set of legal questions about how this patchwork of rights and benefits is going to play out. For example, the IRS only recognizes — or goes by the marriage law of the state where you live. So if the Obama administration follows that rule, then gay couples who are married in Massachusetts and then move to Nebraska would not get the tax benefits. On the other hand, other federal agencies do this differently. So we’re really going to have to see how the Obama administration decides to interpret this ruling, and I imagine it’s going to take them a little while to react. Although, presumably, they’ve also been preparing for it.”

For the 36 states that still do not have legal gay marriage, does the DOMA ruling put pressure on them to legalize gay marriage? Rao answered:

“The majority opinion seems to be careful not to specifically reach that question. But I think, as Justice Scalia points out in his dissent, the rationale of the majority opinion strongly suggests that those laws may be unconstitutional, precisely for equal protection reasons. If these types of laws demean the dignity of same-sex couples, then the next step is that the states who prohibit gay marriage — those laws are also invalid. That issue hasn’t been decided in this case, but I think it’s probably a next logical step.”

Bazelon agreed with Rao, but only to a point:

“I think it’s a logical step; it will take more litigation. There will be some sense of impatience. Once you have this ruling, people in the gay rights advocacy camp will be hungry for more, and that’s understandable.”

Bazelon on individual cases vs. sweeping rulings:

“The Supreme Court … only decides the cases and controversies in front of it. And sometimes that can help society get used to a relatively new idea and kind of take it in one bite at a time, as opposed to in a more dramatic and sweeping fashion.”
– Emily Bazelon

“It’s important to remember that one of the virtues of the way the Supreme Court does business is it only decides the cases and controversies in front of it. And sometimes that can help society get used to a relatively new idea and kind of take it in one bite at a time, as opposed to in a more dramatic and sweeping fashion. So I think that’s really one of the great things about this whole idea of challenging the Defense of Marriage Act in particular as opposed to a more sweeping ruling that would simply legalize gay marriage across the entire country.”

Bazelon on the court’s Prop 8 opinion, which said the court did not have jurisdiction — or “standing” — to rule on the case:

“We will go all the way back to the district court ruling in California, and that ruling struck down Proposition 8, California’s gay marriage ban. And it will be up to the state of California to figure out how to apply that statewide … What happened was that the court decided that this case should not have come before it because the proper parties weren’t there. This is what’s called ‘standing’ — the idea that you need to meet certain tests in order to bring your case to court. This is a really lineup. We have in the majority denying standing, Chief Justice Roberts with Justices Scalia, Ginsberg, Breyer and Kagan … and then the dissent is Justice Kennedy with Justices Thomas, Alito and Sotomayor.”

Codell on Prop 8 no longer being effective in California:

“The [case] appeal is gone, and so what we’re left with is the case before the appeal happened, which is the district court ruling. And the district court ruling was that state officials and everyone acting under their supervision could no longer apply Proposition 8. And so what that means is that the state officials in California will likely instruct the county clerks in California that they must begin allowing same-sex couples to marry. There is a lingering dispute out there as to whether the district court ruling would apply statewide. Some people argue that it wouldn’t. I think the better of the argument is, based on the way California marriage law operates, there will be a uniform policy throughout the state.”

Rao on the implications of the Prop 8 ruling:

“I’m not sure a ruling on standing will have national implications … It’s largely confined to California, so part of the question is whether the district court can issue an injunction that applies statewide. There’s a lot of legal dispute about whether a district court judge, a trial court judge, can do that … There’s a different question about whether the state of California, the government of California will just choose to apply it statewide.”

Bazelon on the complicated nature of Prop 8:

“The risk of the California case was that the court was going to make a move against same-sex marriage and say something that would uphold this voter-approved initiative banning gay marriage. And that didn’t happen. So essentially the California case is mostly awash — although, I think David’s right, that likely there will be gay marriages taking place statewide in California. It’s not awash for California, although it’s a little bit tricky because what we have is a district court, one judge’s order — that’s different from the Ninth Circuit, which would’ve been clearly statewide, the court of appeals order. So what we have here is a little confusing; there’ll be some announcement, I assume, from Gov. Jerry Brown and his attorney general about how they plan to take in this ruling. And then there may be more lawsuits that follow from this. But I think what the most important thing is that the Supreme Court has said things today that are only in support of recognizing the rights of gay couples, and that is really going to be a cause of celebration for the gay rights cause.”

Codell on hospital visitation rights:

“For hospital visitation rights, the Obama administration already took a big step by issuing regulations that require that hospitals that receive federal funds must allow visitation for same-sex partners and spouses. That issue has already been dealt with by the Obama administration for many, many hospitals around the country. Hospital visitation is normally governed by state law, but Obama was able to issue that regulation because it applied to hospitals accepting federal funds.”

Bazelon on the normalization of gay marriage:

“The idea that there is this kind of separate lifestyle that’s different and deviant, I think it’s really being given the lie, and that is such an important part of this ruling today.”
– Emily Bazelon

“The argument for gay marriage all along, since it was resurrected in the late 1980s, has been that this is a move that will allow gay people to live in the same ways that straight couples do, to have the same range of choices that straight couples have. And so what you imagine from that  and what we are seeing, as gay people get married across the country, is a normalizing. The idea that there is this kind of separate lifestyle that’s different and deviant, I think it’s really being given the lie, and that is such an important part of this ruling today.”

Bazelon on the role of dignity in the DOMA ruling:

“What I think is really remarkable about this opinion and important is Justice Kennedy’s emphasis on dignity. He has been paving the way for this for years. He has been embracing gay rights and talking about how important it is for all people in different statuses and classes in the country to have equal dignity. And so you so that in Lawrence v. Texas, which was the court’s ruling striking down state laws that criminalized sodomy. Kennedy was very concerned about dignity in that opinion. And you see it again today. And I think there’s just this basic recognition of humanity and embrace of the full kind of scope of the human experience in this opinion, and I really think the country is ready for exactly this — both the legal step and also importantly the kind of social step the court is taking here.”

Rao on constitutionality, equal protection and states’ rights:

“I’m one of those conservatives who, as a political matter, very much supports same-sex marriage and sort of the rapidly increasing political recognition for same-sex marriage. I do think, though, that the constitutional issues are somewhat different. And so while there may be a celebration of sort of the tremendous political strides that have been made over the last 10, 15 years, I think the constitutional issues are a little bit different … Even if we value individual dignity and the recognition of that, it doesn’t necessarily mean that there is an equal protection violation when a state distinguishes between same-sex and heterosexual marriages. I think that’s an important distinction to maintain … [The court has] said that this is a very much about equality, it’s about equal protection. They could have issued a somewhat narrower decision on federalism grounds, which although the opinion sort of mentions federalism doesn’t strongly rest on a federalism rationale. And so I think it is quite significant that they are saying equal protection includes this kind of recognition for this issue. I think it very much calls into question the laws in the 36 states which oppose gay marriage.”

Clinton signed DOMA, and Obama came into office without a definitive position on marriage equality, but Codell said the DOMA ruling sends a definitive message about discrimination:

“The transformation in public understanding of LGBT persons has advanced tremendously and as people come to know LGBT people in their lives and understand their shared humanity with everyone else, understanding of the importance of treating people equally under the law also increases … I think it’s very significant … that this opinion by Justice Kennedy in the DOMA case focuses on dignity. Although, none of the opinions in these cases address whether states must let same-sex couples marry, and that includes the opinions in the Prop 8 case, which are on jurisdiction on local grounds. Though none of these opinions address that question. These fundamental points that Justice Kennedy makes about dignity, about the harm to same-sex couples and their children — which he repeatedly emphasizes — when the state singles them out for different treatment will, I think, have implications on constitutional arguments in future cases as to whether the states may withhold the right to marry from same-sex couples. And I think one thing that’s very important in Justice Kennedy’s opinion is he acknowledges that DOMA as a discriminatory law, telling all federal officials not to recognize same-sex couples’ marriages, really sends signals to others, basically that it’s OK to discriminate. I think that’s an important point.”

Bazelon on Justice Kennedy’s emphasis on the children of gay couples:

“I think lots of people thought that DOMA would be struck down after oral argument. I know, for me listening in the courtroom, there was a really important moment. It came actually in the California case, but the lawyers and the justices were batting around this question of what’s the harm from allowing gay marriage? Why should the state be allowed to do this? What’s the state interest here? And Justice Kennedy brought up the potential harm to the children of gay adoptive parents of not having legal gay marriage. He talked about the voices of the children. And, to me, that suggested he was really thinking about this on a very human level, about the couples maybe he knows or that certainly that he can read about. I think so many of us have friends and family who are directly affected by these decision. And so you can see that concern under his decision here.”

Rao on the 5-4 split of the Supreme Court decisions:

“I think historically the number of 5-4 decision over the last 30 or 40 years has hovered around 30 to 40 percent. It does happen that the more high-profile cases tend to be 5-4. But you can see it in the marriage cases — in the DOMA case, it was sort of a traditional 5-4 split with Justice Kennedy joining the liberals in the case. But in the Prop 8 case, in the California case, with respect to standing, an unusual lineup with Chief Justice Roberts and Scalia joined by Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan. So not all 5-4 decisions are along the traditional lines. Most decisions are not, in fact, 5-4 decisions.”

Bazelon on the gay rights movement moving forward:

“When you look at the polls, you see a real shift towards support of gay rights and gay marriage. It’s especially true among young people where the rates of approval are up into the high 70s. And so I think conservatives who are social conservatives and deeply oppose this redefining of marriages are on the losing side here. Now it is true there’s lots of efforts still to be expended by the gay rights movement — those 36 states … we’re in the middle of a shift here. By no means time for the gay rights movement to declare complete victory, but I think they certainly have momentum on their side.”

Codell on Lawrence v. Texas and Justice Scalia’s enduring dissent:

“Today happens to be, also to the day, the 10th anniversary of when the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down Texas’ sodomy laws. June 26 may start to take on special significance for the LGBT community in America. In the DOMA case, Justice Scalia has a dissenting opinion where he goes on at length about the fact that, in his view, the majority’s opinion striking down DOMA resting on dignity principles will inevitably lead to the legalization of marriage equality in the states. In 2003, the Lawrence v. Texas case, Scalia made the same prediction.”

From Tom’s Reading List

NPR: The Same-Sex Marriage Cases: A Primer

SCOTUS Blog: Waiting On Proposition 8 And DOMA Decisions: In Plain English – “Over four years ago, superlawyers Ted Olson and David Boies — who opposed each other in the Bush v. Gore presidential election case — came together to challenge California’s ban on same-sex marriage on behalf of two California couples. In the next few days, the Supreme Court is finally expected to rule on whether that ban (known as Proposition 8) and the federal Defense of Marriage Act – which limits marriage to a union between a man and a woman for purposes of federal law — are constitutional. But then again, it might not.”

The New York Times: How The Court Could Rule On Same-Sex Marriage [FLOWCHART] — “While hearings in March on California’s ban on gay marriage were murky, hearings on the Defense of Marriage Act were more clear, as the justices seemed ready to strike down a central part of the act that bans federal benefits to gay spouses.”

Associated Press: Supreme Court Has Range Of Options On Gay Marriage – “A look at potential outcomes for the Proposition 8 case and then for the case about DOMA.”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Mike_Card
    • 1Brett1

      WHA?!?! So, the persecution of conservatives that overshadowed all other persecutions;  the poor, wrongfully maligned, singled out Tea Party citizens just trying to provide free educational civics lessons to the public on the Constitution and how to take their country back; the, the veritable scandal of the century really isn’t all that after all?!?! ….Let’s see if liberals will whine for the next few months like neocons have over this. The neocons on this forum have whimpered like little girls…

    • HonestDebate1

      Let the big sweep under the rug begin, nothing to see here. I’m still waiting for the list of progressive groups that were hassled. There isn’t one. There is a difference between targeting for intimidation and targeting for “have a nice day”.

      • 1Brett1

        So you believe IRS officials when they say they scrutinized conservative groups, but you don’t believe them when they say they scrutinized liberal groups…let your cognitive dissonance continue.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Let’s hear the tsumami of coverage.

      *crickets*

      • HonestDebate1

        I look forward to hearing the coverage too. I’m waiting for an example of a “progressive” group having to wait years for approval. I’m waiting for an example of a group named “Greenhouse” Solutions” being delayed and delayed, withdrawing the application, resubmitting it under the name “Tea Party Patriots” and being approved in a week. 

        You have to target the progressives before you can fast track them. 

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          The hours spent whipping this into “scandal” by the crap media you pay attention to is the goal of your side. Don’t pretend otherwise.

          You’ve lain down with dogs. Don’t pretend you don’t have fleas.

          • HonestDebate1

            No, the goal was to intimidate donors into laying low instead of writing checks to Republicans during election time.

            And I’m still waiting for any evidence any progressive group was illegitimately harassed and delayed.

          • 1Brett1

            Fox: they put the “ew” back in “News”!

  • Fiscally_Responsible

    I know that the decision has already been made and opinion written, but I hope for our nation that the Supreme Court recognizes that when Congress passed the 14th Amendment, something as perverted and foreign as gay marriage was not even on their radar screen as a “right” that anyone would consider as normal, acceptable human behavior or use this amendment to argue for.  It is only recently as we slide as a nation into the moral cesspool that we are currently frolicking in that the words “gay” and “marriage” would be put together as one phrase.  As Isaiah 5:20 rightly warns us, “Woe unto those who call evil “good” and good “evil”, who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness”.  

    It also strikes me as hypocritical that those who were so upset by yesterday’s ruling on the voting rights act because the Supreme Court said that the U.S. isn’t frozen with 1965 attitudes towards race now want to fast forward to modern day morality (or immorality as is actually the case) rather than keep marriage defined as is was in 1965: one man and one woman legally committed to each other for life.  God’s truth does not change.  Society and the individuals who argue for gay marriage will one day realize how foolish they were in trying to justify this detestable arrangement.

    • 1Brett1

      You didn’t properly support your claim about how those who were troubled by yesterday’s decision on the Voting Rights Act are hypocritical if they support same sex marriage. In fact, your second paragraph sounded like gibberish.

    • Bluejay2fly

      If two hostile anti Christian, atheists get married in the court house how is that not any more offensive to God? Why set limits on marriage if non believers can get married? Why is gay marriage more evil than civil marriage? Seems like your making this stuff up.

    • nj_v2

      [[ when Congress passed the 14th Amendment, something as perverted and foreign as gay marriage was not even on their radar screen as a "right" that anyone would consider as normal, ]]

      Yeah, i bet there weren’t even homosexuals back then.

      I love it when people selectively quote the Bible to rationalize their bigotry.

    • J__o__h__n

      When the conservatives went after affirmative action, they said that it had to be narrowly tailored to places where specific discrimination occured in the past.  For voter rights, they think that all areas should have the same standard without heightened scrutiny for where there was a history of voter discrimination.  Another conservative activist ruling. 

      • 1Brett1

        And conservatives were willing to let states decide on restrictions regarding abortion, that is until conservative states weren’t making any headway in doing so. Then, of course, they recently decided to put together a federal bill. 

        It seems conservatives contradict their purpose and approach all the time. 

        • margbi

           You know, don’t you, that conservatives are for states’ rights – until they’re not.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          You mean

          “The conservatives were willing to let states decide on womens’ health until states started deciding wrong.”

    • Shag_Wevera

      Perverted and foreign are your opinions.  There is no requirement that Americans be Christians or follow Christian ethics.

    • Ray in VT

      It’s good to see that someone is still willing to take a stand for discrimination and bigotry.  It’s also good to know that my, or anyone else’s civil, secular, rights, should be based upon what one religious text has to say on the matter.

    • jefe68

      The only thing perverted and foreign is this bigoted screed.

  • AC

    where’s Ed?

    • 1Brett1

      He’s not at his most sanctimonious until he’s at least had one cup of coffee! Fiscally_Responsible is pinch hitting for him…

    • J__o__h__n

      Stocking the bunker for Armageddon. 

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Ed, bunker?

        I thought he was prebooked for an executive class ticket on the first flight up.

    • Shag_Wevera

      He is working on his Friday post…

    • DrewInGeorgia

      His head just sploded.
      I can dream can’t I?

  • HonestDebate1

    I just don’t see why we should equate gay unions with heterosexual ones. Putting the same label on it does not make it the same. I expect the debate around here will devolve into name calling but opposition to gay marriage is no more anti-gay than opposition to abortion is anti-women, or opposition to affirmative action is racist.

    • nj_v2

      ^ Winner, Convoluted Analogy-of-the-Day Award. Especially ironic given the pretense of “HonestDebate.”

      • HonestDebate1

        If you said it then it must be true.

    • J__o__h__n

      Of course opposition to gay marriage is anti gay.  What other explanation is there for it? 

      • jefe68

        Oh you know, it’s the same as making comments about race, that are clearly loaded and about race, are not about race.

        It’s the new right wing ideology where by they just say it’s so, so it is. His comment is a perfect example of this phenomenon. It’s a kind of cowardice in my view, not taking ownership of the  language one uses. Or turning it around so that they are the victim, which is what this guy does, a lot.

    • brettearle

      Did you get my latest message, from the Poverty thread?

      It’s now posted, at the top of the June 17th, Syria thing.

    • jefe68

      And I expect you to keep on posting such mind boggling comments such as this chestnut. Amazing, simply amazing.

  • donniethebrasco

    I can’t wait for a church to be sued to officiate “holy matrimony” between gays.

    Does this mean that “holy matrimony” and marriage will no longer be synonyms?

     

    • northeaster17

      The only reason to sue a church is to have them pay taxes

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      You’re setting a low bar.

  • donniethebrasco

    I just met a 60 year old policeman who is retiring and not well.  I offered him $50,000 to get married and set up his pension to be joint.  I am 25 years old.  I’ll be able to get a nice pension with never being a cop.  And this cop gets to keep his cheating ex-wife from collecting a single penny.

    • nj_v2

      ^ Even more pointless than most of this handle’s posts.

    • Joseph_Wisconsin

       If what you say could happen it could equally well happen under current law with substitution of any female that just met your hypothetical policeman.  So what’s your point other than prejudice against gays?

      • jefe68

        His point is, he does not really have any other than throwing muck at the wall and hoping something sticks. Ignore the troll.

    • Shag_Wevera

      So what?  How common would this be?  People will cheat any system, that’s precisely why we must be governed.  We are evil and greedy.

    • Bluejay2fly

      I work in law enforcement most if not all pensions do not work like that. In NY where state pensions are extremely generous you have to pay out of your existing pension for survivor benefits. Currently for a 40K a year pension 6K would be the reduction. Health insurance family plan is another 6K so now your down to 28K pretax. If you had a spouse who divorced you she could get up to 50% so in this case 20k leaving you with a massive 8k a year. Thats assuming survivor benefits can cover an ex and a current spouse which it may not. Also, no cola for 5 years than a meager one after that so your looking at inflation making that 8k you get at age 25 dog sh*t by the time your 50.

      • jefe68

        Interesting. Well so much for the union busting memes of the right wing about public service pensions. 

        In my view any firefighter or cop pushing 60 has been working over 30 years, that’s a lot of years.
        I doubt this guys story is true.

      • donniethebrasco

         No one retires as a NY Cop with a $40K/yr pension.

        It is more like $75K.

        • Bluejay2fly

          You get 50% of your base pay. There is no way NYPD gets 150,000. a year unless your a captain. Even the New York State Police only make 80-90K and that is top scale. But don’t worry NY always figures out a way of getting most of it back. Union dues, mandatory 3% retirement contribution, health insurance premiums and outside payroll is 6K a year school and property tax, auto insurance is 2K, 7% sales tax, and our state tax system. Most cops are broke trying to maintain a normal lifestyle. 7 more to go and I am going South!

    • DrewInGeorgia

      That’s right, leave it to someone who constantly complains about those they disagree with gaming the system to immediately come up with a way to game the system.

    • Yar

      Whose money is a pension anyway?  Does it belong to the state?  It is an earned benefit.  Should the gender of the spouse make any difference?

    • 1Brett1

      It stands to reason, as you, no doubt, have spent a lot of time around cops

  • nj_v2

    (Edit: Disqus fail)

  • J__o__h__n

    My prediction is 5-4 to invalidate DOMA as far as federal recognition of gay marriages and possibly picking up one or two more votes on denying standing to the Prop 5 proponents. 

    • J__o__h__n

      I was slightly off.  I thought that Roberts and another conservative would rule against standing but I didn’t think two would go the other way. 

  • 1Brett1

    If anyone thinks the usual neocon suspects were particularly rank in their assessment of children in poverty yesterday, wait to we hear from all of them on this issue today.

    • Shag_Wevera

      Like Limberger and onion on pumpernickel…

      • Steve__T

         Eeeuuw

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        That’s an insult to pumpernickel, at least.

        • Shag_Wevera

          That sandwich is actually an old tradition in rural Wisconsin.  I think standard rye might replace the pumpernickel in the traditional sammie.

  • Shag_Wevera

    Doesn’t matter what the supreme court does.  This one has reached the point of inevitability.  The best they can do is deal a setback.  If enough Americans want something, it really doesn’t matter what the government says.  I wish this would happen with poverty, taxation, and the wealth gap.

    • creaker

      It does – sadly I’m expecting this court may rule by not ruling and leave the issue hanging out there to work its way to the court again.

  • disqus_fw2Bu1dEsd

    It’s gonna be a Santorum storm!

  • John_in_Amherst

    It is almost amusing to watch “Christian” conservatives hew to the moral code in Leviticus and forget all that New Testament nonsense about “letting he who is without sin cast the first stone”, and about accepting the stranger as a neighbor, and caring for the sick, the poor, the imprisoned, and how a camel can pass through the eye of a needle easier than a rich man can enter heaven, etc.
    It would be truly amusing, were it not for the fact that the Rabid Right’s willingness to indulge in crass hypocrisy and hatefulness hurts others who are doing them no harm.  Shameless a la carte morality seems to be the MO of the right.  Where were their cries about the “sanctity of marriage” when Limbaugh and Gingrich took their serial wives, or celebs like Spears married for hours?
     
    As Gandhi once famously said, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” 

    • Jon

      It’s Christ who made all Christians possible.

      • John_in_Amherst

         the “good” ones, and the rest…

        • Jon

          good or evil – only in the eyes of the beholder…

          • DrewInGeorgia

            Judgement.
            *GONG*

          • Jon

            it’s the judgement day prophecy that drives Christians ideology of good and evil.
            *gong*

          • HonestDebate1

            Judgement is good.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            Except when it’s poor.

          • Jon

            When where did that happen, metaphysical world?

          • John_in_Amherst

             and as evidenced by the deeds of the doer

          • Jon

            yet both sides claim their deed is the noble doing – so who are you rooting for?

  • Jon

    Here is an idea for the divided America – find a state for gays and lesbians and everybody is happy! Or split America into 3 – 1 for republicans, 1 for democrats and the rest for independents.

    • northeaster17

      Somebody tried that in the 1860′s

      • Jon

        that was racial oriented. Time is different now – either separate and peace or fight and doom.

  • Renee Engine-Bangger

    DOMA DONE
    About fracking time.

  • hennorama

    Adios DOMA – you won’t be missed.

    • donniethebrasco

       Signed by Bill “Faithful Husband” Clinton.

  • nj_v2

    I can hear right-wingers’ heads exploding off in the distance.

    Whouda thunk, the current Supreme Court got something right.

  • Yar

    What about the Kentucky case where a partner of a married couple is being asked to testify in a case involving her spouse because KY does not recognize the marriage?

    • Yar

      States that recognize gay marriage should say they won’t recognize any marriage from states that won’t recognize all marriages under reciprocal agreements.  Married couples that move from Kentucky to Massachusetts have to get remarried to receive the benefits of marriage.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        I like that line of thinking. Just because DOMA isn’t law any longer doesn’t mean a married couple can’t get remarried (legally, none of this “vow renewal” stuff) because they love “opposite marriage” just that much.

        (Of course, I’m a film geek who loves the traditional Hollywood “Are we married?” story where a couple finds out after years of acting as hubby and wife that the marriage license isn’t valid.)

  • John Cedar

    It will be interesting to see if the SCOTUS of arbitrary  capricious morons can continue to break their old records daily, of illogical idiocy, on this one.

    Currently, no state denies gays the right of marriage. They just cannot marry people of the same sex. Just as heterosexuals cannot take a bride of the same sex.

    We know gays can and do occasionally choose to marry the opposite sex.

    And so the argument should be if the government, is obligated or not obligated, to asses the natural inclination of all protected groups to participate in a tax and finical incentive law, even if they are all already legally eligible to participate. And if not, can a separate but equal law be written (civil unions) or does the current team have to make accommodations for all players.

    There already are other protected classes that disproportionally do not wish to participate in marriage as it exists. And there are laws, such as the new Obamacare tanning tax that will disproportionately effect white people. But, a subset of white people is the majority known as women (the only majority that is a minority and protected class). And white wimmyn love tanning lessons. So whatever the SCOTUS decides, it may have far reaching implications on the tanning tax.

    • nj_v2

      ????

    • DrewInGeorgia

      You always seem to establish a new base line just when I thought you’d already hit rock bottom. You use lots of words and yet you say nothing.

      • nj_v2

        It’s quite a trick; all those words, punctuation, and even sentences, and not a lick of cogency.

         

        • John Cedar

          The one thing in life that I am not arrogant and cocky about is my ability to construct a sentence and punctuate it. I cannot begin to tell you how thankful I am for your affirmation that I did so to some level of acceptability.

          Respectfully,

          The great John Cedar

          • jefe68

            Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
            William Shakespeare

          • nj_v2

            It was time a while ago for you to put down the shovel and stop digging.

          • hennorama

            I really enjoy how anagrams can reveal hidden truth.

            “great John Cedar” = a retched jargon.

            Respectfully.

          • 1Brett1

            I gotta say, henn, that is impressive!

          • hennorama

            1Brett1 – as much as I’d love to take complete credit, I cannot. I simply used an online anagram generator, and selected the one I thought most apt.

            See:
            http://wordsmith.org/anagram/

            Have fun!

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Online anagram generator?

            Now when someone anagrams I’ll have to ask them if they did it themselves. :-)

          • hennorama

            TF – yep, there are several.

            As an aside, when Gregg Smith changed his moniker, I prepared a list of anagrams of his new epithet, which I intended to parcel out, using a new one with each WITN forum.

            My current fave is Bonehead Test, but I digress.

          • nj_v2

            Sign of too much free time?

            Good, though.

          • hennorama

            nj_v2 – perhaps, but an anagram generator saves an enormous amount of time in pursuing this little amusement.

            I really enjoy words, especially anagrams. This may be because I have a natural quirk wherein I can “see” (and speak) mirror images of words and sentences without any special effort. It’s a bit weird but can be useful on occasion.

            .siht ekiL

          • nj_v2

            Wow! What about upside down?

            ˙sıɥʇ ǝʞı˥

            Or actually mirrored?(Can’t figure out a way to do that here. I can get it done in my word processor, but can’t paste it.)

          • hennorama

            nj_v2 – upside down, or actually mirrored are all pretty much the same to my brain.

            The most common instance when this quirk is interesting is for reading paperwork facing away from me, as from the other side of a desk. Hardly anyone on the other side of the desk considers this to be a real possibility, and rarely does anyone “defend” against it.

            My quirk leads me to automatically turn paperwork over or to cover it up completely, in order to protect against the possibility that others can do what my brain does.

            Thanks for your interest.

    • disqus_fw2Bu1dEsd

      Yum! Such delicious word salad.

    • 1Brett1

      “…no state denies gays the right of marriage. They just cannot marry people of the same sex.”

      I suppose you consider your statement some form of brilliance? Or is this just you marveling at what appears to you to be a shiny object?

      “Just as heterosexuals cannot take a bride of the same sex.”

      I suppose you didn’t even consider how sexist that statement is?    “…TAKE A BRIDE…”

      Oh, and all of that tanning tax stuff about WHITE women being a “protected class” and the “…only majority that is a minority.” I can’t decide which is more telling: your opinions being highly bigoted, or your lack of self-awareness about how bigoted they sound!

      • jefe68

        Yeah, you know like they did in the good ol’ days when women were property. 

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        I dunno, “take a bride” is such a common phrase that I’m willing to not read any sexism into it, just inartful word choices. It could be an editing error, and could say “straight people cannot get legally married to a spouse of the same sex”.

        Besides, that post has bigger structural problems, as you said “Gays are allowed to marry, just only straights.”

        • 1Brett1

          Yeah, but he said “…heterosexuals can not take a bride of the same sex,” as if men take brides when they get married, as if women are in the subservient role.

          But, hey, let us not quibble, there is plenty of bigoted nonsense in his post irrespective of that part! 

    • jefe68

      Oh the inanity, it never seems to end.

  • hennorama

    Poor Justice Scalia’s sensitive nature has been offended.  He’s reading a 26 page dissent from the bench.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Is it, as I imagine, like some Bizarro version of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”?

      • hennorama

        TF – to an extent.

        But I liken it more to a bratty toddler stomping his feet and whining after being told he can’t get his way.

  • Magyar641

    My heart leaps with joy!

  • donniethebrasco

    States rights.

    Voters rights.

    • 1Brett1

      Tell that to Trent Franks [R-Arizona]–and congressional Republicans–who has cosponsored a federal bill restricting abortion.

  • donniethebrasco

    Bill Clinton signed DOMA.

  • donniethebrasco

    What if your future spouse were aborted?

    • Gary Trees

      Then you would never meet them and they would not be your future spouse.  This would almost certainly cause a paradox and the world would come crashing down upon itself.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      my current spouse would be relieved

  • donniethebrasco

    Next, someone has to sue a church to allow marriages in them.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Switch to decaf. Retroactively, if at all possible.

      • donniethebrasco

         Are you saying that no one will sue a church to allow gay marriage?

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          Please get a better handle on the words “church” and “marriage”.

          Actually, don’t bother.

    • nj_v2

      Put down the bottle and slowly step away from the keyboard.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Bottle? When I drink a few I don’t rat-a-tat on the keyboard like that.

        Unless you mean pill bottle.

        • 1Brett1

          Strychnine bottle? Hydrogen peroxide bottle? …Who knows, maybe DtheB’s “bottle” isn’t a bottle at all, merely a rag with some airplane glue rubbed on it?

  • malkneil

    Can’t wait until we’re past this and can focus our attention on real problems facing our society.  There’s going to be a Eureka moment a few years down the road when we wonder what the heck we were thinking building such a bulwark of opposition to this.

    • John Cedar

      Not me. I love gridlock and busy work for the SCOTUS and congress alike. Keeps them from from trying to fix things but making things worse ever time they try.

  • donniethebrasco

    Will there be common law gay marriages?

  • M S

    What does this mean for polygamy?

    • donniethebrasco

       We prefer Polyfidelity.

      • M S

        Polyfidelity is a version of polygamy. A couples therapist I know is convinced that polygamy only works when there is a hierarchy…man >= first wife > second wife > …

  • KenderJ

    What does this mean for couples that marry in a state that has legalized same-gender marriage but live in a state that does not recognize the legality of their relationship?

    • hennorama

      It means their tax person will be tearing their hair out.

    • John Cedar

      That thought crossed my mind too. The ruling said it applies to the marriages performed in the states where they are legal. Seems like the federal tax issue is portable but the state income tax issue is less clear.

      • TELew

        I would think that if that is the case, it is a violation of the equal protection of the law.

        Remember, federal law always trumps state law in terms of constitutionality.

        I can’t wait for the next round of cases on the same- sex marriage issue.  First DOMA is gone, and next the state laws–YES!!!

  • donniethebrasco

    Next step, bring back polygamy.

    • Renee Engine-Bangger

      You think you are irritating people here but all you are doing is embarrassing yourself. You clearly have nothing to say except to spout your bigotry and homophobia. But hey, if you enjoy being a troll and an asshat on the Internets then keep it up.

      • jefe68

        He’s a bit challenged, or so it would seem.
        How else can acting like an immature 10 year old be explained. 

    • danielleoh

      Fascinating that neocons always go there, since polygamy is the only truly biblical marriage.  You have all embraced the lie that the marriage you are comfortable with was prescribed by your definition of “God.”  Times change, customs change, and God smiles.  We are two steps closer to a truly equal society.

      • MrBigStuff

        What constitutes a truly equal society?

    • Ray in VT

      People always want want to talk about biblical marriage, so why are they not fighting for that type of biblical marriage?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        they are but most of them are out west.

  • John Cedar

    Why did they only overturn half the DOMA?
    Is it because the other half was not challenged in this case?
    If so, that is not a very efficient way of doing things.

    Why did  they strike down half but confine the ruling to the marriages preformed in the states that allow gay marriage? Does a Canadian marriage not count, for instance?

    • J__o__h__n

      Only half was challenged.  The plaintiff had standing as she was financially damaged by the denial of federal marriage rights.  She had no claim about another state not recognizing her marriage. 

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        J_o_h_n, I think Cedar is just pumping some Brett Kilmeade level “whaa, I don’t know anything so let me ask dumb questions” gas into the atmosphere.

        • 1Brett1

          PLease, TF!!! I think you mean BRAIN Kimeade!

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      nothing Canadian counts

  • donniethebrasco

    The Supreme Court didn’t try to legalize gay marriage.  It said that they couldn’t stop it.

  • kvail

    I have been with my wife for over 20 years, a parent with her for 8, domestic partner in IL, partially married in CT and now fully married in the US.

  • donniethebrasco

    Welcome to the marriage tax.

  • donniethebrasco

    You won and you still complain.

  • AC

    darn it, i KNEW i should have invested in some local caterers or florists…. :(

    • donniethebrasco

      They are usually owned by individuals.  And they are all fabulous.

      • AC

        then i should open my own. demand will go up at least 30%, that’s some good money to be made.

        • donniethebrasco

          Especially if you are willing to put two grooms or two brides on your cake.

          There are some companies that are unwilling to do this, so it will create opportunity for their competition.

          • AC

            foolish ninnies! you know, there was a time, not that long ago, were the common folk resisted ‘bathing’ due to religious beliefs. i’ll allow, there are still some of them hanging around, but most have disappeared. thank god.

  • 1Brett1

    The usual neocon lunatic fringe who descend on this forum regularly are slipping, it seems; nary a single one has yet to mention bestiality!?! …Well, it’s early still.  

    • donniethebrasco

      Beasts don’t have legal standing.  A dog is a dog.

      They are property.

      If you accidentally kill someone’s dog, all you have to do is buy their owner a new one.  There is no pain and suffering.

      • 1Brett1

        Is that how you justify your own sexual habits? 

      • jefe68

        Actually they do. You can be charged with a felony for abusing an animal. 

  • donniethebrasco

    NAMBLA supports this ruling as well.

    • John

      Go back to Reddit troll.

      • donniethebrasco

        Go back to rocks and sticks.

        • John

          I just call them as I see them

    • hennorama

      This is one day I especially enjoy the little [Collapse thread] minus sign in donniethebigot’s gray name box, above.

    • nj_v2

      Translation: “Hey, look at me! I’m a jackass.”

      • jefe68

        He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don’t let that fool you. He really is an idiot. — Groucho Marx

    • TELew

       Why do homophobic people always bring up NAMBLA? (Rhetorical question–I actually know the reason) 

      For the record, the number of gay people who support that organization is about the same number of white people who support organizations like the KKK or racist skinheads–practically none!

      Grow up!

    • J__o__h__n

      Why was the comment critical of this moronic post removed?  Insulting a poster is not ok but not implying that gays are pedophiles is?  Reinstate the post and let the readers judge. 

  • John

    I agree, it is sad. But it is encouraging that things are moving in just direction.  

  • lifobryan

    I think that the religious fundamentalists who oppose same-gender marriage are less worried about the “wrath of God,” than about His “really poor aim.” Whenever a lesbian gets married in New York, God’s vengeful tornados & hurricanes seem to hit the Bible belt …..

  • burroak

    Finally, they have suffered in the shadows for too long, why should a person be denied equality for someone they love? America is, supposedly, an advanced society. So, today, it demonstrated this.

  • KenderJ

    Celebrate your wins and realize that you will never get 100% approval. There are still people out there that believe that mixed-race marriage should never have been legalized and that happened how many years ago…You won!!! Celebrate it so you can gird your loins for the next battle.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      I was with you until you got to loins

  • gqlewis

    Perhaps I have something wrong here, but if the USSC says it’s perfectly fine for people of the same gender to become married – why are there laws limiting you to only one spouse at a time. They don’t restrict the number of homes or businesses you can own. I honestly can’t see how you legalize one without legalizing the other. They are literally two sides of the same coin if you ask me.

    • disqus_fw2Bu1dEsd

      No one did ask you. 
      How do you legalize one and not the other?
      Try waiting. 

    • TELew

       If you want to legalize multiple spouses, then I suggest you put forth a petition, gather the signatures, and put the measure on your state ballot.  I would be happy to sign the petition.

      Or alternatively, you can lobby politicians, expressing to them why you think this would be a good thing.

      Or, you could try to marry multiple persons.  If you are denied this right, then you can file a court case, which might some day even come to the U.S. Supreme Court.

      The marriage of two people of the same sex is a different issue.  Plain and simple.  Interjecting the issue of multiple spouses is a RED HERRING.

      • gqlewis

        I personally don’t have anything against two people of the same gender having some type of common law union and receiving the full benefits of those married heterosexual couples. My problem is calling it marriage. If the definition of marriage is amorphous and can be changed at will, then people should be allowed to “marry” animals, multiple spouses, or inanimate objects as they choose. An advocate for same sex marriage once told me that if you want to call the sun the moon – that is totally acceptable. The sun can never be the moon. I guess that is why corporations are now also considered people. The courts would have you believe that up is down and down is up. I will not apologize for having very clearly defined boundaries. That is the way things exist in nature, and I am perfectly okay with that.

  • MrBigStuff

    Hopefully this will pave the way for polygamy in the United States. The Canadians are currently working on it now, which typically means that we’ll be a few decades away.

    • Wahoo_wa

      Polyandry does have its appeal.

  • Wahoo_wa

    As a gay guy I wouldn’t get married because I don’t believe in marriage and it would work against me financially if I did get married.  

    Happy for those who believe in it and make that choice in life though.

  • Ray in VT

    Hey, I just heard that “nobody in this country has ever been denied the right to get married”.  Who knew?

  • TELew

    “Judge not lest ye be judged,” for instance?

    Now who said that . . .?

    [Note: this is in response to a comment by Jon "it's the judgement day prophecy that drives Christians ideology of good and evil. *gong*" in a thread started by John in Amherst below; I don't know why it got posted here]

    • Ray in VT

      Wasn’t it James Hetfield in Metallica’s Holier Than Thou?

      • TELew

        I really don’t know.  I haven’t heard much Metallica, but what I have heard I really couldn’t understand.  Kind of hard of hearing, you know. Too much Led Zeppelin.

        • Ray in VT

          I was kidding of course.  I like Metallica quite a bit, and I am also a bit hard of hearing, and Metallica’s music is partly responsible, but it’s mostly just years of factory and barn work.

  • TELew

    Of course, the original writers of the Constitution knew there were circumstances which they could not foresee.  Hence, they made it possible to amend the Constitution, to allow future generations to address issues of present relevance.

    So much for strict constructionists.

    [It's happened again! This is in reply to Fiscally Responsible's comments below on the 14th Amendment.]

  • TELew

    Fiscally Responsible wrote:  “As Isaiah 5:20 rightly warns us, “Woe unto those who call evil “good”
    and good “evil”, who substitute darkness for light and light for
    darkness”.

    So how do you know that you correctly know what is good and evil?  Christ’s teachings, from how I read them, put your anti-gay stance much closer to evil than good as far as I can tell.

    • Ray in VT

      I heard someone once say that “you know that you have remade God in your own image when He hates everyone that you do.”

      • TELew

         My friend, you understand Right Wing Christians very well.

    • jefe68

      In psychiatry it is sometimes thought that people who obsess on gays can sometimes be gay themselves.
      That what they are projecting is self-hatred because they can’t come to terms with the idea of being gay, or a latent homosexual tendency.

      There are a few pretty famous evangelica preachers who have been manifested this tendency.

  • hennorama

    Summing up in six simple words:

    the equal protection of the laws

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    maybe next they will find  The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 unconstitutional

    • Tyranipocrit

       if i want to do drugs it is my right.  But i dont, but some do.  It is
      none of god’s business–or the dominionists in this backwards
      country–fricken moralists.  They ought to look in the mirror and think
      about their own morals. 

      The war against drugs is a rant.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        what do you  mean its a rant?

      • Tyranipocrit

        it has no credibility–it is self-righteous moralists raging emotionaly without much thought or empathy. the gov institutions built on the drug war and the private prisons have too much to lose and rant against drugs–creating myths and a monster boogey man that doesnt exist–like osama and the war on terror. Its BS.

  • disqus_fw2Bu1dEsd

    Type your comment here.

    You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear,You’ve got to be taught from year to year,It’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear,You’ve got to be carefully taught.
    You’ve got to be taught to be afraidOf people whose eyes are oddly made,And people whose skin is a diff’rent shade,You’ve got to be carefully taught.
    You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late,Before you are six or seven or eight,To hate all the people your relatives hate,You’ve got to be carefully taught!

  • Robert Berube

    Government has no place dictating individual personal choices, unless they impose social costs on the rest of us. Let’s also get government out of the economy.

    • Tyranipocrit

       you had me to you said economy–you make NO–absolutely NO sense–the economy has tremendous impacts and social costs on the rest of us you hack

      • Robert Berube

        The economy will function better once we get government out of it. It’s not rocket science. Government intervention introduces dead-weight costs. It’s basic economics.

  • d clark

    They most certainly will go for sweeping away all state prohibitions of homosexual marriage. Because that is not even the end goal. Until the homosexual activists can utterly and completely silence the church or anyone (by any means necessary)  that calls out their perversion, they will not rest.

    • Michele

       They most certainly will go for sweeping away all state prohibitions of HETEROSEXUAL marriage. Because that is not even the end goal. Until the HETEROSEXUAL  activists can utterly and completely silence the church or
      anyone (by any means necessary)  that calls out their perversion, they
      will not rest.

      ANY LESS OFFENSIVE? I think not.

      • d clark

        Your reply is gibberish. Try again with a brain.

        • Michele

           Sure.

  • disqus_fw2Bu1dEsd

    d clark is not going to have the last word. 

    “They most certainly will go for sweeping away all state prohibitions of homosexual marriage”
    True.
     And your worst nightmare, that someone queer is showing you loving respect, is the kind of behavior espoused by Jesus, Mohammed, Gandhi and the Dalai Lama.
     “…[we] will not rest” until we have achieved full equality.
    True.
    The rest is hate speech.

ONPOINT
TODAY
Jul 24, 2014
Youths seen playing basketball through bars on a window at the Wisconsin Department of Corrections Ethan Allen School in Wales, Wis. (AP file)

The cold hard facts about juvenile prisons. And the case for shutting them all down. Plus: former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is with us.

Jul 24, 2014
Orchid (Galileo55/Flickr)

We’ll look at the new science of what plants feel, smell, see – and remember.

RECENT
SHOWS
Jul 23, 2014
Actor Wallace Shawn attends special screening of "Turks and Caicos" hosted by Vogue and The Cinema Society at the Crosby Street Hotel on Monday, April 7, 2014 in New York.  (AP)

From “The Princess Bride” to “My Dinner with Andre “and “A Master Builder,” actor and writer Wallace Shawn joins us.

 
Jul 23, 2014
In this Saturday, July 12, 2014, photo, migrants walk along train tracks and boxcars after getting off a train during their journey toward the US-Mexico border, in Ixtepec, southern Mexico. (AP)

Crisis at the US border. What do Latinos on this side of the border have to say? We’ll ask our special roundtable.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Hillary Clinton: ‘The [Russian] Reset Worked’
Thursday, Jul 24, 2014

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton took time out of her global book tour to talk to us about Russia, the press and the global crises shaking the administration she left two years ago.

More »
Comment
 
Where Did Nickel Creek Go?
Thursday, Jul 24, 2014

The Nickel Creek interview originally scheduled for Thursday, July 24 is rescheduled for an as-of-yet undetermined later date. We explain why.

More »
2 Comments
 
Our Week In The Web: July 11, 2014
Friday, Jul 11, 2014

As we prepare for a week of rebroadcasts, we reflect on Facebook posts, misplaced comments and the magic of @ mentions. Internet, ASSEMBLE!

More »
Comment