US Supreme Court overturns gay marriage provision

| 26/06/2013

photo1.jpg(BBC): The US Supreme Court has struck down a law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman only, in a landmark ruling. The court's 5-4 vote said the Defense of Marriage Act, known as Doma, denied equal protection to same-sex couples. The court also declined to rule on a California ban on same-sex marriage known as Proposition 8. The decision paves the way for gay unions there. Opinion polls show that most Americans support gay marriage. Twelve US states and the District of Columbia recognise gay marriage, while more than 30 states ban it.

The Doma decision means that legally married gay men and women are entitled to claim the same federal benefits available to opposite-sex married couples. On Wednesday morning, crowds gathered outside the Supreme Court hours before the rulings were due, in hopes of getting a seat inside the courtroom.

The legal challenge to Doma was brought by New York resident Edith Windsor, 83. She was handed a tax bill of $363,000 (£236,000) when she inherited the estate of her spouse Thea Speyer – a levy she would not have had to pay if she had been married to a man.

"Doma writes inequality into the entire United States Code," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in Wednesday's ruling. "Under Doma, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways," the decision added. "Doma's principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal."

Go to full article

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: World News

About the Author ()

Comments (123)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    God Almighty deliberately created Male and Female with different sexual anatomies for the purpose of joining together to sexually reproduce! (Think Adam and Eve)

    The human race cannot reproduce asexually, therefore it is unnatural and against the design of God for Males to neglect the ordinate affection of a Female, in exchange for the inordinate affections of a Male.

    Leviticus 18:22: ” Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

    It is entirely unnatural for a woman to deem herself a man and for a man to be effeminate in anyway. Humanity chooses independently their sexual orientation, you are born with sexual organs given by God which confirm your sincere identity, homosexuality/ LGBT is NOT normal and is an abomination in the eyes of God.

    Any confusion with ones sexual identity is from the pit of hell, God Almighty is not an author of confusion!

    To those who love to criticize Bible thumping “hypocrites” of the Christian Church, be totally aware that no Abrahamic religion-be it Judaism, Christianity or the Islamic faith, give support to the LGBT lifestyle or marriage.

    Believers in Jesus Christ brace yourself, and pull up your own spiritual socks as these are merely signs of the return of Jesus Christ.

    Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of man.

    Do work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, as sin is sin in Gods eyes, God hates sin but dearly loves the sinner.

    For God so loved the entire world that he gave his only son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life!

    God gives humanity free will, shall we deny HIS laws of morality we deny him altogether.

  2. Anonymous says:

    It all makes sense now.

    Gay Marriage and Marijuana being legalized on the same day.

    Leviticus 20:13 says "If a man lays with another man he should be stoned"

    We just been interpreting it the wrong way all this time.

  3. MAN says:

    MAN in his VANITY dosh TURN AWAY from the Lord Jesus and in his VAIN THINKING will be cast into PILES OF FIRE in the pit of HELL becas of SIN ORIGINAL SIN this wake up pepple ths VAIN GLORY is not that of GOD THE FARTER but the HOLY SPIRIT cast through generations of SIN as of MOSES once and forevermore it is an ABOMINATION that the Confederations Cup is over soon so I can't watch it.

    Aside from all that, aren't we past this nonsense by now? Marry who you want. Be happy. There are more important things to worry about, surely, than whether people prefer people with the same, or different, genitals. Jeepers o'clock. 

    • Just Sayin' says:

      Rarely have I laughed so hard as when I read, “GOD THE FARTER”.
      Can’t thank you enough.

  4. Slowpoke says:

    Many of the posts and votes, highlight the problem of bringing “morals” into a discussion about human behavior.  Morals and morality are personally held views, which are sometimes shared by others or groups.


    The problem arises when people assume that they have in fact found the right morals, and believe that others should adhere to their personal beliefs.


    This is the difference between morals and ethics.  It would be possible, for example, to find abortion morally reprehensible but still understand that ethically, it sometimes may be in the best interest of a woman to have access to an abortion.


    In the same way, some obviously find homosexuality “immoral” and they should feel free to believe that and not practice homosexuality.  However, it does not give them the prerogative to judge others and use laws to prevent equality.


    This is also why gay marriage will not lead to the legalization of pedophilia or marriage between siblings, etc.  There are ethical, biological and scientific facts that support continued prohibition of these acts.

  5. Anonymous says:

    America need GOD ……………

  6. Anonymous says:

    Am a proud gay Caymanian and if all those gay men that hide behind the church doors would come outt we would see lots of divorces. wifes be very carefull cause alot of your so called straight husbands when they say are going away on business and trips by themselves end up in the gay bars in Miami. I have seen many a married men Caymanian and others chatting up other gay men in gay bars in Miami. If I where to expose what I have seen with my own two eyes many residents here would be in for a big SHOCK?



  7. Anonymous says:

    I went to subway today to get my favorite sandwich. The man infront of me ordered a different sub. I got really mad because he didn't get the same thing as me, even though it didn't affect me in any way.


    There are some commentators on here that need to shut up and sit down, we are in 2013 people, get over it. 

  8. Anonymous says:

    love is love!

  9. noname says:

    Oh for XXXX sake let us people live our life , make it get legal here and you will see how many socall straight people will be filing for divorce, and all these weddings of convenience will stop get with the program they are here in cayman too , pastor's doctor's,  police officer's , teacher's,  pilot's , lawyer's, judge's, people you deal with on a dailly base same people you see in church on Saturday or sunday say they Christian's but bigger sinners then me and you that not christian's.and the same onces that fight and cuss and go on about us lesbians, gays , bisexuals , be the ones that have us in your family , friends, co-workers and what not or even be the ones to sneak off on trips or from their partner's to get the pleasure they need from the same sex because they are not man or woman enough to tell their partner's that they love or get pleasure from same sex I know a few couple's here who or married , but every chance they get be searching for the gays and lesbians that visting on island  romance pleasure and go back home .and even live double life anyway keep in mind no one chooses their gender preference so don't be shocked or surprised when more people start coming out the cloest , look how many people killed them self because of this battle of being bully made fun of and much more open your eyes and see this is real 



  10. anonymous says:

    Just so long they keep divorce legal!  Sometimes you just want to get out of ANY kind of marriage!


    • Anonymous says:

      Good idea….can we get a quickie divorce law for our politicians if we realise they are screwing around with our money??

  11. Anonymous says:

    Sodom and Gomorra arises. Obama is part of what is wrong with the world! Ever since this so called “great one” came to power, the gates of Hell have burst opened! Every day nations are affected by his influence. Just look at this priority? Gay marriage? I wish he had picked up his phone just as fast, as he did today on national tv, and spoke to victims of the recent disasters that has plagued his nation in such force! God is real people. He loves us all, but doesn’t like it when we attempt to reinvent his perfect creations. And if we start accepting this, then we might as well allow incest! Love is love, right? Note Genesis 19. Go take a read of that and it will give you a better understanding of whats to come. The Lord God Almighty is the true King! Let’s not forget our allegiance to Him is first and foremost.

    • Anonymous says:

      I don’t know about the grate of hell openning up, but the lady next door has a narrow staircase in a hall closet that leads directlyto the seventh ring.

    • Anonymous says:

      00.12…it is a peculiar thing that I have found in the past, those that bash the bible hardest on these points are the ones that are generally afraid of seeing their own sexuality for what it is…they bash it harder than most to suppress their latent bisexual or homosexual feelings.

      As far as your other points…vice is nice, incest is best…that was written light heartedley please take it as same.

    • But Really ... says:

      I'm pretty sure Obama doesn't sit on the US Supreme Court.  "God" is a figment of your imagination, but if we want to follow the good book, lets tour Cayman next Sunday and kill everyone who is working that day(Exodus 31:15), then let's tour Cayman looking for people of other religions and kill them too (Deuteronomy 17:2-7), and if the town they are in encourages this diversity then we'll destroy the town, including the livestock, and burn it all to the ground (Deuteronomy 13:13-19).  If you tell your teenager that they have to come on this murderous rampage and they say no, we'll have to kill them too (Deuteronomy 21).  If you don't like this proposal, don't curse about it with the name of the lord or we'll have to kill you too (Leviticus 24:16).  Oh, and let's not forget to kill the homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13), which is where we started from.  That is unless you have committed adultry, in which case you need to kill yourself and your adultering partner (Leviticus 20:10) and you might not make it to the rampage.  Yes indeed – God loves us… and he wants money.

    • Anonymous says:

      Which bit of Genesis is that?  The bit with the world appearing by magic?  The bit about the tower being built so high it crashed through the firmament?  The bit about the man living for 900 years?  You see Genesis is so crammed full of obvious truths I do not know where to start when using it to guide me in the 21st century.

    • Just Commentin' says:

      Hmmm…? While on the basis of incest and Genisis and all that stuff, tell us this: Who did Adam and Eve's children marry?

    • Archie says:

      Do you use other works as fiction as basis for living your life? Or do you only use the bible? Maybe quote “Harry Potter and the stick of boredom” or anything by Dan Brown. Either is just as relevant.

  12. Anonymous says:

    For most people, they can't recall a time when they chose their sexuality.  There is a reason for that — it didn't happen.    Go ahead and ponder it.   Did you weight and measure the pros and cons of each way, or did you just know whom you were attracted to at an early age?   I did.   I have fond memories of staring up at the female lifeguard at our pool.   I was born that way, with an attraction for the opposite sex.   People discover their own attractions, and it has nothing to do with me, nor is it any of my business.    If you are lucky enough to find the love of your life, you are lucky enough.    You should be able to legally wed that person, regardless of their gender.    It's just as simple as that.  

  13. 4 Cayman says:

    Matthew 19:6.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Quite funny watching the USA implode due to Hedonism, Internal Security breaches and wasting of Tax dollars by their own Tax agency.  Meanwhile other countries are pulling far, far ahead.  China OWNS Uncle Sam.

    • Anonymous says:

      You need to stop beliveing everything you read except this.

      • Anonymous says:

        Alrighty then!

        Not exactly sure what you mean buy anyway.

        News Flash!  The USA has been the joke of world for a wwwwhhhhhhiiiiiilllllleeeeee now and no one takes you seriously. You can lead yourselves to ruin, but that does not mean the other 7,665,000,000 people in world will follow you.  Those days are llllloooonnnngggg gone.

        You can believe that!

        Keep making your Hollywood movies and living in a fantasy world. That suits you.

    • Anonymous says:

      Wach you talkin bout, Willis!

    • Anonymous says:

      Your very right.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Places that have allowed same sex marriage have disappeared into blck holes of immorality.  No, no they haven't.  Although there probably has been an improvement in options when it comes to interior design and cupcake stores.  

  16. Lickalotopus says:

    Next thing they will be wanting to bring their cruise ships here to our god fearing islands!

  17. Anonymous says:

    Cayman is going to rule on this a lot sooner than they think. As well as being an accountant, our new Governor-designate has just completed a stint as the Chair of the Diversity Strategy Programme Board.

    Her goal was to cut the staff in the Home Office, a task she managed with the loss of 3,400 jobs while increasing the proportion of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender employees, (hence the word 'Diversity')

    The UK government is making a huge statement with her appointment and in my opinion, her presence here will be as inflammatory as gasoline being poured on an open fire.

    Every "old-fashioned" value that Cayman has held dear and prided itself on over the years is about to be shaken to the core.

    Although I do not see this as funny in any sense, the Caymanian people areabout to see the true colours of who they voted for.

    • Anonymous says:

      Just another closed minded comment. Just remember that those “old fashioned” values that remain today is in no way representative of the Caymanian populous. Whether you believe it or not, the Cayman Islands is a diverse nation with all walks of life, including a flourishing LGBT community which comprises of Caymanians. Unfortunately, people such as yourself force completely normal human beings to hide who they are- and you behave in such way in the name of “old fashioned values!” Get over yourself and try accepting people- your own people!

      • Anonymous says:

        The post you refer to is not taking a side, it is merely pointing out that a collision is inevitable. Please engage your brain before you speak.

    • Will Ya Listen! says:

      A mind is like a parachute – it works better when it's open.

      If you cannot accept this as progress then you must also stop letting the Church in Cayman dictate what we may or may not do. Previous elected officials had more direction from their church and their mammies than their own conscience.

      You can't have it both ways – wait is that appropriate considering the subject? 

      • Anonymous says:

        Better opens yours then before you go SPLAT! like Wile E Coyote!

      • Anonymous says:

        To which of the 1000 plus churches here in Cayman do you refer to?

        • Anonymous says:

          Probably the angry, punishing, judgmental ones that didn't quite get what Jesus was saying.

    • Just Commentin' says:

      So what does "who they voted for" have to do with the incoming Governor and liberal views you alledge she and the U.K. have?

      Ultimately the decision will hinge on our conformity with international standards of human rights. Being a British Overseas Territory "who they voted for" will not have final say.

  18. Windy MIller says:

    Hurrah!  Pink power is unstoppable at it is coming YOUR way LIKE IT OR NOT. 

  19. Anonymous says:

    Overturned in the future? So you believe in state-sanctioned discrimination under the law?

    Perhaps they should bring back legal racial discrimination too?

    What about all are created equal under the law? Does that only apply to people you like or people who live their lives in ways that you approve of?

    Join the modern age and leave your bigotry behind.



    • Anonymous says:

      Said the bigot.

    • Anonymous says:

      Get out of the stoned age and learn what the meaning of the word bigotry actually means before you use it.

    • Anonymous says:

      No comparison with race discrimination which is itself immoral. Being equal under the law doesn’t mean immoral lifestyles should be sanctioned by the state.

  20. Anonymous says:

    Good. I say equal rights for all!

    There are far more pressing issues where much attention is needed!

  21. Anonymous says:

    A decision is a decision. Victory is ours…. Nice job to the Supreme Courts for getting it right.

    • Anonymous says:

      Not that the will of the people of California means anything.  Nice dictatorship you've got brewing there when the courts are actually allowed to overturn a referendum of the people…  And get away with it.  

      • Anonymous says:

        That is what the 14th amendment (equal protection clause) is all about.  The majority will often try to subjugate the minority in one way or another so that amendment was added to ensure equality for all even if the majority wants to mistreat the minority.  Be it if a southern state wants to have legal slavery or discriminatory practices for gays.

        One of the constitution’s main purposes is to act as a control of a majorities seemingly constant desire to feel superior and discriminate against other groups not quite like them.

      • Rorschach says:

        This is where paying a little more attention in Civics class would have is contrary to Federal law to make a law that discriminates..hence, Brown v Board of Education..Plessy v Ferguson, etc…the SCOTUS did the right thing..discriminatory laws are unlawful, no matter the "will" of the people..

        • noname says:

          Get with the times. If you believe American children are actually offered a "Civics" class so that they may learn impartial facts about their system of Government, then I can offer you all of the tea in China for free as well.  

          No, No, No.  The "keepers" of the modern American society make sure the children learn only what they want them to learn. 

          • Rorschach says:

            Whilst I agree that it is in the best interest of the "establishment" to keep their underlings ignorant of the real runnings of their system of government, I would hope that there are a few who would desire to break out of the mold and educate themeselves and learn the true reality of how their government works..but alas…my hope may be in vain..

          • Anonymous says:

            I took American Civics class in high school so it's definitely taught there.

      • Just Commentin' says:

        So you are saying that the people should be allowed to contrive laws that contravene the constitution and/or violate human rights and those laws should never be challenged in court? Is this any better than a dictatorship?

        It is time you open a history book, eh?  The "dictatorship" to which you refer has been "brewing" for quite a long time: the Constitution was only 14 years old when Chief Justice John Marshall held that the Supreme Court had the power to overturn a law passed by Congress if it ran contrary to the Constitution. Since that time the Supreme Court has overturned or overruled over 1,700 laws, inclusive of acts of Congress and state and local laws and ordinances.

  22. Anonymous says:

    5-4 is not a strong decision. Hopefully it will be overturned in the near future.

    • But Really ... says:

      Overturned by a further appeal to where? The US Supreme Court is the last word on American Law, absent the US cancelling the Constitution and disbanding the judiciary.  Neither Congress nor the Executive branch can reverse this under the present structure of the United States.  If you're thinking they will reverse themselves at some point, that would be quite unusual (but I suppose not impossible).

      • Anonymous says:

        I am thinking reversal. You know, like Roe v. Wade should also be reversed.  

    • Anonymous says:

      Gay Marriage is TOTALLY wrong and against the Bibilcal standard of marriage only between a man and a woman.  I believe in the Bible.  We live in a age where mankind continues to get deeper in sin.

      • Anonymous says:

        Believe it or not- we also live in an age where a woman won’t be stoned to death if she divorces her husband! Can you imagine!!! We have venturedso far aware from the practices prescribed in the bible that we clearly continue to to get “deeper in sin!” Idiot!

        • Anonymous says:

          Make's everything all better when you throw in an insult doesn't it?  Jeeeeezzzz, SMH.

      • Anonymous says:

        Glad to see a majority agree with your statement.

      • Anonymous says:

        Well written. Traditional values gone to hell nowadays.

    • Slowpoke says:


      • Anonymous says:

        You have the right moniker!

        There should never be any state endorsement and sanction of immoral lifestyles.

    • Anonymous says:

      I know it's outragerous that gay people can have the smae rights at straight people, it's not like there human!

      • Anonymous says:

        You are on the right track there.  

        The "Gays" Human Rights were taken away long ago in the 60's due a "decision" from a handul of Psychologists more concerned abot the lining of their pockets than the humanity of their patients.

        If "Gays" have the strength to get away from the peer pressure of the rabid liberals, they can also get out of the discriminatory rabbit hole the psychologist laid down on them and rejoin the human race.

      • Anonymous says:

        Of course they have the same rights. They can also marry someone of the opposite sex, or not. 

    • Anonymous says:

      Gay marriage is wrong.  Marriage is meant to be two mates making a lifetime commitment.  And two can only be "mates" if they are capable of "mating".    Gay marriage is just wrong and immoral. 

      • Anonymous says:

        Me and my same sex partner "mate" at least three times a week, 12:57. We can't make babies but I can promise you we do some good mating.

        • Anonymous says:

          Me and my same sex partner are capable of making babies but have no intention of doing so. Should we also have been banned from marrying? What about people who are infertile?

          • Anonymous says:

            No you cannot make babies with same sex partners. Stop your foolishness. You need a third party. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that but when you post idiocy you do not help our cause. Please stop it!!

          • Anonymous says:

            Ooops! I meant opposite sex 🙂

            • Just Commentin' says:

              Oooo! A Freudian slip? That's ok…we've all thought about it at one time or another.

              • Anonymous says:

                Only those of us who engage in the acts you have acknowledged you engage in.

        • Anonymous says:

          Good Lord. More three dollar bills.

        • Anonymous says:

          You sound like a primate.

      • Anonymous says:

        Oh here come the Bible Bashers!!! The ones that roll out the same drivel time after time about how holy they are whilst Cayman produces many babies out of wedlock, from many young woman, whilst men openly have affairs and drink heavily, politicians (no verdict on PPM yet, too soon), steal lie and cheat and here you are moralising about people who want to do things legally…

      • Anonymou says:

        So if a Male Female couple is found to be unable to produce offspring then they should not be able to have the same rights as their fertile  contemporaries?

        Your reasoning says they should not.

      • Anonymous says:

        For you.  Thankfully no one is making you do anything you don't want to do.  Are you really suggesting that a man and a woman who can not have sex can not be "mates"?

      • Anonymous says:

        Gay marrige is wrong and immoral to you but wrong and immoral Government is normal for Cayman?  Got it.   Explains a lot.

      • Just Commentin' says:

        Uhhh…  I do not mean to imply that my Daddy forgot to tell me about the birds and the bees (he actually did tell me but by time he got around to it he was "preaching to the choir", if you know what I mean) but anyway: What is your definition of "mating"? 

        By "mating" are you talking about…having s-e-x? Don't "they" do that?  Perhaps you are talking about having only about certain kinds of sex, as opposed to other kinds?  Shucks! According to my calculations of possible "terms of engagement", gays engage in 50% of the major making whoopie activities that the ladies and I engage in. And the ladies and I dabble in 100% of the main kinds of stuff that gays are said to enjoy.  So what's the point?

        Maybe you restrict "mating" to coming together carnally with the potential for biological reporducton? In that case a heterosexual guy who has been, say, "Lorena Bobbitized" (ouch!), must not get married because of his, er… shortcomings relative to mating capability. Right?  What about a guy who had a vasectomy (eeek!) Or a woman who has undergone a hysterectomy? What if the trimmed guy wants to marry the no-ovaries lady? No go? I dunno…you tell me what you mean. You are being kinda cryptic.

    • Polly Tricks says:

      In % terms it is 56% to 44% which is a "stronger decision" than the 52% to 48% vote in respect of Proposition 8.

    • Anonymous says:


    • Anonymous says:

      Who really cares!!! Let people live their lives and marry who they want! if you do not believe in it well just don't do it yourself! Just like if you are against drugs, don't go to the Red Light district in Amsterdam or dont go to the Neatherlands at all!

      • Anonymous says:

        Well, that's just great! So I guess we'll soon see Adam and Steve or Eve and Eva on the bridal registry at Kirk's. What a messed up world (and soon to be island) !

        • V for Victory says:

          And I bet the Kirk stores would happily take the money! ;P

          Gay or not, your money matters. And here’s a tip, wash your hands after handing money, you might catch ‘the Gayness’.

      • Anonymous says:

        Plenty of people care, thank goodness. The difficulty with your proposal is that it seems to free up people to do more or less anything they want, as if an individual's actions operate strictly within a vacuum and have no impact on others, and the only restraint is one of conscience. Maybe you should think a bit more deeply about this? There are consequences to everything, surely.

    • V for Victory says:

      Are you afraid? We’re here, living amongst everyone, family, friends and co-workers. It’s just how it is, always has been and always will be. Sorry for the inconvenience.

      • Anonymous says:

        Crikey, your comment reminds me of a scene from an old sci-fi movie in which folks' bodies were being taken over by alians composed of vegetable matter, and one of them said something along the same lines before chomping down on his own finger to prove his point!

        • V for Victory says:

          Can you guess which finger I’m holding up at your post? Sci-fi ain’t got shit on real life. So your comment is mute.

      • Anonymous says:


    • Anonymous says:


    • Anonymous says:

      Sad to see, but that is the way of the world. Society is rotting from the inside out. Expect more of the same.

    • Anonymous says:

      Given that DOMA was an attempt to define a civil institution through a religious viewpoint, it gladdens me to have the court find it unconstitutional. In the US, there is to be a clear separation of church and state – DOMA was, by nature, a breach of that separation, even if people don't want to admit that. So long as federal civil benefits exist for citizens who marry (or join in civil unions), the US government should not be allowed to define which genders can marry and thus enjoy those benefits based off religious principles.

      Besides, it's not like same-sex marriage is going to ruin your marriage, or affect your family, or even harm society. I don't see why you should care what other people choose to do with the person they love. But they should not be discriminated against by the government as it pertains to the same benefits and protections applied to heterosexual marriages/unions.

      The fact that it was 5-4 only means 4 judges couldn't do their jobs properly and separate their religious opinions from their legal duty. Given a majority of Americans actually support same-sex marriage rights, I doubt that the decision made by SCOTUS is going to be overturned at any point in the future, near or otherwise. My prediction – expect more and more statesto continue to allow same-sex marriage until the entire country allows it.

      • Anonymous says:

        The U.S. Supreme Court decisions on matters such as these are driven by the prevailing ideology of the justices, pro and con. My point is that it only takes one switch of a conservative in place of liberal and in a future case the Supreme Court reverse itself. 

        The issue is morality more than religion. But since that no longer matters I expect you will be in favour of siblings marrying each other next. Or how about 5 people getting married to each other? Where do you draw line and why is it drawn there?    

        • Anonymous says:

          My god, next thing you know they might allow interracial marriage! We better stop them before it's too late! Draw the line, quick! 

          If you're worried about ruining the sanctity of marriage, why not take a look at modern heterosexual marriages, half of which end in divorce (so much for it being sacred!), infidelity runs rampant, and partners are rarely treated equally in their familial roles. You really think you have moral ground to stand on?

          All DOMA did was deny protections to couples that are afforded to others simply due to their genders in a partnership. By definition, it's strictly discrimination. And what you claim is morality is your projection of religion. You just don't recognize it because you can't allow yourself to see any viewpoint beyond one that relies on an outdated set of rules passed on through individuals conversing with imaginary voices (who would clearly be institutionalized today by all accounts).

          Both homosexuality and heterosexuality are natural to humans, and all animals, for that matter, so why should we discriminate against our fellow humans based on genetic differences? To do so hearkens back to the days when people were valued (or not) based on the color of their skin or what parts happened to be between their legs.


          Lastly, in regards to a simple shift in SCOTUS membership leading to a reversal, please look at the number of controverial rulings that have been overturned relative to those that haven't. Cross-reference that to a mapping of ideological shifts in SCOTUS and you'll note that reversal rulings are practically non-existent, even with major shifts in ideology. So sorry bobo, I doubt this one is ever going away…

          • Anonymous says:

            Try responding to my post instead of trying to evade it with this nonsense.

          • Anonymous says:

            Ummm… Common sense tells you it is immoral. That is why it has been so regarded around the world. That is why it’s horrible practices spreads disease so easily.

            • Anonymous says:

              That’s a problem. Not everyone’s ‘common sense’ tells them the same thing.

            • Anonymous says:

              Is this a serious comment? All sexual acts spread disease. Not just homosexual acts. Get your facts straight. Okay? It was likely that they didn't use condoms, which is probably why the disease spread so quickly, but it wasn't due to the fact that they were homosexual.

        • Just Commentin' says:

          Hey. Maybe you are on to something! All this liberal crap and modern morality certainly cramps my style!  You and I think alike! The bloody liberals and human rights groups have runined everything!  In my opinion, the line concerning marriage should be returned back to where it was long ago!  Liberals and human rights activists should have left well enough alone, dammit!

          I am sure you will agree that we need to put marriage back to where it was before all this modern progressive human righs stuff corrupted gender relationships! Right?

          Good! Let's move it back to when our ancestors were hunting the Mastodon. Whenever I go the beach and see all those hot lickaliscious babes romping in their skimpy little bikinis, dontcha think it should be my natural right as a member of the stronger dominant gender if I just whack one of 'em with my club and drag her back to my cave?  Yeah! One man, one woman, a cozy cave, and the enticing aroma of mastodon roasting on the fire: who would want all this loose modern morality that says she should be able to choose a mate? I am with you! All this so-called progress is a pile of crap!

      • Anonymous says:

        Your are so off with your PROPAGANDA it is not even funny. Why not get your FACTS straight before commenting.

        DOMA was passed into Law with the "Blessing" of Bill Clinton – (See what I did there?) – Bill Clinton is not exactly your every day Choir Boy by anyone’s definition.

        The so called Separation of Church and State which some have warped into an alternative meaning to support their own selfish arguments is found NOWHERE in the US Constitution or Bill of Rights.  Go ahead, waste your time, look and look and you will NEVER find it.

        The Wall of Separation and Church and State is a reference from a letter penned by Thomas Jefferson to a religious group re-affirming their RIGHT to practice the religion of their choice with no DISCRIMINATION against them.  He was assuring them they need not worry about being forced to practice a STATE religion rather than a religion of their choice. 

        Ironically your intolerant argument completely works against you as the likes of you and the activist judges of the USA do your level best to tear down the wall of separation between church and state.

        Oh the plight of the misguided and delusional.

        • Just Commentin' says:

          Indeed, the words "separation of church and state" are not found in the Constitution but it is correct to say it is provided for therein. The Constitution conveys the "right to a fair trial" even though those words do not appear in the Constitution either. Many an unfair decision has been challenged on Constitutional grounds because the intent of the Constitution was to afford the accused  "a fair trial". Likewise, there is naught in the Constitution expressly stating a right to be "presumed innocent until proven guilty", but nonetheless it is considered a fundamental right. The concept of presumption of innocence as established in the U.S. is derived from British common law. It was enshrined as a basic right under American law in a decision by the Supreme Court in 1894. We thus learn that there may be certain "rights" that are not derived from the Constitution at all, but are established by precedent and enshrined as law by high court rulings.

          The phrase "separation of church and state" is indeed credited as being derived from the letter written by then President Thomas Jefferson in 1802.  To a religious group Jefferson wrote:
          "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God,  that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof', thus building a wall of separation between Church and State"

          The wall of separation was intended to protect both individual persons and groups from persecution deriving from pro or anti religious philosophy, as summed up in Jefferson's view: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God".  When viewed as being a matter of personal choice, this would allow for beliefs that go contrary to mainstream biblical dogma and grants the freedom for men to make their own choices in regard to their personal religious beliefs; even to the point of being an atheist, or gay. Jefferson quite clearly saw that a separation between Church and State was contained in the Constitution. Would you say he too was "misguided and delusional" and spreading "propaganda"?

          Absent the hue and cry from those who base their anti gay stance on religious tenets there would be vastly less persecution of gays in society.  They have a constitutionally-protected right to their opinions, but they should not expect such opinion based on religious preferences to be given status as law.

          Why should marriage laws conform to religous constraints? The "wall of separation between Church and State" not only insulates the Church from undue influence of the State, but just as importantly that wall insulates the State (and its subjects) from being unduly influenced by the Church.

          Remove the religious twist and marriage becomes solely a matter of civil law. Civil law must conform to the Constitution and is subject to judicial scrutiny. Even thought the case recently decided upon by the Court was not a direct legal challenge to all anti gay marriage laws, certainly the current court findings greatly help pave the way for legal challenges to all aspects of anti gay marriage laws in all states. Given the legal basis that the Supreme Court has established in the recent rulings, I doubt such laws will prevail for very long.

          The U.S. founding fathers framed a government with three branches and established a balance of power among them: the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial.  The high arm of the Judicial branch made its decision and I should think that the opinion of the five high court justices outweighs your opinion any day.