The Huffington Post Gay Marriage
Log In | Sign Up | July 12, 2009

If you have something to say...
Say it on the Huffington Post


The Blog

HuffPost Wire Services
Spread Awareness - Stumble this Big News Page


Pages:   1 2 3 4 5

Kent Greenfield: The New Federalism Attack on DOMA: Does the Supreme Court Really Care About States' Rights?


Comments
44
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo
Post Comment

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)

Very erudite comments and great leadership by Kent.. I am a Canadian and same sex marriages have been legal here for some years I believe under our equivalent to your "equal protection clause". Same sex marriage is not an issue here and is not a threat to oppo sex marraiges. Question? Are Canadian SSM's recognized in law in the US by either states or the Fed?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:03 PM on 07/11/2009
photo

Not trying to start a fight but it is ironic that one of the very cases cited in the DOJ brief that has flipped people out is going to win the case for your community. I just think, you know, Karma, it exists.

J

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:18 AM on 07/11/2009
photo

At this point, I don't really care what argument is used to help argue for repeal of DOMA. I just hope congress gets it done in the next 3.5 years

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:18 AM on 07/11/2009

PlaceboStudman this is in the courts, not congress. .

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:35 AM on 07/12/2009
photo

The Irony! It almost hurts.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:34 PM on 07/10/2009
photo

The SCOTUS will make this disappear quite simply: They will choose not to review the issue, or they will declare that the "States Rights" of all the other 49 states will be abbrogated if the law is weakened by allowing Massachusetts to "secede" from the national law (and will) of the country.

The Tenth Ammendment was not enacted as a tool to propagate purile, abnormal interests.

No case here.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:14 PM on 07/10/2009
photo

And here the religioconservative attacks on human rights begins

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:47 PM on 07/10/2009
photo

But the state of Mass has determined SSM is not "abnormal".

No point here.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:18 PM on 07/10/2009
photo

Well, here is the thing, granting cert is a vote, we have the votes now. It only takes four. So your argument that SCOTUS isn't going to review it, or hear the case is as ignorant the rest of your statement.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:02 AM on 07/11/2009

My family is not a " purile, abnormal interest".
I do not like my family called names. Who would?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:35 PM on 07/11/2009
photo

Mr Greenfield,

let me ask another question if I may. Is it acceptable for an argument to be brought up using SCOTUS's own previous rulings? while this obviously isn't the case here (I dont think), Could a plaintiff bring a case that parallels the SCOTUS California medical marijuana case where several Ca counties were forced to abide by state law in distributing medical marijuana ID cards. I'm thinking in terms of, if, say, a particular county within a state that allowed SSM decided it was not going to allow SSM because of DOMA. Could this be used as a way to make DOMA irrelevant in the same way that the medical marijuana ruling in California basically has made federal marijuana laws somewhat irrelevant?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:59 PM on 07/10/2009
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in  or  Connect