Comments on: DOJ Files Reply Brief In DOMA Challenge Case http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/08/17/14071 News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric Sat, 25 May 2013 17:13:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Ben http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/08/17/14071/comment-page-1#comment-59434 Ben Sat, 09 Jan 2010 04:21:49 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=14071#comment-59434 So long as DOMA is destroyed, I'm happy. I was merely reading into how the DOJ seemed to want to handle it. So long as DOMA is destroyed, I’m happy. I was merely reading into how the DOJ seemed to want to handle it.

]]> By: Richard W. Fitch http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/08/17/14071/comment-page-1#comment-59431 Richard W. Fitch Sat, 09 Jan 2010 04:17:06 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=14071#comment-59431 Ben - I don't have a link, but one of the many articles I've read re: Jenkins-Miller indicate that if this case goes to SCOTUS, there is a chance that the issues of parental rights will create a contradiction to DOMA and possibly require the court to declare it unconstitutional. Ben – I don’t have a link, but one of the many articles I’ve read re: Jenkins-Miller indicate that if this case goes to SCOTUS, there is a chance that the issues of parental rights will create a contradiction to DOMA and possibly require the court to declare it unconstitutional.

]]> By: Ben http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/08/17/14071/comment-page-1#comment-59429 Ben Sat, 09 Jan 2010 03:58:46 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=14071#comment-59429 It would seem to me that the DOJ is in the distasteful position of needing to defend this law (after all, it is under their jurisdiction) even though they do not want to. They want to see it taken apart, and they are searching for the least offensive, possibly debatable point they can. Their true hope, however, is to see it taken care of the way it was introduced, notably, as was noted in the article, through Congress. Why they couldn't get it right the first time is most likely, they felt they had to reply with something they could use to defend their position, no matter how much they dislike it. It would seem to me that the DOJ is in the distasteful position of needing to defend this law (after all, it is under their jurisdiction) even though they do not want to. They want to see it taken apart, and they are searching for the least offensive, possibly debatable point they can. Their true hope, however, is to see it taken care of the way it was introduced, notably, as was noted in the article, through Congress. Why they couldn’t get it right the first time is most likely, they felt they had to reply with something they could use to defend their position, no matter how much they dislike it.

]]> By: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Link Farm and Open Thread, Factory Wall edition http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/08/17/14071/comment-page-1#comment-47997 Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Link Farm and Open Thread, Factory Wall edition Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:03:45 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=14071#comment-47997 [...] DOJ has filed another motion in a Defense of Marriage Act case — but this time, they’re trying a lot harder not to offend the LGBT [...] [...] DOJ has filed another motion in a Defense of Marriage Act case — but this time, they’re trying a lot harder not to offend the LGBT [...]

]]> By: Burr http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/08/17/14071/comment-page-1#comment-47989 Burr Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:57:43 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=14071#comment-47989 Yeah that last argument you quoted there is absolutely ridiculous, but at least it wasn't dancing so close to the edge of blatant offensiveness. Was that really so hard? Why couldn't they get this right the first time? Yeah that last argument you quoted there is absolutely ridiculous, but at least it wasn’t dancing so close to the edge of blatant offensiveness.

Was that really so hard? Why couldn’t they get this right the first time?

]]> By: Timothy Kincaid http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/08/17/14071/comment-page-1#comment-47982 Timothy Kincaid Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:19:48 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=14071#comment-47982 It's a bit of a schizophrenic response. On the one hand they find DOMA to be discriminatory and wrong, but on the other it's <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090817/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_gay_marriage" rel="nofollow">constitutional, reasonable, and only fair to homophobes.</a> <blockquote>"DOMA reflects a cautiously limited response to society's still-evolving understanding of the institution of marriage," according to the filing by Assistant Attorney General Tony West.</blockquote> and <blockquote>Monday's court filing was in response to a lawsuit by Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, who are challenging the federal law, which prevents couples in states that recognize same-sex unions from securing Social Security spousal benefits, filing joint taxes and benefiting from other federal rights connected to marriage. Justice lawyers have argued that the act is constitutional and contend that awarding federal marriage benefits to gays would infringe on the rights of taxpayers in the 30 states that specifically prohibit same-sex marriages.</blockquote> Because we all know that voters in Alabama have the right to dictate what is done with the social security contributions that are involuntarily taken out of your Massachusetts paycheck. It’s a bit of a schizophrenic response. On the one hand they find DOMA to be discriminatory and wrong, but on the other it’s constitutional, reasonable, and only fair to homophobes.

“DOMA reflects a cautiously limited response to society’s still-evolving understanding of the institution of marriage,” according to the filing by Assistant Attorney General Tony West.

and

Monday’s court filing was in response to a lawsuit by Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, who are challenging the federal law, which prevents couples in states that recognize same-sex unions from securing Social Security spousal benefits, filing joint taxes and benefiting from other federal rights connected to marriage.

Justice lawyers have argued that the act is constitutional and contend that awarding federal marriage benefits to gays would infringe on the rights of taxpayers in the 30 states that specifically prohibit same-sex marriages.

Because we all know that voters in Alabama have the right to dictate what is done with the social security contributions that are involuntarily taken out of your Massachusetts paycheck.

]]>