DOMA3 ruled unconstitutional in Pedersen et al v. Office of Personnel Management

Timothy Kincaid

July 31st, 2012

Oh yes. Another one of those “liberal militant activist judges” has “ruled from the bench” and struck down DOMA3. Again. This particular “liberal militant activist judge” is a George W. Bush appointee and happens to be a black Republican who is active in her church. Again.

The ruling by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant, an appointee of President George W. Bush, stems from the lawsuit Pedersen et al v. Office of Personnel Management et al, filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) in November 2010 in the Federal District Court in Connecticut.

“Section 3 of DOMA obligates the federal government to single out a certain category of marriages as excluded from federal recognition,” Judge Bryant wrote, “thereby resulting in an inconsistent distribution of federal marriage benefits as all marriages authorized by certain states will receive recognition and marital benefits, whereas only a portion of marriages authorized by other states will receive federal recognition and benefits.”

Poor National Organization for Marriage. What slurs will they have for Ms. Bryant? How can they spin her as out of touch or a radical? It’s enough to make a NOMer want to eat a quart of ice cream. Or two.

Ben In Oakland

July 31st, 2012

“It’s enough to make a NOMer want to eat a quart of ice cream. Or two.”

I could be wrong about this, but I seem to remember someone or other saying that we sohuld be saying things like this.

Having wagged my finger at someone or other, I will now continue laughing. I only hope THEY’RE buying ben and jerry.

Lindoro Almaviva

July 31st, 2012

“It’s enough to make a NOMer want to eat a quart of ice cream. Or two.”

Or 5. And I hope they have some Chick Fil-A with that and that is the only 2 things they eat for the rest of their lives.

Timothy Kincaid

July 31st, 2012

I’ve added a link to Ms. Bryant’s church. I don’t think they’ll be revoking her membership


July 31st, 2012

In fact, according to the website, the sermon this coming Sunday is –

“Jonathan & David: A Love Story”

Patrick Boone

July 31st, 2012

It’s really comes down to a state’s rights issue? What about a human right’s issue? Oh well I guess the current bunch of Republicans care more about state’s rights than human rights. What ever gets it done.


August 1st, 2012


If I am understanding correctly, the Rights of Individuals under the Constitution trump the Rights of States.

Timothy Kincaid

August 1st, 2012


Not exactly. States have rights and individuals have rights and each are supreme in their own realm. For example the state’s right to tax you trumps your right to property. And your right to speech trumps the state’s rights to enact civil law.

Similarly, the Federal Government and the various state governments each have their own sphere in which they are to hold power. None of these need be at war with each other.

In this instance, it is actually an individual rights claim that was made (equal protections principle within the 5th Amendment). However there is also a states rights claim that Massachusetts has made insisting that the Federal Government usurped the rights of states to determine family law.

These are two separate claims based on the idea that there are two separate victims, individuals who are denied equality and states that have had their position usurped.


August 1st, 2012


I should have been more precise, and hopefully I am not misstating, going from sheer (and feeble) memory, but I was thinking of Loving v/s Virginia.


Timothy Kincaid

August 1st, 2012


I’ll have to defer to you on that as my feeble memory doesn’t even recall the contitutional basis for Loving v Virginia (was it the right to privacy, equal protections? id have to look it up).


August 3rd, 2012

I think this whole bit was unnecessary:

“Poor National Organization for Marriage. What slurs will they have for Ms. Bryant? How can they spin her as out of touch or a radical? It’s enough to make a NOMer want to eat a quart of ice cream. Or two.”

Other than the fact that this makes me think of a cheap tabloid sneer, we really shouldn’t be getting smug at the opposition at this stage.

Please keep it professional.


August 5th, 2012

Methinks Maggie has been eating ice cream by the gallon for a very long time by the looks of things.

As for going after Judge Bryant, they will attack her as black woman. Black & female are something the radical right cannot handle.

Timothy Kincaid

August 5th, 2012


I think it is perhaps simplistic to assume that the more conservative citizens are racist and sexist.

It was certainly true that women and people of color were not supported until fairly recently in conservative circles. And it is also true that women and people of color are assumed by both sides to be liberal in political view and therefore have to prove their conservative credentials before being accepted by the right. And it is a sad fact that racism and sexism are alive in America and often find a home among conservatives.

But it is simply not true that all conservatives, most conservatives, or even a large minority of conservatives are racist and sexist. Some of the most championed of right wingers are women and in the past 5-10 years the number of people of color among the “heroes on the right” is skyrocketing. The right has adopted non-traditional minorities, Cubans and Indians, and pushed the promotion of African Americans such as the much-respected Condoleeza Rice.

And if you count up the number of Republican women governors and Senators, you might find yourself surprised. Add in the pundits and activists, from Shlafly to Palin, and the portrayal as sexist starts to look odd.

Remember, the judge is a black woman who is Republican, was nominated by a Republican president, and supported in her confirmation by Republicans.

This isn’t to say that the instinct toward sexism and racism isn’t just under the surface. That may continue to be true for a while. But it appears that conservatives are fighting that instinct and doing so far better than I would have predicted.

Some among us will ignore what they see in favor of fighting cartoon enemies who are “haters and racists and bigots”. Reducing those who oppose your rights down to stereotypes requires less thought (and justifies hating them in return) but is it a terrible strategy for winning.

Priya Lynn

August 5th, 2012

Timothy said “But it is simply not true that all conservatives, most conservatives, or even a large minority of conservatives are racist and sexist. “.

Do you have any studies or surveys to back up that claim? When I think of the conservatives I know many are either racist or sexist, or both. All though some conservatives in politics have made an effort to promote women and minorities, this may be a largely cynical ploy to counter a deserved image of racism and sexism. As a prime example I think of Mccain picking Palin. Its clear to me she was picked primarily to counter the image that it is the Democrats who support women and minorities. Certainly Repulicans had supported reams of legislation aimed at controling women’s bodies in order to deny them birth control, abortions, fair wages, and so on as well as reams of legislation ostensibly aimed at reducing (non-existent) voter fraud but which in reality are aimed at making discouraging minorities from voting.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.


Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.