CNN: Boston appeals court rules Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional

[twa]

Before there can be equal protection afforded the federal right to SSM must exist (which is what is taken from the SCOTUS line on Baker)

the refusal speaks much more than the one sentence (and it is not my interpretation)

It is always possible they will reconsider, but Vaughn and co are not controlling beyond the state involved(nor very compelling imo)

But Olsen is talented,so who knows

btw jms DOMA remains law until SCOTUS says otherwise...the appeals court was very clear on that

[Larry]

Before there can be equal protection afforded the federal right to SSM must exist (which is what is taken from the SCOTUS line on Baker)t

Uh, no, that's what you wish the constitution said.

No, the 14th does not say "the states are hereby prohibited from doing any thing which the Constitution already says they're prohibited from doing, before this amendment was passed. But, anything that isn't already protected by the Constitution, before this amendment was passed, they can go ahead and do".

The 14th actually did have a purpose.

[twa]

Uh, no, that's what you wish the constitution said. .

No

what I wish it said is civil unions for all....then we could argue about govt benefits afforded w/o this horse****.