Skip to main content

View Diary: DOMA is unconstitutional, Supreme Court rules. Dismisses Prop. 8 case for lack of jurisdiction. (355 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No impact (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    madmsf, badscience, koNko, ebohlman

    This is only about rights conferred by federal law and regulations

    "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw

    by Drobin on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:18:25 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  It does, however, mean that states that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      madmsf

      offer civil unions or full domestic partnerships but not marriage (currently HI, OR, NV, CO, IL, NJ) will be open to lower-court challenges on the grounds that such arrangements can no longer even pretend to be separate but equal. since they (badly) convey state recognition but not Federal recognition. There are already two such cases about to hit the Ninth Circuit (Jackson v. Abercrombie from HI and Sevcik v. Sandoval from NV).

      Personally, as a physician, I would be very concerned at a child becoming febrile after having ingested bleach or had it shot up his rectum—Orac (Respectful Insolence)

      by ebohlman on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 08:25:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site