let's all celebrate and suck some dick tonight!

let's all celebrate and suck some dick tonight!

I'll tell my wife you mandated it.

my old constitutional law professor is probably spending 2 hours today using this as another of the very few examples of where the courts use a beefed up version of the good ol' rational basis test.

is there really no possible non-discriminatory rational basis for this law? i am sure there are a couple hundred million mouth breathers who would disagree with the 9th circuit that there isn't.

of course i'm a commie and usually agree with the 9th circuit (who are mainly commies too)

I look forward to this getting to the Supreme Court. I always relish people putting themselves on the wrong side of history: I got my eye on you, Clarence Thomas!

That decision was also 5-4, written by Chief Justice John Roberts.

The ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act means that the federal government must recognize the gay marriages deemed legal by the states — 12 plus the District of Columbia, before the California case was decided.

The law helps determine who is covered by more than 1,100 federal laws, programs and benefits, including Social Security survivor benefits, immigration rights and family leave.

"DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others," the ruling said. It added that the law was invalid because there was no legitimate purpose for disparaging those whom states "sought to protect in personhood and dignity."

President Barack Obama, in a post on Twitter, said that the ruling was a "historic step forward for #MarriageEquality."

Kennedy was joined in the majority by the four members of the court's liberal wing, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Dissenting were Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Scalia, in his dissent, wrote: "We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court's errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America."

Scalia, in his dissent, wrote: "We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court's errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America."

Scalia is such a smarmy prick. And apparently Thomas was chewing gum, popping it, rolling his eyes.

Sorry guys, nothing like an idea whose time has come. As MLK said, the long arc of history always bends to justice.

Also, congrats harry, I guess the marriage is back on!

Although as a child I would never have conceived the possibility, now it seems so normal I am baffled as to why anyone would care about our marriage.

this is candy colored bullshit for people who haven't read the news since John Waters was dancing naked through a pilgrimage to "safe living condo expo 87." I expect more from this board that used to placate in a more entertaining sub beat, but I guess we've all dried out and put our wrinkled sack into the sun.

adios obner, you've lived another year with a fuse lit on the wrong side.

i have no idea why I chose this thread of all threads to make a post like that, but i was in the mood to make a post like that.

I expect more from this board that used to placate in a more entertaining sub beat