Adam "Sunny" Flanders

"This is a special edition of an established title widely used by colleges and universities throughout the world. Pearson published this exclusive edition for the benefit of students outside the United States and Canada. If you purchased this book within the United States or Canada you should be aware that it has been wrongfully imported without the approval of the Publisher or the Author."

"Building a mosque so close to where terrorists killed thousands of Americans would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Memorial Museum."
~Sarah Palin

"This is an insensitive move on the part of those Muslims who want to build that mosque in this location. It feels like a stab in the heart to, collectively, Americans who still have that lingering pain from 9/11."
~Newt Gingrich

"The moment a mere numerical superiority by either states or voters in this country proceeds to ignore the needs and desires of the minority, and for their own selfish purpose or advancement, hamper or oppress that minority, or debar them in any way from equal privileges and equal rights -- that moment will mark the failure of our constitutional system."

But even a top officer acknowledges some unease. "We've never done this," Admiral Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, said in February after Pentagon leaders endorsed ending "Don't ask, don't tell" and said they would survey the troops about it. "We've never assessed the force because it is not our practice to go within our military and poll our force to determine if they like the laws of the land or not," he told an activist from the University of California's Palm Center, which monitors the issue. "I mean, that gets you into [a] very difficult regime."

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, perhaps the leading gay-rights group dealing with "Don't ask, don't tell," took a tough line against the survey. "No survey of the troops should be done," director Aubrey Sarvis said Friday. "Surveying the troops is unprecedented — it did not happen in 1948 when President Truman ended segregation and it did not happen in 1976 when the service academies opened to women. Even when the military placed women on ships at sea, the Pentagon did not turn to a survey on how to bring about that cultural change."

Sunny, I'm happy about this ruling because not only does it grant benefits to legally married gay couples, but it also reasserts certain states rights to govern. Unfortunately, I don't see anything in this ruling to lead me to think national policy will be to allow gay marriage.. If anything, it would seem to strengthen each state's right to decide and keep the feds out of it. Keep working on it though, it will eventually happen here.

No, I think it's going to be more significant than that. That is only one element of it. The other point of the federal judge is that same-sex couples should not be denied the same Federal benefits. And finally, and most significantly, the removal of DOMA is an immediate shortcut to nationwide marriage equality because the DOMA is the ONLY thing preventing interstate lawsuits. This is how interracial marriage was essentially "legalized" nationwide with the Loving decision in 1967. Long story short, the Loving couple was married in DC, which recognized interracial marriage, but then Virginia didn't recognize their marriage when they moved (Virginia didn't recognize interracial marriage, and interracial sexual relations were also criminal acts in Virginia), and they sued Virginia and it went to the Supreme Court.

Some people, myself included, believe that the fundamentalists used DOMA as a preemptive move because they knew same-sex marriage would follow the same pattern as interracial marriage if they didn't do anything to stop it. DOMA was passed in 1996, 7 years before the first state (MA) began recognizing same-sex marriage in late 2003. DOMA does little more than prevent a same-sex couple in a state such as Mass. from suing a state like Maine that doesn't recognize same-sex marriage. As soon as DOMA is removed, the lawsuits can begin and now that the Supreme Court has recognized sexual orientation as an "identifiable class" (equal to race, ethnicity, gender, etc.) there is no reason to believe it would rule differently than it did in the Loving case. However, I think the Prop.8 lawsuit might reach the Supreme Court and the same ultimate decision first, but this Boston lawsuit is moving at lightspeed compared to most federal court cases, so who knows?

As the article pointed out, "The rulings apply to Massachusetts but could have broader implications if they're upheld on appeal."