Federal Judge Orders IN To Recognize Terminally Ill Woman’s Same-Sex Marriage

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[SteveRogers]

In before JCL's head explodes.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

With the possible exception of child custody where in the absence of a marriage, their biological father would likely have legal precedence over her partner, none of the reasons given here require a recognized marriage to take care of in accordance with Ms. Quesney's wishes.  Of course, child custody alone is more than sufficient and probably the main reason the judge ruled as he ruled.

I think those who are fighting the rear guard action against state recognition of same-sex marriage are going to have to lighten up and provide some means by which same-sex couples can enjoy the same legal advantages marriage provides, even if it does not do so in one fell swoop as a marriage does, if they are to have any chance of delaying the inevitable.  Won't prevent the inevitable, as at this point, only the retirement or incapacity of one of the majority in Winsdor can do that, and even then, that would likely only add additional delay.  So I can see why no one is interested in enacting half measures into law that satisfy no one.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Good, the moral decision to make.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Looking forward to the day when Indiana will be the next state to fall in the gay marriage battle

[TDAS04]

Good, the moral decision to make.

[Consciously Unconscious]

Good, the moral decision to make.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

The federal government has no right in this matter. This is simply immoral. Time to nullify.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The federal government has no right in this matter. This is simply immoral. Time to nullify.

Indeed.  People have rights and Indiana's efforts to interfere with the plaintiff's rights have been nullified.

[Zioneer]

The federal government has no right in this matter. This is simply immoral. Time to nullify.

One could argue that denying a dying woman's wish and disallowing her partner from keeping their children and property is immoral.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

The federal government has no right in this matter. This is simply immoral. Time to nullify.

we're all very sorry that ms sandler will receive an accurate death certificate for her wife who is dying of cancer. obviously your skewed perception of morality is more important.

[Franzl]

The federal government has no right in this matter. This is simply immoral. Time to nullify.

The "federal government" didn't do anything.

[Cory]

Good, the moral decision to make.

[pbrower2a]

The federal government has no right in this matter. This is simply immoral. Time to nullify.

So let Indiana Republicans put it up to a referendum.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One of the most iconic Christmas movies. It's up there with It's a Wonderful Life and Miracle on 34th Street.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085334/quotes

I triple-dog-dare Indiana homophobes to put it on the Indiana ballot in November. Big business (including Eli Lilly and Cummins Diesel) have stated positions in favor of marriage equality and gay rights.

[afleitch]

The federal government has no right in this matter. This is simply immoral. Time to nullify.

I don't think you are capable of telling the difference between moral and immoral... or federal and state.

[Torie]

The federal government has no right in this matter. This is simply immoral. Time to nullify.

Is that meant to be some kind of legal opinion, or rather, just your grand unified theory that Balkanized federalism is a predicate to the polis being a shining city on a hill?

It is interesting that so often, when the merits of a matter clearly dictate reaching conclusion A, that those favoring conclusion B then resort to non legally based make weight federalism arguments, as constraining any departure from what is otherwise very poor public policy. It drives me nuts, but that is just me I guess.  Federalism is really, really a pain in the ass. It really degrades debate in the public square, and does indeed very often lead to poor public policy choices, that are just nonsensical. I mean, e.g. (and it goes on and on, in so many different arenas), does it make any sense, for a gay couple who get legally married in say Iowa, to see their marriage effectively nullified, if due to their masochistic tendencies or whatever, they choose to decamp for Mississippi?  What do you think?

[SteveRogers]

The federal government has no right in this matter. This is simply immoral. Time to nullify.

You know that's not a real argument, right? You can't just shout "Judicial activism! Time to Nullify!" every time there's a court decision you don't like. Unless you can point to either (1) a reason under the Constitution or federal law why the federal court should not have had jurisdiction over this case, or (2) A flaw in the legal reasoning of the judge's opinion, then you aren't actually articulating a response to the ruling.