Damn, I must be denser than I thought!

[polmaven]

Mr. Vice President, will you please explain it to me? I simply am not able to grasp the concept of how the SJC of Massachusetts "made the decision for the whole country" (emphasis mine)about the legality of gay marriages!

How did their decision extend beyond Massachusetts? How was it taken away from the judges, or people in the other 49 states? I don't remember the SJC decision stating anything about Wyoming, or Colorado, or California, etc....

I guess my intellect is just to stunted from being a Democrat to grasp how an interpretation of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts gives the go-ahead for anyone else.

Please, Mr. Vice President....'splain it to me so I can understand too? Pleeeeze? Pleeeeze? Pleeeeze?

[tom_paine]

1. Imperials do NOT explain their thougths to the likes of us

Filthy Little Nobodies. Not members of the Bushevik Elite which has summarily decided that our democratic-republic was a bad idea that must be foregone to move to an Orwellian BushPutin Managed Democracy which is an Empire by a fancier name denoting the more sophisticated marketing techniques involved in creating the Potemkin Village of sham freedom.

[Jacobin]

2. The issue they raise is the "full faith and credit" clause

of the constitution which requires states to honor each other's law.

Example:

Massachussetts gay couple marries.

They then move to Pennsylvannia.

They want to have their marriage recognized in PA for employment benefits, get a divorce, etc. Pennsylvannia would have to honor their marriage license.

That's the argument anyway.

(As far as I'm concerned I don't care what two consenting adults decide to do.)

[denverguy]

3. he's probably thinking of the full faith and credit clause

of the US constitution requiring states to recognize laws of other states...the reason DOMA is probably unconstitutional

[polmaven]

4. Yes, except the DOMA is, until SCOTUS

says otherwise, the law of the land, isn't it? MA SJC can't overturn that, only SCOTUS, right?

[denverguy]

5. true...

I think it's because they believe when it is challenged (and MA is a good opportunity) it will be overturned

[polmaven]

6. And, at that point,

it will be SCOTUS making the decision for the rest of the country, as was intended by the separation of powers set down in that pesky, interfering, document called, umm...what is it now? Oh, yeah..the Constitution of the United States of America.

[denverguy]

7. also, apparently disagrees with the reading of the MA

constitution...I haven't looked, so I don't have an opinion on whether the MA decision is good or bad. If the decision is a real stretch or just out of left field as sometimes happens the MA court is basically forcing the issue

[polmaven]

8. Forcing the issue, yes...

and that I can agree with. But, ultimately, with DOMA in place, SCOTUS will make the decision for "the rest os the country", no?