The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Court Declares Clinton-Era Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional

Posted on | May 31, 2012 | 20 Comments

“Progress” is happening so fast nowadays, eh? Back in the 1990s, President Clinton implemented “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and DOMA, which stood uncontested through the remainder of Clinton’s term and all through the eight years of Bush, but now — in the Obama era — these measures have been declared dreadfully oppressive.

Hope! Change! And it’s probably only a matter of time before homosexuality is declared compulsory, so that turning down an offer of sodomy is illegal “discrimination.”


20 Responses to “Court Declares Clinton-Era Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional”

  1. 4joachim
    May 31st, 2012 @ 4:37 pm

    ..the backward forward progressive regressed destruction of US.

    ?Long Live The Peaceful Clean Respectful Tea Party!
    ?  ??November 2012??

  2. smitty
    May 31st, 2012 @ 4:48 pm

    Also a bad idea: having XX chromosomes while in the womb.

  3. Mortimer Snerd
    May 31st, 2012 @ 4:48 pm

    So, which do you prefer?  Sodom, or Gomorrah?

  4. James Knauer
    May 31st, 2012 @ 5:11 pm

    O Henny, Penny on line 1…

  5. Mike Tuggle
    May 31st, 2012 @ 5:30 pm

    People wonder why I advocate secession. “We have elections,” they say. “Just work to put Republicans in office.” Been there. Done that. And this is what we get.

  6. PaulLemmen
    May 31st, 2012 @ 5:36 pm

    Sorry, Henny Penny was forcibly married to a Musloid who abused and sodomized her every day for the short remaunder of her life (she ended up “honor killed” six months later). Whereupon her widower married a duck and a golden retriever in a ceremony performed by the now “Reverend” Bawney Fwanks, of the 1st Church of Chicago Jesus, Musloid division (Sharia compliant).
    Being sold down the moral river and you resort to nursery rhymes. You, sir, are an unmitigated agent of Satan. I clear my nose on your shoe!

  7. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    May 31st, 2012 @ 6:08 pm

    Mr. Pretty is probably feeling pretty good today…  

    Come on, it’s on topic.  You know he is going gay next!  

  8. jackafter6
    May 31st, 2012 @ 6:34 pm

    People should be free to do whatever they want, as long as what they’re doing doesn’t hurt other people. Suicide for instance. It’s just the natural ultimate final extension of abortion. You don’t want kids, you don’t want anything at all… I’m not just pro-choice, I’m pro-coolade. [iykwimaityd.]

    Also, I’m pro-choice when it comes to amputation of limbs. A person has a hand or a leg that offends him/her, cut the darn thing off. You want to talk about weight-loss results fast, I have the secret! Whether you find it between the legs or it is the legs, if someone doesn’t want it, a doctor should be forced–regardless of silly old traditions like the hippocratic oath–to chop off those unwanted parts.

    People should be able to marry non-sentient objects. Why can’t I get married to my computer? It’s a heck of a lot more entertaining than my current wife, plus it cleans the bathroom just as often. Don’t forget, with marriage comes a joint tax-return. I’m gonna absolutely love being able to claim my HP as a dependant.

  9. jwallin
    May 31st, 2012 @ 8:17 pm

    Well, at least in New York you can call someone gay and not get sued anymore or at least not lose the case. (it’s the NYT but don’t let that stop you.)

  10. jwallin
    May 31st, 2012 @ 8:18 pm

    And it doesn’t talk back and use the credit card secretly. (or at least as far as YOU know.)

  11. Quick Hits | The Lonely Conservative
    May 31st, 2012 @ 9:04 pm

    […] presidential candidate John Edwards may not be going to jail, but he’s still a sleaze.***Quote of the Day comes from Stacy on the ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional:And it’s probably only a […]

  12. Charles
    May 31st, 2012 @ 9:11 pm

    Funny that no one ever called it the “Bill Clinton Defense of Marriage Act”.

  13. WyBlog - I was going to opine on the DOMA ruling, but Stacy McCain beat me to it
    May 31st, 2012 @ 10:34 pm

    I was going to opine on the DOMA ruling, but Stacy McCain beat me to it…

    Obama is going on here. Obama evolved. One more evolution and? I’ll let Stacy McCain take it from here….

  14. Pathfinder's wife
    June 1st, 2012 @ 12:10 am

    Run at the 1st Amendment to start in 3, 2, 1….  (I have no dog in this fight other than this one, but it’s a pretty big dog, so there’s that).

    Oh well…this is what happens when everybody wants to be nice…and refuses to read up on history.

  15. Mike Rogers
    June 1st, 2012 @ 12:11 am

    An offer you CAN refuse – claim you converted to Islam, and it’s discrimination if you aren’t allowed to stone the propositioner!

  16. SDN
    June 1st, 2012 @ 12:31 am

     Not secession. Another American Revolution followed by another “exile of the Tories.” They didn’t leave for Canada because they were asked nicely. More like “Leave or die.”

  17. K-Bob
    June 1st, 2012 @ 1:08 am

    Misdelivered leftist mail…

    You people are so damn discriminatory.  Equal rights and social justice demand that, since you got married to have access to your wife, then everyone should have access to your wife. Thank Barack for judicial activism!


    that Occupy guy with the dreadlocks who doesn’t really mind compulsory gayness

  18. Pathfinder's wife
    June 1st, 2012 @ 9:41 am

    That’s really only a sweet deal for hetero males (or, to allude to my comment through the glass darkly, super butch, very wealthy homo males) — as a woman I’d have to pass.

  19. The Spot-On Quote Of The Day… « The Camp Of The Saints
    June 1st, 2012 @ 9:54 am

    […] awarded to fugitive from injustice, Robert Stacy McCain for this insightful commentary on a Federal Court’s decision in Boston that declares the Defense Of Marriage Act […]

  20. Jennifer
    June 3rd, 2012 @ 1:15 pm

    I think the conservative position on DOMA is the one that agrees with the court’s ruling here. States traditionally control marriage and the federal government was wrong to step in the way it did with DOMA. The court has simply turned the issue back over to the states, where it should be. States rights and all that.

    I’m enjoying reading the Brett Kimberlin coverage here, but the tone of this post really turns me off.