MS Won't Allow A Dead Man's Husband T...

MS Won't Allow A Dead Man's Husband To Sue His Racist Murderers

There are 6 comments on the Queerty story from Sep 8, 2011, titled MS Won't Allow A Dead Man's Husband To Sue His Racist Murderers. In it, Queerty reports that:

And even if Mr. Anderson and his partner possessed a valid but foreign civil marriage contract , DOMA would excuse the feds from compelling Mississippi to respect that civil contract because the contract was entered into by gay persons, by their identity gay persons lack the capacity to enter such a contract, because a law that uniquely and ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Queerty.

“Created Equal”

Since: Feb 08

USA

#1 Sep 8, 2011
Yet another reason that DOMA has to go. does anyone seriously believe that a federal law prohibiting the federal government itself from protecting the civil rights of LGBT couples is "really" a statute that protects heterosexual marriages?

Protects them from what, pray tell? How does civil rights protection for a gay couple endanger Michele and Marcus Bachmann, for instance?(Apart from the fact that Marcus is a big ol' closet queen?)

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#3 Sep 8, 2011
The people who keep repeating that we can obtain all of our rights by visiting a lawyer and signing papers know they are lying. When are journalists going to start throwing situations like this in their faces when they repeat those lies?

Since: Jul 11

Los Angeles, CA

#4 Sep 8, 2011
This is so wrong.

“Created Equal”

Since: Feb 08

USA

#5 Sep 8, 2011
nhjeff wrote:
The people who keep repeating that we can obtain all of our rights by visiting a lawyer and signing papers know they are lying. When are journalists going to start throwing situations like this in their faces when they repeat those lies?
Right. The problem is, if one group is automatically entitled to legal rights, yet the other group must fill out a stack of forms and pay a lawyer in order to obtain those same rights, then it is not equality.

And even a durable power of attorney would not have given the spouse legal standing in a civil suit in this case. It's debatable whether a civil union would either.

So I say again, as I have since 1996, DOMA is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause, and it must go!
Sgt Common Sense

United States

#6 Sep 9, 2011
Can anyone explain to me why any self respecting GLTB would want to live in a shithole like Mississippi in the first place?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#7 Sep 9, 2011
Sgt Common Sense wrote:
Can anyone explain to me why any self respecting GLTB would want to live in a shithole like Mississippi in the first place?
Because we're everywhere.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christopher Dodd Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Essential Politics: Bush coming to Brentwood to... (Nov '15) Dec '15 goonsquad 7
News Head of movie association predicts record year ... (Apr '15) Apr '15 short 1
News Schumer-Pelosi: A Partnership Three Decades in ... (Apr '15) Apr '15 Memo From Turner 7
News Positions count, but style wins (Jan '08) May '14 Top Of Mom 2
News Hotelier Chatwal Pleads Guilty to Campaign Fraud (Apr '14) Apr '14 see the light 1
News Democrats want pay limits, loan aid in bailout (Sep '08) Mar '14 Lief CHIEF 73
News Democrats want pay limits, loan aid in bailout (Sep '08) Mar '14 Lilla 8
More from around the web