| | Advanced Search


Ric Santurri: Primary Predictions—In one party dominated Rhode Island, and especially…

Chef Walter’s Flavors + Knowledge: Homemade Ricotta Cheese—One of the most exciting aspects of cooking…

Elmwood Diner To Present Grand Opening Event September 6 and 7—The historic Elmwood Diner will host a Grand…

Del’s Lemonade Tops List for ‘Most Significant’ Chain Restaurant in Rhode Island—Del's Lemonade was named the "most significant restaurant…

Providence Named One of the 11 Greatest Foodie Cities In America—Providence was ranked one of the 11 greatest…

Hasbro Will Open Exhibit on the Creation of “Transformers”—Hasbro Inc., will unveil its new exhibit “From…

Stan Tran Unveils Job Plan—Republican candidate for Rhode Island’s 1st Congressional District…

Commerce RI Partners to Lower Costs of Solar Power in Rhode Island—The Rhode Island Commerce Corporation (Commerce RI), the…

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to Speak at “Defense Innovation Days” Event—Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and several other…

Dear John: An Ill-Advised Office Romance (Aren’t They All?)—You won't believe what he got asked this…


NEW: Cicilline Applauds Decision Ruling Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional

Thursday, May 31, 2012


Today, Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Barney Frank (D-MA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Jared Polis (D-CO), David Cicilline (D-RI), and John Conyers (D-MI) – the lead sponsors of the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – applauded the 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ decision in the case of Gill, et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, et al. affirming the District Court ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional. The members recently spearheaded an amicus brief, joined by 127 additional House colleagues, filed in this case, which explained to the Court in detail why DOMA is unconstitutional.

The members issued the following joint statement:

“Today’s decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that DOMA is indeed unconstitutional is a major victory in the march toward justice for married gay and lesbian couples. By ruling that DOMA violates the Equal Protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the Court has reaffirmed that lesbians and gay men cannot legally be singled out for special discrimination. This decision underscores the reality that there is absolutely no federal interest served by denying married same-sex couples the federal responsibilities and rights that other married couples receive, and that the harm caused to these families is unjustifiable.

“It has been 16 years since Congress enacted DOMA, and the materials and arguments being made to defend the law do not withstand the test of time or scrutiny. All loving couples deserve the same opportunity to marry and to have their marriages treated with equal regard by the government. Moreover, the increasing momentum challenging DOMA – by the public, in the courts, in Congress, and in the Obama administration – demonstrates that it is simply a matter of time before this discriminatory law is thrown out, once and for all. That day cannot come soon enough for the thousands of families being harmed by this shameful law on a daily basis, and that is why we, along with many of our colleagues, will continue to fight for its end, be it through the Congress or the courts.”


Enjoy this post? Share it with others.


GolLocal continues breaking the cutting-edge, need-to-know, "no duh" news.

Is GoLocal surprised?

Comment #1 by David Allen on 2012 05 31

So David Cicilline "applauding" amounts to "hard work" for Rhode Island and "standing up to" the Republican agenda?

What a pathetic little failure.

If David Cicilline thinks he will confuse voters by getting them to believe that cheering for, calling for, and urging this, that, and the other -- and never once succeeding -- is reason enough to re-elect him to Congress, he is more anesthetized to the truth than even I can believe.

David Cicilline is applauding ...

He has become the 21st century's own Mrs. Miller.

(Look it up.)

Comment #2 by Charles Drago on 2012 05 31

I didn't have to, you are such a one trick pony.

Comment #3 by Jonathan Flynn on 2012 05 31

Coming from a horse's ass, that's a compliment.

Comment #4 by Charles Drago on 2012 05 31

Once again, Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson, that shining example of judicial wisdom voted with the majority in overturning 2000 years of legal precedent. Thanks Sheldon, she is eminently qualified isn't she? One wonders if she still turns her back when the National Anthem is played?

The 1st Circuit is starting to make the 9th Circuit look like a bunch on Conservatives:

This is what they ruled to be "Unconstitutional”:


(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'

``In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.''.

By the way, what follows is the “official” stance taken by the President and AG Holder in declining to defend a law passed by Congress:

“After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.”

Think about it, "The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional.”

He didn’t even wait for SCOTUS to render a decision. He just directed the DOJ to stop defending a law passed by Congress!!!

We are no longer a Nation of Laws. The DOJ acts on the President’s “conclusions.”


Comment #5 by Fabiano Terrenni on 2012 05 31

You at least had correct punctuation in the second post. Bravo.

Comment #6 by Jonathan Flynn on 2012 05 31

Good Lord, now you're writing to yourself.

Comment #7 by Charles Drago on 2012 06 01

What a pathetic little failure. Should be, What a pathetic, little failure. 5th grade English, probably the language you want to make the OFFICIAL language. Try learning it.

Comment #8 by Jonathan Flynn on 2012 06 01

Wrong again.

In fact, "pathetic" in this case modifies "little failure." Usage of the term "little failure" -- as in Hitler, the "little dictator" -- to describe David Cicilline is quite common.

With each post, you demonstrate the distinction between learning a language and picking it up. In this regard, you bring to mind Brendan Doherty.

Beyond this point, please be advised: I would engage you in a battle of wits, but I make it a practice not to attack an unarmed opponent.

Comment #9 by Charles Drago on 2012 06 01

You two should get you're own room.
In the mean time, is there a single person out there surprised, that Cicilline is applauding this decision? I'm mean, seriously?

The whole "issue" of gay marriage is ridiculous. If a gay person wants to be married, marry a woman. THAT is the way it works. END OF STATEMENT.

BTW, if I misspelled anything, or have the wrong punctuation....to F**ing bad.

Comment #10 by pearl fanch on 2012 06 02

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.