This decision does not "force Churches to recognize, condone, support and perform same-sex marriages." The ruling does not require any church to perform a same-sex marriage. However, if a church chooses to perform a same-sex marriage (allowed under MA law), then that marriage is recognized by the state (of MA), and must (according to the ruling) also be recognized by the federal government. Thus, the court is supporting the will of the people (in MA).

Clergy have not and will not ever be "forced" to perform any marriage. Clergy still refuse in some places to marry interracial couples, and couples where one is Catholic and one is not. Clergy refuse to marry couples for all kinds of reasons - these decisions, and laws like the one in MD will only mean that same sex couples can get legally married according to the laws of the state. Also: Right now MY MINISTER is legally not allowed to marry myself and my partner, because the state of MD denies a marriage license to same sex couples. How's that for separation of church and state?

The court is not making any law. Instead, it is ruling on the legitimacy of a federal law, which very much was "a federal law about marriage." The court determined that it is up to the states to determine who can marry. If we accept the legitimacy of that principle, then the court's ruling was consistent. If a state recognizes a marriage between two people, then any federal benefits allocated on the basis of marriage must be afforded to those individuals. If one state allows first cousins to marry, then the federal government must recognize that marriage as legitimate. Similarly, if a state (such as MA) allows two men to marry, then the federal government must also recognize that marriage as legitimate. Thus, the court did not make a law; it merely reviewed the law, which is an established check/balance on the power of the legislature.

@Kenn Bing --

Patch is a network of websites in communities across the U.S. This story was published in a handful of sites across Maryland. A similar version appeared in sites in Virginia.

My personal view is to respect everybody. If you'd like to continue this discussion, feel free to email me at douglas@patch.com.

That's your opinion......... and since the writer interjected his own personal viewpoints pertaining to his own story, one is needed. Thank you in advance....

The bias is clear and it only represents only one side of the issue, not only in the article but the writer's comments. So a disclaimer is warranted.....

I'm trying really hard to find the "clear bias." In terms of an opinion, I see the phrase, "The court didn't rule on the law's more politically combustible provision," which could have been written more neutrally as "The court didn't rule on all provisions of the law, including:" That rewrite would remove the opinion that one of those is politically combustible (although whatever one's beliefs, that provision is politically charged).

The closing quote supports one side, but it is clearly marked as an opinion. I'm struggling to see the need for a disclaimer. Can you please elucidate for this dummy the "clear bias?"

Replay 11:34 comment.......

Regardless, the confusion (on my part) is real. Specifically what makes the article biased?

"A federal appeals court in Boston ruled Thursday that the Defense of Marriage Act ... is unconstitutional because ..."

-- A statement of fact. There is no opinion or viewpoint here except for the reason offered by the court (but the whole point of the article is the court's ruling).

"The justices stayed the ruling pending an anticipated decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Bloomberg reported."

-- Neither does this look like there's any opinion, apart from the justices' opinion that the case is likely to be appealed.

"According to the Huffington Post: "The court didn't rule on the law's more politically combustible provision... It also wasn't asked to address whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry.""

-- A statement of fact. This paragraph indicates which provisions of the law are not affected by the ruling. There doesn't seem to be any implication as to whether or not those unaffected provisions should or should not be allowed to stand, merely that this ruling does not touch them.

"The judge who wrote the unanimous decision was appointed by President George H.W. Bush..."

-- More facts. There is no opinion or viewpoint here at all.

""I think that it's a sensible and conservative decision," said State Sen. Richard Madaleno (D-Dist. 18)...""

-- Finally, an opinion! But, this opinion is not the author's opinion. It is the opinion of Sen. Madaleno, and is attributed as such.

(My apologies to the author for the lengthy exigesis.)

So, we are looking at the following pieces of information being included:
1) A law was struck down on particular grounds.
2) The ruling was stayed.
3) Not all parts of the law were struck down.
4) The judges were appointed by various presidents (establishing some context).
5) A quote in favor of the court's ruling.

There's nothing controversial in the selection of 1) through 4). Of those paragraphs, 1) and 3) are probably the most important.

So, it seems like your objection boils down to the mrer existence of the final quote. Thus, instead of claiming "the whole thing" is biased, you could have started with the complaint that no counterpoint to Sen. Madaleno's quote was provided. That's a legitimate point and more productive than throwing up your (figurative) hands in "shock."