Another Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down DOMA

[martybegan]

Once again...slowly...the law...grants the privilege of a married tax return to...opposite-sex couples... by law. That is the key part. The law. "Equal protection of the laws". That the law denies a married tax return to...same-sex couples...means same-sex couples...do not have equal protection of that law.



That is all they are asking for! Right now, DOMA denies the recognition of a same-sex couple's marriage contract.

That is why DOMA has been struck down.





The law is not denying you marriage or the privilege of filing a married tax return if you marry someone of the opposite sex.

This should be blindingly obvious.


.

If we go by your logic I am denied equal protection under the law because I cannot divide my income in half and then claim to file as married. I am denied a benefit someone else has due to my single status.

If it all about taxes why dont we just eliminate that part of the tax code?

Work for it....taxes need to be simplified anyways. But until that day, inequality is inequality.

It was inequality when race was used as a determination to decided certain men couldnt marry certain women, because men and women could already marry.

Peronsally I dont care who buggers who, but Marriage has always involved people of the opposite sex, and in this country between two people only.

If you go with the equal protection argument, how can you ban polygamy, polyandry, or plural marriages?

What people who want the equivalent of marriage for same sex people have to do is come up with thier own damn contract, and get the states to recognize it alongside marriage. Call it "blarrige" or whatever.

 

[bodecea]

If we go by your logic I am denied equal protection under the law because I cannot divide my income in half and then claim to file as married. I am denied a benefit someone else has due to my single status.

If it all about taxes why dont we just eliminate that part of the tax code?

Work for it....taxes need to be simplified anyways. But until that day, inequality is inequality.

It was inequality when race was used as a determination to decided certain men couldnt marry certain women, because men and women could already marry.

Peronsally I dont care who buggers who, but Marriage has always involved people of the opposite sex, and in this country between two people only.

If you go with the equal protection argument, how can you ban polygamy, polyandry, or plural marriages?

What people who want the equivalent of marriage for same sex people have to do is come up with thier own damn contract, and get the states to recognize it alongside marriage. Call it "blarrige" or whatever.

OK, explain why "it's always been that way" is a valid legal argument.

 

[g5000]

It was inequality when race was used as a determination to decided certain men couldnt marry certain women, because men and women could already marry.

That's exactly right. For the exact same reason. It violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection of the laws.

Watch what happens when I post the exact same words I used in my opening post, just substituting "opposite-sex" and "same-sex" with races instead:

An opposite-race married couple cannot file a federal married tax return, nor can an opposite-race spouse collect Social Security death benefits, nor can they exercise a myriad of other privileges extended to same-race couples.

So, either remove the marriage privileges that are currently granted only to same-race couples, or grant them to same-race and opposite-race couples alike.

There is no rational objection anyone can raise to granting the privilege of a married tax return to opposite-race couples. There is no rational objection anyone can raise to granting Social Security death benefits to opposite-race couples.

No societal harm arises from these activities.

Isn't that amazing? The last two paragraphs are the very nature of the argument used in Loving v. Virginia by the US Supreme Court, and will be used again by the USSC for gays.

Peronsally I dont care who buggers who, but Marriage has always involved people of the opposite sex, and in this country between two people only.

"We've always discriminated" is the lamest excuse to perpetuate discrimination in the anti-gay handbook.

If you go with the equal protection argument, how can you ban polygamy, polyandry, or plural marriages?

An argument can be made that polygamy is a societal harm. Polygamy is almost exclusively a one male-multiple female proposition in the real world. And simple mathematics means it leads to a dearth of adult women to marry, leading to the forced marriage of children, along with incest.

You cannot use the legality of a harmless activity to justify the legalization of a marriage practice which has a record of societal harm.

What people who want the equivalent of marriage for same sex people have to do is come up with thier own damn contract, and get the states to recognize it alongside marriage. Call it "blarrige" or whatever.

What are you talking about? A marriage certificate (from a judge or a priest, doesn't matter) is all that is needed for a federal married tax return.

.

 

[007]

That's why it has to be decided in the Supreme Court. We have a nation in decline and decay, I expect DOMA to be struck down by the Supreme Court, we are simply becoming too degenerate to survive.

Can you explain how two adults in a monogamous relationship filing a married tax return is degenerate?

.

Because they butt fuck each other's shit holes.

Next question...

 

[g5000]

That's why it has to be decided in the Supreme Court. We have a nation in decline and decay, I expect DOMA to be struck down by the Supreme Court, we are simply becoming too degenerate to survive.

Can you explain how two adults in a monogamous relationship filing a married tax return is degenerate?

.

Because they butt fuck each other's shit holes.

Next question...

.

 

[tjvh]

New York appeals court strikes down DOMA - CNN.com

The long and the short of their decision is that DOMA violates the 14th amendment, which is exactly correct. DOMA is unequal protection of the laws, granting special privileges to opposite-sex couples and withholding them from same-sex couples.

A same-sex married couple cannot file a federal married tax return, nor can a same-sex spouse collect Social Security death benefits, nor can they exercise a myriad of other privileges extended to opposite-sex couples.

So, either remove the marriage privileges that are currently granted only to opposite-sex couples, or grant them to same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike.

There is no rational objection anyone can raise to granting the privilege of a married tax return to same-sex couples. There is no rational objection anyone can raise to granting Social Security death benefits to same-sex couples.

No societal harm arises from these activities.
.

The harm is that single unmarried people will then have less rights than gays (because marriage is between a man and a woman) and the marriage benefits are designed to offset the expenses of bearing children... Something gays will not do. Sorry... We don't need another entitlement crowd.

 

[g5000]

New York appeals court strikes down DOMA - CNN.com

The long and the short of their decision is that DOMA violates the 14th amendment, which is exactly correct. DOMA is unequal protection of the laws, granting special privileges to opposite-sex couples and withholding them from same-sex couples.

A same-sex married couple cannot file a federal married tax return, nor can a same-sex spouse collect Social Security death benefits, nor can they exercise a myriad of other privileges extended to opposite-sex couples.

So, either remove the marriage privileges that are currently granted only to opposite-sex couples, or grant them to same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike.

There is no rational objection anyone can raise to granting the privilege of a married tax return to same-sex couples. There is no rational objection anyone can raise to granting Social Security death benefits to same-sex couples.

No societal harm arises from these activities.
.

The harm is that single unmarried people will then have less rights than gays (because marriage is between a man and a woman) and the marriage benefits are designed to offset the expenses of bearing children... Something gays will not do. Sorry... We don't need another entitlement crowd.

So if you get married (to a member of the opposite sex), and you decide not to procreate, you can't file a married tax return?

If you get married, and you decide not to procreate, you can't collect Social Security death benefits?

Really?

.

 

[bodecea]

That's why it has to be decided in the Supreme Court. We have a nation in decline and decay, I expect DOMA to be struck down by the Supreme Court, we are simply becoming too degenerate to survive.

Can you explain how two adults in a monogamous relationship filing a married tax return is degenerate?

.

Because they butt fuck each other's shit holes.

Next question...

1. some heteros do that too

2. not all gays do that

3. Fail....try again

 

[bodecea]

New York appeals court strikes down DOMA - CNN.com

The long and the short of their decision is that DOMA violates the 14th amendment, which is exactly correct. DOMA is unequal protection of the laws, granting special privileges to opposite-sex couples and withholding them from same-sex couples.

A same-sex married couple cannot file a federal married tax return, nor can a same-sex spouse collect Social Security death benefits, nor can they exercise a myriad of other privileges extended to opposite-sex couples.

So, either remove the marriage privileges that are currently granted only to opposite-sex couples, or grant them to same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike.

There is no rational objection anyone can raise to granting the privilege of a married tax return to same-sex couples. There is no rational objection anyone can raise to granting Social Security death benefits to same-sex couples.

No societal harm arises from these activities.
.

The harm is that single unmarried people will then have less rights than gays (because marriage is between a man and a woman) and the marriage benefits are designed to offset the expenses of bearing children... Something gays will not do. Sorry... We don't need another entitlement crowd.

How odd....we (and many other gay couples we know) have borne children.

 

[007]

Can you explain how two adults in a monogamous relationship filing a married tax return is degenerate?

.

Because they butt fuck each other's shit holes.

Next question...

1. some heteros do that too

2. not all gays do that

3. Fail....try again

Gee, never knew a female had a penis. Can you explain to me how that works?

Fail, try again.

 

[Seawytch]

Because they butt fuck each other's shit holes.

Next question...

1. some heteros do that too

2. not all gays do that

3. Fail....try again

Gee, never knew a female had a penis. Can you explain to me how that works?

Fail, try again.

Explain how what works? Heterosexuals having anal sex? If you don't know how they do that, it's too late to tell you or you're too young to know.

 

[g5000]

Because they butt fuck each other's shit holes.

Next question...

1. some heteros do that too

2. not all gays do that

3. Fail....try again

Gee, never knew a female had a penis. Can you explain to me how that works?

Fail, try again.

You are confirming point 2. Gay women do not have anal sex.

But some straight women enjoy it. I speak from experience.

I guess those straight women and I should be banned from marriage.

.

 

[catzmeow]

1. some heteros do that too

2. not all gays do that

3. Fail....try again

Gee, never knew a female had a penis. Can you explain to me how that works?

Fail, try again.

You are confirming point 2. Gay women do not have anal sex.

But some straight women enjoy it. I speak from experience.

.

007, otherwise known as Pole Rider, just wishes someone would anal him up.

 

[catzmeow]

I guess those straight women should be banned from marriage.

.

Does this mean 007 is also banned, since he thinks more about anal than anyone on the board?

 

[bodecea]

Because they butt fuck each other's shit holes.

Next question...

1. some heteros do that too

2. not all gays do that

3. Fail....try again

Gee, never knew a female had a penis. Can you explain to me how that works?

Fail, try again.

My my...you need to talk to Warbler. He'll tell you all about dildos....he might even lend or sell you one.

 

[bodecea]

I guess those straight women should be banned from marriage.

.

Does this mean 007 is also banned, since he thinks more about anal than anyone on the board?

C'mon Catz...we know a few others that think of it more.....

 

[sfcalifornia]

Because they butt fuck each other's shit holes.

Next question...

1. some heteros do that too

2. not all gays do that

3. Fail....try again

Gee, never knew a female had a penis. Can you explain to me how that works?

Fail, try again.

I guess you never heard of a strap-on. See, fucktard? You CAN fulfill your fantasy yet.

 

[Clementine]

New York appeals court strikes down DOMA - CNN.com

The long and the short of their decision is that DOMA violates the 14th amendment, which is exactly correct. DOMA is unequal protection of the laws, granting special privileges to opposite-sex couples and withholding them from same-sex couples.

A same-sex married couple cannot file a federal married tax return, nor can a same-sex spouse collect Social Security death benefits, nor can they exercise a myriad of other privileges extended to opposite-sex couples.

So, either remove the marriage privileges that are currently granted only to opposite-sex couples, or grant them to same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike.

There is no rational objection anyone can raise to granting the privilege of a married tax return to same-sex couples. There is no rational objection anyone can raise to granting Social Security death benefits to same-sex couples.

No societal harm arises from these activities.
.

This is one thing I agree with you on. I think couples who make a vow to each other should get tax breaks, the right to cover the other on their insurance and the spouse should receive benefits if one spouse dies. It seems pretty basic and fair. It is important to leave religion out of it because of the separation of church and state.

That said, the military is probably the worst place to conduct social experiments and force people to accept things that may go against their beliefs. DOMA worked well for years and hopefully nothing really changed since doing away with it. There will always be those who are intolerant and our troops are already put in enough dangerous situations without adding any other thing to deal with. You have to trust your fellow soldiers with your life and even if there is one guy who can't accept gays, it could be bad for everyone. I also worry about troops in the Arab countries because some of them kill gays.

I don't know the best way, but military has always had it's own rules and they do things that are best for safety and morale and maybe we shouldn't mess with any of it. We've come a long way and people accept things over a time as they learn to let go of their prejudices, but just don't know if you can speed that up. When people feel pushed to do something, they might resist more.

As far as a person's rights, we either all have rights or none of us have rights. Our constitution doesn't allow giving rights to some while denying the same to others.

 

[Seawytch]

New York appeals court strikes down DOMA - CNN.com

The long and the short of their decision is that DOMA violates the 14th amendment, which is exactly correct. DOMA is unequal protection of the laws, granting special privileges to opposite-sex couples and withholding them from same-sex couples.

A same-sex married couple cannot file a federal married tax return, nor can a same-sex spouse collect Social Security death benefits, nor can they exercise a myriad of other privileges extended to opposite-sex couples.

So, either remove the marriage privileges that are currently granted only to opposite-sex couples, or grant them to same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike.

There is no rational objection anyone can raise to granting the privilege of a married tax return to same-sex couples. There is no rational objection anyone can raise to granting Social Security death benefits to same-sex couples.

No societal harm arises from these activities.
.

This is one thing I agree with you on. I think couples who make a vow to each other should get tax breaks, the right to cover the other on their insurance and the spouse should receive benefits if one spouse dies. It seems pretty basic and fair. It is important to leave religion out of it because of the separation of church and state.

That said, the military is probably the worst place to conduct social experiments and force people to accept things that may go against their beliefs. DOMA worked well for years and hopefully nothing really changed since doing away with it. There will always be those who are intolerant and our troops are already put in enough dangerous situations without adding any other thing to deal with. You have to trust your fellow soldiers with your life and even if there is one guy who can't accept gays, it could be bad for everyone. I also worry about troops in the Arab countries because some of them kill gays.

I don't know the best way, but military has always had it's own rules and they do things that are best for safety and morale and maybe we shouldn't mess with any of it. We've come a long way and people accept things over a time as they learn to let go of their prejudices, but just don't know if you can speed that up. When people feel pushed to do something, they might resist more.

As far as a person's rights, we either all have rights or none of us have rights. Our constitution doesn't allow giving rights to some while denying the same to others.

You're confusing DOMA and DADT. DADT has been gone for a year with no problems, thanks.

 

[del]

That's why it has to be decided in the Supreme Court. We have a nation in decline and decay, I expect DOMA to be struck down by the Supreme Court, we are simply becoming too degenerate to survive.

Can you explain how two adults in a monogamous relationship filing a married tax return is degenerate?

.

Because they butt fuck each other's shit holes.

Next question...

poor, poor pole rider