Another Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down DOMA

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Just as ‘marriage has always been between a man and a woman’ is legally irrelevant, whether one has children or not is also legally irrelevant when determining 14th Amendment issues:

ndividual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.” 478 U.S., at 216 (footnotes and citations omitted).

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

 

[del]

One man sticking his dick in another man's ass is degenerate, and providing them with government benefits because of such behavior is even more degenerate.

That you think homos are icky is not a legal foundation for discrimination.

.

I didn't say it was. However, the fact that they are incapable of having children is a good reason.

so no married, childless couple should have their marriage recognized legally?

or is that *different*?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Aka government sticks its nose where it doesn't belong AGAIN....government has no business in marriage...its a contract between people that's all...no need for government to enforce people's beliefs in what marriage is based on some book of fiction.

You are completely ignoring the fact that a contract carries legal issues which must be resolved by government. As long as people keep breaking those contracts through divorce and upon their deaths, government will be involved. Striking down DOMA has nothing to do with enforcing people's beliefs. This has to do with enforcing the law.

The claim that DOMA violates the 14th Amendment is too stupid for words to describe. If that's a violation, then how about separate restrooms for men and women? The law has always made distinctions between men and women, and for a very good reason. Why shouldn't the law also make distinctions between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples? Marriage laws exist for one reason: two protect mothers and their children. Homosexuals can never have children, so there's no social benefit to providing a couple of homos shacking up together with those benefits.

There’s no ‘claim’ DOMA violates the 14th Amendment, it's a fact.

And restrooms for men and woman are Constitutional because the policy is applied to everyone equally; that’s why restrooms for Blacks only was un-Constitutional.

That you and other troglodyte rightists are having a difficult time grasping the concept of equality is not surprising.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Perversion, corruption, filth, deviancy and immorality. That is what motivates our judicial system. This nation is freaking doomed when we even give passing attention to an idea as perverse as thinking two homosexuals living together and carrying on a deviant sexual relationship can even remotely be considered a marriage. You freaking people are filth.

The above is evidence why the 14th Amendment is as important today as any time in this Nation’s history.

 

[Ravi]

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?

.

One man sticking his dick in another man's ass is degenerate, and providing them with government benefits because of such behavior is even more degenerate.

Why do you care what other people do in their bedrooms? And how does it impact you?

 

[Seawytch]

Perversion, corruption, filth, deviancy and immorality. That is what motivates our judicial system. This nation is freaking doomed when we even give passing attention to an idea as perverse as thinking two homosexuals living together and carrying on a deviant sexual relationship can even remotely be considered a marriage. You freaking people are filth.

The above is evidence why the 14th Amendment is as important today as any time in this Nation’s history.

Not to mention proof as to why there are laws preventing siblings from marrying.

 

[Inthemiddle]

There is nothing preventing them from marrying someone of the opposite sex, so how has equal protection been denied?

Because the right of homosexuals to marry someone of the opposite sex is not equal protection, it's discrimination.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Let's not forget...keeping this political and all, that the House spent over a million dollars so far defending it. $1.5 to be exact.

OH, that's alot of money! Can we complain about abortions!

 

[Inthemiddle]

Warren Jeffs didn't do anything wrong. Why is he in prison? He just loved more than one woman and took more than one woman to wife.

Warren Jeffs raped women and teenage girls against their will, and orchestrated the same for other women by other men. The fact that you would even bring that up as comparison shows you to be a flying, fucking, idiot.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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 amounts to exactly this: Some people could, some people couldn't, therefore it was discrimination that some people couldn't. Which, therefore, makes it discrimination that gay people can't marry. See, committed and loving couples already can marry, but certain couples can't marry. Therefore, by your definition, it's discrimination.

Peronsally I dont care who buggers who

Obviously you do. Because you're all bugger-hurt about it.

but Marriage has always involved people of the opposite sex

That's not true. Gay marriage existed back in the time of the ancient Romans. Ancient Chinese recognized gay marriage. Native Americans recognized it.

and in this country between two people only.

That's not even true, either.

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.

They have that, it's called marriage. Only thing, they shouldn't have to "get" the states to recognize it. Failure to do so by the states is discrimination, and that's what this court case is all about.

Call it "blarrige" or whatever.

They tend to like the name "marriage" actually.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Because they butt fuck each other's shit holes.

That's right. The way to rally against big government is to invite them inside your butt hole when you need to prove your right to be married to your spouse.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The harm is that single unmarried people will then have less rights than gays

marriage benefits are designed to offset the expenses of bearing children.

And how is that so?

Something gays will not do. Sorry... We don't need another entitlement crowd.

So, you would support taking away marriage benefits in taxation for couples who do not have children?

 

[Inthemiddle]

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

Fail, try again.

Oh, I see. That's not your screen name, it's your age. Okay sonny, you should turn off the computer now. Mommy and daddy will be mad because this is a place for adults to talk about adult things. When your old enough, you can ask your mother about this stuff. For now just stick with the Power Rangers, mkay?

 

[Seawytch]

The harm is that single unmarried people will then have less rights than gays

marriage benefits are designed to offset the expenses of bearing children.

And how is that so?

Something gays will not do. Sorry... We don't need another entitlement crowd.

So, you would support taking away marriage benefits in taxation for couples who do not have children?

And what about gay couples WITH children?

 

[martybegan]

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.
.

There is nothing preventing them from marrying someone of the opposite sex, so how has equal protection been denied?

Marriage has always been a contract between a man and a woman, or hell, a man and several women.

Even if you get by on the equal protection route, You can give same sex couples the same rights in another contract recognized by the state, and equal protection can be met.

I am denied the right to marry someone because I havent found someone dumb enough to marry me yet, Are my rights under equal protection denied?

So...tell us. How does being married to someone you are not physically attracted to....work for you?

Since when has the consitution been about physical attraction?

 

[Inthemiddle]

One man sticking his dick in another man's ass is degenerate, and providing them with government benefits because of such behavior is even more degenerate.

No, what's degenerate is for the federal government to insert itself into people's ass to see if there's a dick present.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Ever hear of Stare decesis? thats the legal equivalent of "thats how it is"

 

[Inthemiddle]

I do believe in equal rights for all, not just some.

Dumbest. Post. Ever.

 

[Inthemiddle]

how is it any of your business what one man does with another, fuckwit?

is there a list of approved sexual activities somewhere?

Of course there is. It's on page 934 of the small government handbook.

 

[martybegan]

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.





"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.

.

So as long as the goalposts are moved far enough for your liking, fuck everyone else?

At least I admit to wanting the goalposts set at a certain place, and give a precendental reason for it. And precedent is a founding part of the law.

If people want to legislate gay marriage go ahead, I wont fight it. But there is ZERO consitutional right to marry someone of the same sex. Once again progressive shit on the consitution to get thier way.