Another Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down DOMA

[Inthemiddle]

On your "list", would heterosexual couples who like anal sex be disqualified from civil marriage?

Personally, I think heterosexual anal sex is degenerate. It's a waste of a perfectly good vagina.

 

[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?

Equal protection has been denied because DOMA seeks to exclude a particular class of persons – same-sex couples – from the same benefits of marriage as opposite-sex couples absent a rational basis or justification.

That marriage has ‘always been’ between a man and a woman is irrelevant. As the Court observed in Lawrence:

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.

Incorrect.

The ‘separate but equal’ approach to addressing the issue is as offensive to the Constitution as laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying. Same-sex couples have the 14th Amendment right to access their state’s marriage law, the same law as opposite-sex couples, equal and unaltered.

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?

No.

The 14th Amendment is applied only to the states and local jurisdictions; private citizens are at liberty to ‘discriminate’ against one another.

Bullshit. There are already cases, such as the one in New Mexico where a person is getting sued because they didnt want to photograph a gay wedding.

Why dont we drop the bullshit and admit that the real fight is that gay couples want acceptance from society. Thats why the lack of settling for civil unions.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Ah....laws. And the laws against consenting gay sex are to be found.....where?

Texas.

 

[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 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.



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



That's not even true, either.

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.

it aint marriage. Also my main "butthurt" is over making up crap in the consitution, then using the courts to force it on other people to accept.

And the difference between this and the civil rights movement is that the consitution was amended FIRST, then the south acted like assholes for 90 years and ingorned the consitution. The 60's was a correction to law that was already in place, not the creation of new rights out of thin air.

If you want marriage to be for everyone, then go through legislative action at the state and local levels. Stop fucking with the consitution.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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.

Hey, you're the one who wants the judicial system to start regulating inside people's anuses. If that's not screwed up, nothing is anymore.

 

[Bigfoot]

A filthy and degenerate 3.4% of the U.S. population that does everything it can to be in the spotlight because of their perversion is not worthy of the institution of marriage. That is one reason why this coming election is so important. It is projected that two to three supreme court justices will be appointed by president Romney.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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

Way to make yourself out to be a major idiot. Don't talk about things you know nothing about.

 

[martybegan]

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

Way to make yourself out to be a major idiot. Don't talk about things you know nothing about.

How is going by previous decsions over newer ideas not the equivalent to maintaining traditions over changing them?

Explain to me the difference if you are so fucking smart.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

Equal protection has been denied because DOMA seeks to exclude a particular class of persons – same-sex couples – from the same benefits of marriage as opposite-sex couples absent a rational basis or justification.

That marriage has ‘always been’ between a man and a woman is irrelevant. As the Court observed in Lawrence:





Incorrect.

The ‘separate but equal’ approach to addressing the issue is as offensive to the Constitution as laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying. Same-sex couples have the 14th Amendment right to access their state’s marriage law, the same law as opposite-sex couples, equal and unaltered.

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?

No.

The 14th Amendment is applied only to the states and local jurisdictions; private citizens are at liberty to ‘discriminate’ against one another.

Bullshit. There are already cases, such as the one in New Mexico where a person is getting sued because they didnt want to photograph a gay wedding.

States rights thing. The STATE has an anti-discrimination law.

Why dont we drop the bullshit and admit that the real fight is that gay couples want acceptance from society. Thats why the lack of settling for civil unions.

Nope, just equality.

I'll take civil unions if they are 100% equal on all levels, state and federal, to legal, civil marriage. Oh, and they should apply to all non-familial, consenting adult couples. We tried separate but equal...epic fail.

 

[Seawytch]

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.



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



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



That's not even true, either.





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.

it aint marriage. Also my main "butthurt" is over making up crap in the consitution, then using the courts to force it on other people to accept.

And the difference between this and the civil rights movement is that the consitution was amended FIRST, then the south acted like assholes for 90 years and ingorned the consitution. The 60's was a correction to law that was already in place, not the creation of new rights out of thin air.

If you want marriage to be for everyone, then go through legislative action at the state and local levels. Stop fucking with the consitution.

I'm pretty sure equal protection is Constitutional.

 

[Inthemiddle]

it aint marriage.

Actually, it is. I can speak quite authoritatively on this, as an ordained wedding officiant.

Also my main "butthurt" is over making up crap in the consitution, then using the courts to force it on other people to accept.

The 14th amendment has been in the constitution for decades. Equal protection means equal protection. It's really quite simple.

And the difference between this and the civil rights movement is that the consitution was amended FIRST, then the south acted like assholes for 90 years and ingorned the consitution. The 60's was a correction to law that was already in place, not the creation of new rights out of thin air.

The current gay rights movement is a correction of law, not a creation of new rights out of thin air. The fact that homophobes like you have been acting like penis-deprived assholes for 150 years doesn't excuse ignoring the equal protections promised by the constitution.

If you want marriage to be for everyone, then go through legislative action at the state and local levels. Stop fucking with the consitution.

In other words, let's ignore the parts of the constitution that you don't like (like equal protection per the 14th amendment) and let's continue to rely on the same discriminatory practices and just hope it goes better this time.

 

[Inthemiddle]

A filthy and degenerate 3.4% of the U.S. population that does everything it can to be in the spotlight because of their perversion is not worthy of the institution of marriage.

When did this turn into Vegas elopers who hire Elvis impersonators?

 

[Inthemiddle]

How is going by previous decsions over newer ideas not the equivalent to maintaining traditions over changing them?

You're missing the "previous decisions" part.

 

[martybegan]

Equal protection has been denied because DOMA seeks to exclude a particular class of persons – same-sex couples – from the same benefits of marriage as opposite-sex couples absent a rational basis or justification.

That marriage has ‘always been’ between a man and a woman is irrelevant. As the Court observed in Lawrence:





Incorrect.

The ‘separate but equal’ approach to addressing the issue is as offensive to the Constitution as laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying. Same-sex couples have the 14th Amendment right to access their state’s marriage law, the same law as opposite-sex couples, equal and unaltered.



No.

The 14th Amendment is applied only to the states and local jurisdictions; private citizens are at liberty to ‘discriminate’ against one another.

Bullshit. There are already cases, such as the one in New Mexico where a person is getting sued because they didnt want to photograph a gay wedding.

States rights thing. The STATE has an anti-discrimination law.

Why dont we drop the bullshit and admit that the real fight is that gay couples want acceptance from society. Thats why the lack of settling for civil unions.

Nope, just equality.

I'll take civil unions if they are 100% equal on all levels, state and federal, to legal, civil marriage. Oh, and they should apply to all non-familial, consenting adult couples. We tried separate but equal...epic fail.

If its a state thing, then its cool. Its stupid, but its cool.

I'd shake on your second statement.

 

[martybegan]

How is going by previous decsions over newer ideas not the equivalent to maintaining traditions over changing them?

You're missing the "previous decisions" part.

Marriage being between men and women exclusively has been precedent since antiquity. While certain cultures accepted homosexual relationships (pederasty in particular) none of them elevated it to the level of marriage.

 

[martybegan]

it aint marriage.

Actually, it is. I can speak quite authoritatively on this, as an ordained wedding officiant.

Also my main "butthurt" is over making up crap in the consitution, then using the courts to force it on other people to accept.

The 14th amendment has been in the constitution for decades. Equal protection means equal protection. It's really quite simple.

And the difference between this and the civil rights movement is that the consitution was amended FIRST, then the south acted like assholes for 90 years and ingorned the consitution. The 60's was a correction to law that was already in place, not the creation of new rights out of thin air.

The current gay rights movement is a correction of law, not a creation of new rights out of thin air. The fact that homophobes like you have been acting like penis-deprived assholes for 150 years doesn't excuse ignoring the equal protections promised by the constitution.

If you want marriage to be for everyone, then go through legislative action at the state and local levels. Stop fucking with the consitution.

In other words, let's ignore the parts of the constitution that you don't like (like equal protection per the 14th amendment) and let's continue to rely on the same discriminatory practices and just hope it goes better this time.

The amendments were never framed with the intent of granting homosexuals marriage rights, but were written to correct any possible racial discrimination after the civil war and the end of slavery.

Current gay rights laws are just that, laws. And those laws are not against the consitution. The consitution is neutral on the topic. What you are doing is creating a "right" out of thin air that does not exist, because it is easier.

So we basically let 9 people decide what we allow as rights. Just remember then that 9 people can just as easily take them away. Making up stuff and calling it consitutional by judical fiat is a dangerous game. If people truly want this to happen, the consitution should be ameneded not, changed by judical fiat.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Marriage being between men and women exclusively has been precedent since antiquity. While certain cultures accepted homosexual relationships (pederasty in particular) none of them elevated it to the level of marriage.

And that is where you are wrong.

Also, since you've demonstrated that you don't the first thing about stare decisis, stop trying to use it as an argument. Stare decisis has nothing to do with antiquity, or tradition. It's a legal doctrine regarding the consistency of court rulings, which says that a court should stand beside its previous rulings. It does not take cultural history or tradition into consideration. For example, Roe v. Wade recognized a constitutionally protected right to abortion. Stare decisis demands that the SCOTUS should stand beside this decision in the future, and that future cases heard by the court should presume this to be a correct decision, unless good cause is given to reject it.

 

[martybegan]

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.



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



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



That's not even true, either.





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.



They tend to like the name "marriage" actually.

it aint marriage. Also my main "butthurt" is over making up crap in the consitution, then using the courts to force it on other people to accept.

And the difference between this and the civil rights movement is that the consitution was amended FIRST, then the south acted like assholes for 90 years and ingorned the consitution. The 60's was a correction to law that was already in place, not the creation of new rights out of thin air.

If you want marriage to be for everyone, then go through legislative action at the state and local levels. Stop fucking with the consitution.

I'm pretty sure equal protection is Constitutional.

Equal protection yes, but why all of a sudden is gays getting married considered equal protection? The fact that married people get more benefits than two single people can theoretically be considered a violation of equal protection by your standards.

 

[martybegan]

Marriage being between men and women exclusively has been precedent since antiquity. While certain cultures accepted homosexual relationships (pederasty in particular) none of them elevated it to the level of marriage.

And that is where you are wrong.

Also, since you've demonstrated that you don't the first thing about stare decisis, stop trying to use it as an argument. Stare decisis has nothing to do with antiquity, or tradition. It's a legal doctrine regarding the consistency of court rulings, which says that a court should stand beside its previous rulings. It does not take cultural history or tradition into consideration. For example, Roe v. Wade recognized a constitutionally protected right to abortion. Stare decisis demands that the SCOTUS should stand beside this decision in the future, and that future cases heard by the court should presume this to be a correct decision, unless good cause is given to reject it.

Well roe V wade is another crappy decsion, so you arent going to win points with me there.

And all you are arguing is again, tradition and precedent. Thanks for making my point again, and you can also go fuck yourself for the laughing balls.

 

[Seawytch]

How is going by previous decsions over newer ideas not the equivalent to maintaining traditions over changing them?

You're missing the "previous decisions" part.

Marriage being between men and women exclusively has been precedent since antiquity. While certain cultures accepted homosexual relationships (pederasty in particular) none of them elevated it to the level of marriage.

Interracial marriage was illegal...until it wasn't. People arguing against interracial marriage used the bible and tradition too. Funny how history repeats.

Oh, and you're off on your marriage history.

http://m.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html