Another Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down DOMA

[martybegan]

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.

Bans on interracial marriage were against the spirit of the intent of the Civil war amendments. The purpose of which was to create a colorblind version of the consitution, in anticipation of the very Jim Crow laws that eventually occured in the south and the midwest. What the framers did not anticipate was a supreme court that would ignore the amendments, much as the courts now ingnore the intent of the consituion itself to fit whatever social agenda is the flavor of the month.

and your evidence is pretty freaking weak. A painting on a tomb from egypt? really?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Legal marriage has been declared a fundamental right by the SCOTUS (3 times). You have to justify (demonstrate a societal harm) keeping tax paying, law abiding citizen from fundamental rights.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Legal marriage has been declared a fundamental right by the SCOTUS (3 times). You have to justify (demonstrate a societal harm) keeping tax paying, law abiding citizen from fundamental rights.

Or you can grant said rights via an amendment, or via legislative action. Either of those paths to me are the proper way. Asking courts to extend upon established prinicples, instead of clarifying established princicples, is to me wrong, and potentially dangerous.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Bans on interracial marriage were against the spirit of the intent of the Civil war amendments. The purpose of which was to create a colorblind version of the consitution, in anticipation of the very Jim Crow laws that eventually occured in the south and the midwest. What the framers did not anticipate was a supreme court that would ignore the amendments, much as the courts now ingnore the intent of the consituion itself to fit whatever social agenda is the flavor of the month.

and your evidence is pretty freaking weak. A painting on a tomb from egypt? really?

You just looked at the pictures? Do I need to type in crayon?

 

[martybegan]

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.

Bans on interracial marriage were against the spirit of the intent of the Civil war amendments. The purpose of which was to create a colorblind version of the consitution, in anticipation of the very Jim Crow laws that eventually occured in the south and the midwest. What the framers did not anticipate was a supreme court that would ignore the amendments, much as the courts now ingnore the intent of the consituion itself to fit whatever social agenda is the flavor of the month.

and your evidence is pretty freaking weak. A painting on a tomb from egypt? really?

You just looked at the pictures? Do I need to type in crayon?

No i scanned it, and its really not compelling evidence considering the trend never really stuck, if it existed at all.

Hey, there is nothing wrong in my opinion if we want to legislate or amend the consitution to allow for gay marriage, it just dont see the inherent right to it in the consitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

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.

That ‘s a public accommodations issue. See: Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States (1964).

The real fight is against the ignorance and hate exhibited by citizens who wish to violate the civil liberties of other citizens solely on the basis of sexual orientation.

Same-sex couples seek only what is their right: equal protection of the law; they do not seek ‘special’ rights, nor do they wish to compel ‘acceptance.’

 

[bripat9643]

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

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?

The children are not the offspring of the "couple," so the question is irrelevant. Every child has a biological mother and a biological father. None has two biological mothers or two biological fathers.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Legal marriage has been declared a fundamental right by the SCOTUS (3 times). You have to justify (demonstrate a societal harm) keeping tax paying, law abiding citizen from fundamental rights.

Or you can grant said rights via an amendment, or via legislative action. Either of those paths to me are the proper way. Asking courts to extend upon established prinicples, instead of clarifying established princicples, is to me wrong, and potentially dangerous.

The mistake you make is assuming that one’s civil liberties are determined by majority rule, where one will have his rights only as a result of consensus, when enough citizens are willing to enact legislation or amend the Constitution.

That’s not how it works.

Rights are not ‘granted,’ they are inalienable, they predate the government and Constitution, and civil liberties are codified by the latter.

Same-sex couples have always had equal protection rights with regard to marriage, the problem is the ignorant and hateful who work to withhold those rights.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

DOMA doesn't do anything of the sort. It simply says that marriage applies only to unions between two people theoretically capable of reproduction.

 

[bodecea]

And how is that so?



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

And what about gay couples WITH children?

The children are not the offspring of the "couple," so the question is irrelevant. Every child has a biological mother and a biological father. None has two biological mothers or two biological fathers.

So...this poster wants to throw adopted children and step children out with the bath water.....Why? Because them there dang gays wanna get hitched....*snort!

 

[bripat9643]

And what about gay couples WITH children?

The children are not the offspring of the "couple," so the question is irrelevant. Every child has a biological mother and a biological father. None has two biological mothers or two biological fathers.

So...this poster wants to throw adopted children and step children out with the bath water.....Why? Because them there dang gays wanna get hitched....*snort!

Whatever I want is beside the point. The statement made was factually inaccurate. There is no such thing as children resulting from a homosexual couple.

 

[jtpr312]

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.

Tissue, Genghis?

Don't need a tissue sodomite, I know how the story ends, my side wins.

 

[jtpr312]

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.

No, I want the judicial system to stand by the defintioin of the word marriage, which is a union between a man and woman, period. Two dykes, or two sodomites living together and having sex with eachother is not marriage, it's perversion and perverse and deviant behavior should not be rewarded in any civilized nation.

 

[editec]

...we are simply becoming too degenerate to survive.

Nah-uh!

 

[sfcalifornia]

Someone asked the question, douchebag, and I answered it. If you don't want an answer, then don't ask for it. Furthermore, the minute the government taxes me to provide perverts with benefits, their sexual proclivities become my business. If you want to keep the government out of your personal affairs, then don't demand that it get involved in them.



Yes there is. For instance, having sex with a 5-year-old is on the strictly prohibited list. So is having sex with your sister. The only question here is whether anal sex is on the list, not whether the list exists.

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

Apparently anal sex is degenerate only when two men do it. The same must be true for oral sex.



.

Total double-standard. Tons of hetero guys are fucking women up the ass left and right, according to X-tube.

 

[Ravi]

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.

The courts are merely ruling on the constitutionality of an issue that WAS legislated. That is their function.

And while your claim that the constitution doesn't grant gay people the right to marry is trueish, it does grant equal protection. You cannot give special rights to people, and that is what outlawing gay marriage does: gives special rights to straight people.

I am always amazed when a libertarian does not grasp this point.

 

[sfcalifornia]

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.

No, I want the judicial system to stand by the defintioin of the word marriage, which is a union between a man and woman, period. Two dykes, or two sodomites living together and having sex with eachother is not marriage, it's perversion and perverse and deviant behavior should not be rewarded in any civilized nation.

Does that apply to hetero sodomites too?

Forget it dipshit, your moral issues with homosexuality are dying fast. You'll see federal and state benefits approved for same-sex couples within the next couple of years whether you like it or not. Your kids will elect the first gay president and I wish I could see the look on your face when they do.

 

[bripat9643]

And what about gay couples WITH children?

The children are not the offspring of the "couple," so the question is irrelevant. Every child has a biological mother and a biological father. None has two biological mothers or two biological fathers.

So...this poster wants to throw adopted children and step children out with the bath water.....Why? Because them there dang gays wanna get hitched....*snort!

Gay adoption shouldn't be allowed because it's not in the best interests of the child, and if homosexual marriages aren't legal, then there is no such thing as a "stepchild" of a gay couple any more than any child would be my "stepchild" if I wasn't married to the mother.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

No, I want the judicial system to stand by the defintioin of the word marriage, which is a union between a man and woman, period. Two dykes, or two sodomites living together and having sex with eachother is not marriage, it's perversion and perverse and deviant behavior should not be rewarded in any civilized nation.

Does that apply to hetero sodomites too?

Forget it dipshit, your moral issues with homosexuality are dying fast. You'll see federal and state benefits approved for same-sex couples within the next couple of years whether you like it or not. Your kids will elect the first gay president and I wish I could see the look on your face when they do.

Every time the people are allowed to vote on it, they vote against it. The only way you turds can get your way on this is through unelected judges imposing it on us.

 

[bripat9643]

The courts are merely ruling on the constitutionality of an issue that WAS legislated. That is their function.

And while your claim that the constitution doesn't grant gay people the right to marry is trueish, it does grant equal protection. You cannot give special rights to people, and that is what outlawing gay marriage does: gives special rights to straight people.

I am always amazed when a libertarian does not grasp this point.

Nope. restricting marriage to a man and a woman doesn't give special rights to anyone because everyone on this planet is either a man or a woman. Marriage laws are based on your gender, not your sexual proclivities. The "equal protection" argument is horseshit.