Another Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down DOMA

[bripat9643]

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

Nope. What they are doing is making law where none existed previously.

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.

There's no point to "grasp." It's a fantasy invented by gays.

 

[jtpr312]

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.

Of course they're dying fast dipshit, as this nation turns further and further from the God that once blessed it, immoral and corrupt scum like you will make your presense felt more strongly. Same thing happened in Sodom and that's where this nation's heading. By the way, my kids won't be electing the first gay president, I actually raise/raised my kids with morals and values, evidently unlike your parents did.

 

[sfcalifornia]

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.

Cry us all a fucking river.

Social issues are always decided by judges, not by the "moral" majority.

 

[jtpr312]

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.

You're right, and eventually "We the People", a force that is armed better than most nations on earth, will say enough is enough, the Founders never intended for us to live under the rule of despots diguised as judges, and we will have our own American Spring. One that will make the Arab Spring unrisings look like a church Ice Cream Social. When this happens, the pendulmn will probably swing so far to the right that it will be pretty bad for those that have ties to socialist, Godless, liberal, sodomite, organizations and causes. Hope it happens while I'm still young enough to particpate in the cleansing of our nation afterwards.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Meaningless drivel.

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.

"Ignorance" of what? "Hate" is a term that libturds apply to any disagreement with their agenda. It's meaningless.

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.’

They already have equal protection under the law. Special rights is exactly what they seek. Redefinition of the English language is what they seek.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Cry us all a fucking river.

Social issues are always decided by judges, not by the "moral" majority.

Yep, that's because liberal turds like you know you can't get a majority of the people to approve of your social re-engineering. You have just admitted that society doesn't approve of your social agenda.

 

[Ravi]

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.

You are simply incorrect. Married couples enjoy rights and benefits not afforded to any other two people.

 

[Ravi]

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

Nope. What they are doing is making law where none existed previously.

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.

There's no point to "grasp." It's a fantasy invented by gays.

DOMA was not instituted by the courts. It is being ruled unconstitutional by the courts.

 

[Ravi]

LOL at the dopes that think civil rights can be put to a vote.

 

[bripat9643]

You are simply incorrect. Married couples enjoy rights and benefits not afforded to any other two people.

Yep, they aren't afforded to single people. How do you plan to rectify that problem?

 

[bripat9643]

LOL at the dopes that think civil rights can be put to a vote.

By definition, Civil Rights are put to a vote, moron.

 

[sfcalifornia]

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.

Of course they're dying fast dipshit, as this nation turns further and further from the God that once blessed it, immoral and corrupt scum like you will make your presense felt more strongly. Same thing happened in Sodom and that's where this nation's heading. By the way, my kids won't be electing the first gay president, I actually raise/raised my kids with morals and values, evidently unlike your parents did.

Interesting how you consider hate to be a moral value. Whatever. Like I said, your opinions on the subject are fast become antiquated.

 

[bripat9643]

There's no point to "grasp." It's a fantasy invented by gays.

DOMA was not instituted by the courts. It is being ruled unconstitutional by the courts.

You mean it is being ruled unconstitutional by a few liberal judges.

Your point?

 

[sfcalifornia]

There's no point to "grasp." It's a fantasy invented by gays.

DOMA was not instituted by the courts. It is being ruled unconstitutional by the courts.

You mean it is being ruled unconstitutional by a few liberal judges.

Your point?

Now you're really being an idiot. Lots of conservative judges are striking down the discrimination these days. Get with it.

 

[Ravi]

You are simply incorrect. Married couples enjoy rights and benefits not afforded to any other two people.

Yep, they aren't afforded to single people. How do you plan to rectify that problem?

Any two consenting adults should be able to partake of those rights.

 

[Ravi]

LOL at the dopes that think civil rights can be put to a vote.

By definition, Civil Rights are put to a vote, moron.

No they aren't. Are you an American? If so, you certainly don't know much about the constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

DOMA was not instituted by the courts. It is being ruled unconstitutional by the courts.

You mean it is being ruled unconstitutional by a few liberal judges.

Your point?

Now you're really being an idiot. Lots of conservative judges are striking down the discrimination these days. Get with it.

Name one.

 

[bripat9643]

LOL at the dopes that think civil rights can be put to a vote.

By definition, Civil Rights are put to a vote, moron.

No they aren't. Are you an American? If so, you certainly don't know much about the constitution.

You mean Congress didn't vote on Civil Rights bill I and Civil Rights bill II?

 

[bripat9643]

You are simply incorrect. Married couples enjoy rights and benefits not afforded to any other two people.

Yep, they aren't afforded to single people. How do you plan to rectify that problem?

Any two consenting adults should be able to partake of those rights.

Single people should be allowed a tax deduction for being married? Is shacking up together the only reason needed to justify receiving government benefits?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Biology has nothing to do with parenting.