DOMA ruled unconstitutional

[Liability]

Guess it was that damn racist, bigoted, hateful, homophobic DEMOCRAT president in 1996 that allowed DOMA to be passed...Bill Clinton.

no, he signed it.

it was the asshat republican congress that ginned it up.

try again

Why did he sign it?

 

[del]

Well, like Obama says, one unelected official. So what.

you should take a civics course, beulah

Don't forget to swallow next time. I don't have any more napkins.

you're fantasizing about me again.

creepy

not lumpy level creepy, but creepy enough

 

[del]

Guess it was that damn racist, bigoted, hateful, homophobic DEMOCRAT president in 1996 that allowed DOMA to be passed...Bill Clinton.

no, he signed it.

it was the asshat republican congress that ginned it up.

try again

Why did he sign it?

beats me.

find someone who cares and ask them.

maybe daveman can do you a solid?

 

[bucs90]

But you seem to give a great deal of shit now. Wouldn't it have been more interesting if you were talking about something in the past that you ACTUALLY knew something about instead of using "I worked nights in a scary, scary place" as some lame excuse for not paying attention?

Um....that stuff is documented. I can read about it.

Ah, so that makes you an expert? Really now?

And yes, now I care about political issues more than I did then. I'm not getting shot at now. See how that works?

Such a scary job you had. I was overseas SERVING our country at that time.....pardon me if I do not act impressed by your so-called "dangerous life". And I STILL managed to keep informed daily in what was going on in the U.S. politically and otherwise.

So being a police officer isn't considered serving the citizens? You all caps "SERVING" as if to make that point.

You flew in a plane. Didn't carry a gun. And I'm quite certain were never shot at. I applaud and thank you for your service. But am quite offended that you would imply that you somehow contributed more, or a more moral version of, "service" than the men and women who serve as police officers, and many who are killed doing it, to serve those SAME US CITIZENS that you did.

I didn't ask you to be impressed by shit. And "so called" dangerous? Ha. I'll leave that one alone.

 

[mal]

BOSTON — An appeals court ruled Thursday that a law that denies a host of federal benefits to gay married couples is unconstitutional.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples.

The law was passed in 1996 at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004



Boston court: Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional - BostonHerald.com

i guess the judges forgot to read the bible.

Many = 32 doesn't it?...

If it's a States Rights Issue then it looks like Gay Marriage is 32 to 8 Loser right now.

You are Applauding this?



peace...

 

[Katzndogz]

Did ya look closely at what the judge said?



In 2010, a federal judge in Massachusetts declared the heart of the law unconstitutional in two separate lawsuits. The judge found that the law interferes with the right of a state to define marriage.

Guess what, moron. It opens the door for equal protection under the 14th amendment. Do you know what that means? It means that Alabama can do whatever bigoted things they want with defining marriage, but have to accept a married same sex couple as being married, even if they were married in Massachusetts.

You lefties love the 14th Amendment, which doesn't pertain to marriage. We're not going to allow you to manipulate and twist the US Constitution for your agenda.

Of course you will. Every time a liberal judge or corrupt legislature manipulates the Constitution we've taken it and allowed it. This is one of those things that may just have to run it's disastrous course. History has told us that acceptance of homosexuality and its normalization is part of a general societal disintegration. It has never survived as a value out of thousands of years of human history. We won't be any different. We might object, we might fight against it, but in the end, liberals are on the wrong side, the losing side of history.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

BOSTON — An appeals court ruled Thursday that a law that denies a host of federal benefits to gay married couples is unconstitutional.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples.

The law was passed in 1996 at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004



Boston court: Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional - BostonHerald.com

i guess the judges forgot to read the bible.

Won't help the States that passed aws saying Gays can not marry. The section they ruled on was benefits not on whether a State can define gay marriage as unauthorized.

To be specific they did not rule on that part at all. You see they ruled that the federal Government has no right to interfere in State powers. And the definition of Marriage is a State Issue.

 

[bodecea]

Your ass would've been raped or worse within a month working the neighborhoods we patrolled. And thats not me talking shit, its true. Was it scary responding to those places? Yep. Im not an ego tripper. Its why we carried guns. But somehow I didn't feel the need to pickup USA Today on the way and see if the gays would get to marry.

I can see that gleam in your eye. We get it...you worked a scary scary job....at nite, when it's dark and...scary. You had no time to pay attention to world and current events because you had a scary job....at nite....when it's dark and scary.

 

[bucs90]

Bodeacea, since you made point to contrast your service with saying you "SERVED" (all caps), I thought I'd add to the debate a list of non-military men and women in uniform who, I suppose you'd say, didnt truly "SERVE" the citizens of this country: Officer Down Memorial Page (ODMP)

You did and gave FAR more than those folks when you "SERVED". Thank you!

 

[Polk]

You lefties love the 14th Amendment, which doesn't pertain to marriage. We're not going to allow you to manipulate and twist the US Constitution for your agenda.

The 14th Amendment pertains to rights under the law, which obviously includes marriage.

 

[del]

BOSTON — An appeals court ruled Thursday that a law that denies a host of federal benefits to gay married couples is unconstitutional.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples.

The law was passed in 1996 at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004



Boston court: Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional - BostonHerald.com

i guess the judges forgot to read the bible.

Many = 32 doesn't it?...

If it's a States Rights Issue then it looks like Gay Marriage is 32 to 8 Loser right now.

You are Applauding this?



peace...

unlike you, i value freedom and the rule of law, so yes, i'm applauding this.

what some three toothed dipshit in alabama or colorado or arkansas or one of the other flyovers wants to do about this is fine with me.

 

[Liability]

I agree, it is a state issue, not a federal issue, just like the Immigration issue in Arizona and the Marijuana issue in California.

I believe the "issue" (such as it was) boiled down to a concern that if State "A" says a "marriage" is solely between a man and a woman, but State "B" says no no, a "marriage" can be between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, then because of the Full Faith and Credit obligation, State "A" will have to accept the "determination" of State "B."

So the DOMA law was designed (I believe) to make sure that marriage laws remained the province of each individual state.

Accordingly, if the SCOTUS reverses the lower court, this time, it could be legitimately argued that they would be engaged in genuinely conservative jurisprudence.

I wish ALL states would get OUT of the business of classifying the social contract between adults as "marriage." That should be the province of churches and synagogues, etc., not the province of the States. As far as the STATE is concerned, it should ALL be just a civil union contract. If a gay couple cannot get "married" in the Catholic Church, that is not a matter for the secular courts.

 

[bucs90]

I can see that gleam in your eye. We get it...you worked a scary scary job....at nite, when it's dark and...scary. You had no time to pay attention to world and current events because you had a scary job....at nite....when it's dark and scary.

Yep. The following folks would agree with me too...........

Officer Down Memorial Page (ODMP)

But we'll move along.

 

[bodecea]

Um....that stuff is documented. I can read about it.

Ah, so that makes you an expert? Really now?

And yes, now I care about political issues more than I did then. I'm not getting shot at now. See how that works?

Such a scary job you had. I was overseas SERVING our country at that time.....pardon me if I do not act impressed by your so-called "dangerous life". And I STILL managed to keep informed daily in what was going on in the U.S. politically and otherwise.

channeling warbler?

how sad

asswipe

beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeatch

Oh yeah?!! Oh YEAH?!?!?

 

[del]

BOSTON — An appeals court ruled Thursday that a law that denies a host of federal benefits to gay married couples is unconstitutional.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples.

The law was passed in 1996 at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004



Boston court: Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional - BostonHerald.com

i guess the judges forgot to read the bible.

Won't help the States that passed aws saying Gays can not marry. The section they ruled on was benefits not on whether a State can define gay marriage as unauthorized.

To be specific they did not rule on that part at all. You see they ruled that the federal Government has no right to interfere in State powers. And the definition of Marriage is a State Issue.

i see you got promoted to captain, obvious.

 

[Moonglow]

marriage should not be a state or federal issue. It should be a private one, that no one can deny to others.

 

[bucs90]

I can see that gleam in your eye. We get it...you worked a scary scary job....at nite, when it's dark and...scary. You had no time to pay attention to world and current events because you had a scary job....at nite....when it's dark and scary.

And, if you dont think its a scary job, or that this type of "service" doesn't measure up to your GI Jane bravery...........ask the over 600 cops who've died in uniform in the State of Georgia if their service was scary or counted: Search for a Fallen Officer

Get over yourself bitch.

 

[Katzndogz]

Only gays that have "served" are important. Millions of non gays that have also served are inconsequential.

 

[del]

marriage should not be a state or federal issue. It should be a private one, that no one can deny to others.

we should go back to being hunter/gatherers too.

 

[Moonglow]

Guess what, moron. It opens the door for equal protection under the 14th amendment. Do you know what that means? It means that Alabama can do whatever bigoted things they want with defining marriage, but have to accept a married same sex couple as being married, even if they were married in Massachusetts.

You lefties love the 14th Amendment, which doesn't pertain to marriage. We're not going to allow you to manipulate and twist the US Constitution for your agenda.

Of course you will. Every time a liberal judge or corrupt legislature manipulates the Constitution we've taken it and allowed it. This is one of those things that may just have to run it's disastrous course. History has told us that acceptance of homosexuality and its normalization is part of a general societal disintegration. It has never survived as a value out of thousands of years of human history. We won't be any different. We might object, we might fight against it, but in the end, liberals are on the wrong side, the losing side of history.

Is that why conservatives get married and then have homosexual flings?