DOMA ruled unconstitutional

[Moonglow]

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.

we still are.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

The issue is benefits legally gained by marriage which IS a power of Government. As it stands now one CAN get "married" in a church without State acceptance.

 

[Liability]

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

But it's not.

SOME entity always has to officiate or "recognize" the state of marital union between the parties.

So if it is a church that is doing the officiating, and that church cannot accept the notion of a gay marriage, the complaint of the parties is with that church, and it is not and should not be with the state.

All the STATE can properly do is recognize the legal status of a couple as being a civil contract between the two. They can call it a civil union, but should not be in the business of labeling it a "marriage."

Thus, straight couples as well as gay couples would ALL be involved in nothing but the contract of a civil union -- in the eyes of the secular state.

If the Episcopal Church recognizes such unions as marriages as between gay couples, the fine. They are married. If not, and they don't care to get married in some other church or religion, then the State gets no say in it.

Provided that all folks have to be civilly joined to be recognized by the STATE (as a matter of a contract enforceable by the State), then all such couples get the exact equal protection of the LAW. Non-secular complaints (such as "that mean old church won't label us as being married") just don't get addressed in courts of law.

 

[g5000]

"The couples argued that the power to define and regulate marriage had been left to the states for more than 200 years before Congress passed DOMA"

Yeah. And then the dumb shits federalized marriage with DOMA, opening the door for this suit. Well done!

 

[g5000]

marriage should not be a state or federal issue.

That is not the reality.

Two men filling out a federal married tax return. Booga! Booga! Booga! That's what scares the shit out of the homophobes.

 

[bucs90]

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



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?!?!?

Yep, "so called" dangerous, right?

A: All US military deaths in Afghanistan since 2002: 1,857 http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-military-deaths-afghanistan-1857-16451304
B: All US Police deaths in the USA since 2002: 1,674 Search for a Fallen Officer

By Bodeacea's logic, Group A "SERVED" the people of this country. Group B did not, or, did "so called" dangerous jobs.

Yep, shes right.

 

[Sinjorri]

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?

so true no democrats or liberals do this, oh wait.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Really? Where are those historical examples?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

yeap this is about rights and always has been.

Gay peoples civil rights are being infringed and have been for the entire history of our country.

Brothers and sisters also have the same right don't?

 

[bodecea]

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!

You "didn't truely 'SERVE'"? Your words, not mine.

 

[g5000]

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.

Really? Where are those historical examples?

The Romans accepted homos from the get-go. They even had some homo emperors very early on.

A mere two thousand years later, their empire collapsed.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[Truthmatters]

Becoming Law: On Sept. 21, 1996, President Clinton signed DOMA into law – a turning point for the marriage debate that left a mark of discrimination still on the books: Feature Story section: Metro Weekly magazine



But for former Sen. Tom Daschle, then the Senate Democratic leader, and the 32 Democratic senators who voted for it, DOMA was essentially the lesser of two evils — he says they considered a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to be almost ''inevitable'' at the time.

''There was a strong movement to pass a constitutional amendment to put in constitutional law the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman. And the concern that many of us had was that you couldn't beat the constitutional amendment,'' he says. ''So, you had to come up with an alternative to a constitutional amendment and argue that this was better for all concerned. And that was a big part of the tactical and strategic decision-making that went into the run-up to the vote itself.''

This is why DOMA was passed

 

[Katzndogz]

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?

If they have homosexual flings does that mean they believe that homosexuality is an alternative form of normal?

If someone has an adulterous fling, do they believe that polygamy is a form of normal and traditional marriage?

 

[Dick Tuck]

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.

The 14th Amendment protects the rights of the individual. I guess that's why wingnuts hate it. It resulted in states no longer being able to claim separate, but equal.

Well, Roberts must like the 14th Amendment. He was able to dig up some marginalia, which was never part of any opinion, to give limited liability corporations the rights reserved for individuals.

As for your contention that the 14 Amendment not pertaining to marriage, you don't know what you're talking about. It certainly pertained to Loving v Virginia.

 

[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!

You "didn't truely 'SERVE'"? Your words, not mine.

Your implication. Hence your all caps of "SERVED", to emphasize that somehow you did something more noble, more worthy or more to the definition of the word. Again...get over yourself butch.

 

[Katzndogz]

Homosexuality and acceptance of same sex relationships are not values passed along from civilization and societal structure to succeeding civilizations and societal structure. Historically the normalization of homosexuality is part of whatever degeneracy exists to cause collapse.

What looks likely is that western civilization itself will be submerged under the rise of iislam with gays and lesbians rounded up and executed en masse.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

The 14th Amendment protects the rights of the individual. I guess that's why wingnuts hate it. It resulted in states no longer being able to claim separate, but equal.

Well, Roberts must like the 14th Amendment. He was able to dig up some marginalia, which was never part of any opinion, to give limited liability corporations the rights reserved for individuals.

As for your contention that the 14 Amendment not pertaining to marriage, you don't know what you're talking about. It certainly pertained to Loving v Virginia.

one was a man and one was a vagina.

 

[Truthmatters]

yeap this is about rights and always has been.

Gay peoples civil rights are being infringed and have been for the entire history of our country.

Brothers and sisters also have the same right don't?

I dont care if bros and sis's get a civil union.


Its none of my business.

It is NOT the problem it used to be in our past.


In case you have not noticed you dont have to get married or have a civil union to have sex so the problem of then procreating has nothing to do with a civil union.


A civil union should NOT be about anything but the wishes of two people to legally entwine their lives for what ever reason they deem.


Then the churches can have back their word "marrige" and do what ever they want with it.

 

[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!

You "didn't truely 'SERVE'"? Your words, not mine.

You've disrespected and mocked the service of police officers on this board several times in the past. I dont expect much different from you now. I've added more than my two cents on this.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Becoming Law: On Sept. 21, 1996, President Clinton signed DOMA into law – a turning point for the marriage debate that left a mark of discrimination still on the books: Feature Story section: Metro Weekly magazine



But for former Sen. Tom Daschle, then the Senate Democratic leader, and the 32 Democratic senators who voted for it, DOMA was essentially the lesser of two evils — he says they considered a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to be almost ''inevitable'' at the time.

''There was a strong movement to pass a constitutional amendment to put in constitutional law the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman. And the concern that many of us had was that you couldn't beat the constitutional amendment,'' he says. ''So, you had to come up with an alternative to a constitutional amendment and argue that this was better for all concerned. And that was a big part of the tactical and strategic decision-making that went into the run-up to the vote itself.''

This is why DOMA was passed

Do brothers and sisters now have the right to marry each other?