Federal judge rules that part of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional

[Immanuel]

Wrong there is a thing called state sanctioned legal marriage. You do not even have to go to a church to get married. The state recognizes your marriage whether are affiliated with a church or not. The state issues you a license. Clearly Legal Marriage is the domain of the states.

Marriage is a Rite of the Church. The state has no business being in the marriage business.

Immie

So, you consider my wife and I married...even before the State of California did.

I have already stated my opinion on this, many times in fact.

First of all, the only reason I have to consider you married is that you claim to have been married by a church. I can only take your word for that and if you were married by a church, then yes, I consider you married. Whether or not God approves of that marriage is unknown to me.

Second, the state has no business being involved in marriage, not yours and not mine.

The state should license Civil Unions for all couples gay and straight and let the church deal with the Rite of Marriage. You stated in a post above that you were married by the church in, I think you said 1999, it is not up to me to say whether or not you are married and personally, I don't care one way or another.

IMHO, the only thing that matters, besides your happiness is your relationship with God. I believe you are committing a sin. How that affects your relationship with God, I cannot say. I cannot and will not claim to have defeated sin in my life and do not expect that you can either. I believe that our sins will, or maybe I should say have been, dealt with and our faith is the issue at hand.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

The Fed has no authority to regulate Marriage period. It is the states domain. If you want to nit pick about it that is.

Have to disagree with you. Marriage is the domain of the church, not the state.

The State (government both Federal and State) should get out of the marriage business completely per the Separation of Church and State and regulate Civil Unions.

The government should not discriminate against any citizen gay or straight and should therefore license civil unions for couples. The church can then get about the Rite of Marriage as it sees fit and if liberal churches decide they want to marry homosexual couples, then so be it. My church would not be required to recognize such a marriage if it chose not to.

Immie

Idiot. Married people demand state involvement for tax purposes and more. Marriage is NOT the domain of the churches. If people want civil marriages it is their -- god given right.

but maybe the state should stop subsidizing married couples and the god damned churches?

Where the hell did I say anything at all about what people demand.

I don't give a shit what people demand, so why don't you stop being such an idiot? We do not have the right to demand that the state do anything for us. If the state chooses to promote stable families (for any reason) that is the right of the state. Promoting stable families is IMHO a good thing so let the state promote stability, but let it do so through Civil Unions and not interfere with the church.

I stated quite plainly that the government should treat all couples equally. It is not up to the government to decide whether or not my marriage is valid. The state has no business being involved in the Rite of Marriage, which is the domain of the church and was long before we became a nation.

Civil Unions would not affect the status between couples and the state at all. The state would grant the same rights it always has given to married couples to couples in civil unions. The only difference would be that the state would not be involved in the Rite of Marriage which IS a Rite of the Church.

Immie

 

[froggy]

A Boston judge has fired the latest salvo in the battle for gay marriage, ruling Thursday that a federal ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional because it violates states' rights. U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of gay couples' right to marry, the AP reports, challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on the ground that it interferes with a state’s right to define marriage.

Same-sex unions have been legal in Massachusetts since 2004, but the state argued that DOMA discriminated against gay married couples by denying them access to the same benefits as heterosexual married couples. Tauro agreed, ruling on two separate challenges to the law that the act forced Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.

"The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment," Tauro wrote in a ruling. "For that reason, the statute is invalid."

In a second case, filed by Gays & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro ruled that DOMA also violates the Constitution's equal protection clause.

The lawsuit challenges only the portion of the law that prevents the federal government from affording pension and other benefits to same-sex couples.

Boston judge: Federal ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, calls statute discriminatory, 'invalid'

A clear case of a gay taking care of gays.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Being that the majority of the country disapproves of ObamaCare I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. You assume that people would move to states with government funded health care, but again, in order to do that the cost of living would rise and the quality of the care probably wouldn't be that good, as evidenced in countries that have universal health care.

Hawaii and Tennessee had universal care for a time and we had RomneyCare back in MA. Nobody was flocking to those states for the health care. HI and TN ended up disabling theirs because it was too expensive and the cost of health insurance in MA has skyrocketed.

Verdict on Healthcare Reform Bill Still Divided

49% approve
46% disapprove

Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports

60% favor repeal, 36% oppose

America is deeply divided on the issue so the point is that Dante has no point, which is nothing new.

 

[bodecea]

Marriage is a Rite of the Church. The state has no business being in the marriage business.

Immie

So, you consider my wife and I married...even before the State of California did.

I have already stated my opinion on this, many times in fact.

First of all, the only reason I have to consider you married is that you claim to have been married by a church. I can only take your word for that and if you were married by a church, then yes, I consider you married. Whether or not God approves of that marriage is unknown to me.

Second, the state has no business being involved in marriage, not yours and not mine.

The state should license Civil Unions for all couples gay and straight and let the church deal with the Rite of Marriage. You stated in a post above that you were married by the church in, I think you said 1999, it is not up to me to say whether or not you are married and personally, I don't care one way or another.

IMHO, the only thing that matters, besides your happiness is your relationship with God. I believe you are committing a sin. How that affects your relationship with God, I cannot say. I cannot and will not claim to have defeated sin in my life and do not expect that you can either. I believe that our sins will, or maybe I should say have been, dealt with and our faith is the issue at hand.

Immie

1990...and MCC (Metropolitan Church of Christ)....but I can see that you now really mean...Churches with beliefs that jive with YOU. I'm not surprised.

 

[bodecea]

Being that the majority of the country disapproves of ObamaCare I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. You assume that people would move to states with government funded health care, but again, in order to do that the cost of living would rise and the quality of the care probably wouldn't be that good, as evidenced in countries that have universal health care.

Hawaii and Tennessee had universal care for a time and we had RomneyCare back in MA. Nobody was flocking to those states for the health care. HI and TN ended up disabling theirs because it was too expensive and the cost of health insurance in MA has skyrocketed.

Verdict on Healthcare Reform Bill Still Divided

49% approve
46% disapprove

Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports

60% favor repeal, 36% oppose

America is deeply divided on the issue so the point is that Dante has no point, which is nothing new.

Rasmussen.....

 

[bodecea]

A Boston judge has fired the latest salvo in the battle for gay marriage, ruling Thursday that a federal ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional because it violates states' rights. U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of gay couples' right to marry, the AP reports, challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on the ground that it interferes with a state’s right to define marriage.

Same-sex unions have been legal in Massachusetts since 2004, but the state argued that DOMA discriminated against gay married couples by denying them access to the same benefits as heterosexual married couples. Tauro agreed, ruling on two separate challenges to the law that the act forced Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.

"The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment," Tauro wrote in a ruling. "For that reason, the statute is invalid."

In a second case, filed by Gays & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro ruled that DOMA also violates the Constitution's equal protection clause.

The lawsuit challenges only the portion of the law that prevents the federal government from affording pension and other benefits to same-sex couples.

Boston judge: Federal ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, calls statute discriminatory, 'invalid'

A clear case of a gay taking care of gays.

Are you saying that the only people who support equality for gay Americans are fellow gays?

 

[froggy]

Boston judge: Federal ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, calls statute discriminatory, 'invalid'

A clear case of a gay taking care of gays.

Are you saying that the only people who support equality for gay Americans are fellow gays?

Maybe he's lover influenced this action.

 

[Immanuel]

So, you consider my wife and I married...even before the State of California did.

I have already stated my opinion on this, many times in fact.

First of all, the only reason I have to consider you married is that you claim to have been married by a church. I can only take your word for that and if you were married by a church, then yes, I consider you married. Whether or not God approves of that marriage is unknown to me.

Second, the state has no business being involved in marriage, not yours and not mine.

The state should license Civil Unions for all couples gay and straight and let the church deal with the Rite of Marriage. You stated in a post above that you were married by the church in, I think you said 1999, it is not up to me to say whether or not you are married and personally, I don't care one way or another.

IMHO, the only thing that matters, besides your happiness is your relationship with God. I believe you are committing a sin. How that affects your relationship with God, I cannot say. I cannot and will not claim to have defeated sin in my life and do not expect that you can either. I believe that our sins will, or maybe I should say have been, dealt with and our faith is the issue at hand.

Immie

1990...and MCC (Metropolitan Church of Christ)....but I can see that you now really mean...Churches with beliefs that jive with YOU. I'm not surprised.

No, you are completely wrong... I'm not surprised.

Please explain why you are trying to change my words.

I stated that the State has no business being involved in marriage, not mine and not yours. Why is that a problem for you?

Immie

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Have to disagree with you. Marriage is the domain of the church, not the state.

The State (government both Federal and State) should get out of the marriage business completely per the Separation of Church and State and regulate Civil Unions.

The government should not discriminate against any citizen gay or straight and should therefore license civil unions for couples. The church can then get about the Rite of Marriage as it sees fit and if liberal churches decide they want to marry homosexual couples, then so be it. My church would not be required to recognize such a marriage if it chose not to.

Immie

Idiot. Married people demand state involvement for tax purposes and more. Marriage is NOT the domain of the churches. If people want civil marriages it is their -- god given right.

but maybe the state should stop subsidizing married couples and the god damned churches?

Where the hell did I say anything at all about what people demand.

I don't give a shit what people demand, so why don't you stop being such an idiot? We do not have the right to demand that the state do anything for us. If the state chooses to promote stable families (for any reason) that is the right of the state. Promoting stable families is IMHO a good thing so let the state promote stability, but let it do so through Civil Unions and not interfere with the church.

I stated quite plainly that the government should treat all couples equally. It is not up to the government to decide whether or not my marriage is valid. The state has no business being involved in the Rite of Marriage, which is the domain of the church and was long before we became a nation.

Civil Unions would not affect the status between couples and the state at all. The state would grant the same rights it always has given to married couples to couples in civil unions. The only difference would be that the state would not be involved in the Rite of Marriage which IS a Rite of the Church.

Immie

You don't care that society demands the state recognize married couples?

Your belief in your crazy religious tenets over the USA Constitution is frightening. You are a prime example of why the state should stop subsidizing Churches with welfare and tax breaks.

Society has a say over any god damned church.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Being that the majority of the country disapproves of ObamaCare I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. You assume that people would move to states with government funded health care, but again, in order to do that the cost of living would rise and the quality of the care probably wouldn't be that good, as evidenced in countries that have universal health care.

Hawaii and Tennessee had universal care for a time and we had RomneyCare back in MA. Nobody was flocking to those states for the health care. HI and TN ended up disabling theirs because it was too expensive and the cost of health insurance in MA has skyrocketed.

Verdict on Healthcare Reform Bill Still Divided

49% approve
46% disapprove

Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports

60% favor repeal, 36% oppose

America is deeply divided on the issue so the point is that Dante has no point, which is nothing new.

another dope using a poll to back opinion as if it were a static thing?

 

[Immanuel]

Idiot. Married people demand state involvement for tax purposes and more. Marriage is NOT the domain of the churches. If people want civil marriages it is their -- god given right.

but maybe the state should stop subsidizing married couples and the god damned churches?

Where the hell did I say anything at all about what people demand.

I don't give a shit what people demand, so why don't you stop being such an idiot? We do not have the right to demand that the state do anything for us. If the state chooses to promote stable families (for any reason) that is the right of the state. Promoting stable families is IMHO a good thing so let the state promote stability, but let it do so through Civil Unions and not interfere with the church.

I stated quite plainly that the government should treat all couples equally. It is not up to the government to decide whether or not my marriage is valid. The state has no business being involved in the Rite of Marriage, which is the domain of the church and was long before we became a nation.

Civil Unions would not affect the status between couples and the state at all. The state would grant the same rights it always has given to married couples to couples in civil unions. The only difference would be that the state would not be involved in the Rite of Marriage which IS a Rite of the Church.

Immie

You don't care that society demands the state recognize married couples?

Your belief in your crazy religious tenets over the USA Constitution is frightening. You are a prime example of why the state should stop subsidizing Churches with welfare and tax breaks.

Society has a say over any god damned church.

Blah, blah, blah.

Are you going to participate in the conversation or pontificate?

I believe in Civil Unions for all. It maintains the separation of church and state and is fair to homosexual couples which I believe is the issue here.

I believe any homosexual couple should be allowed to be married in a church if they so desire, however, I do not believe that any church should be forced to marry gay couples if it goes against their beliefs, plain and simple.

Now, get over yourself.

Immie

 

[bodecea]

A clear case of a gay taking care of gays.

Are you saying that the only people who support equality for gay Americans are fellow gays?

Maybe he's lover influenced this action.

Are you saying that the only people who support equality for gay Americans are fellow gays?

 

[bodecea]

I have already stated my opinion on this, many times in fact.

First of all, the only reason I have to consider you married is that you claim to have been married by a church. I can only take your word for that and if you were married by a church, then yes, I consider you married. Whether or not God approves of that marriage is unknown to me.

Second, the state has no business being involved in marriage, not yours and not mine.

The state should license Civil Unions for all couples gay and straight and let the church deal with the Rite of Marriage. You stated in a post above that you were married by the church in, I think you said 1999, it is not up to me to say whether or not you are married and personally, I don't care one way or another.

IMHO, the only thing that matters, besides your happiness is your relationship with God. I believe you are committing a sin. How that affects your relationship with God, I cannot say. I cannot and will not claim to have defeated sin in my life and do not expect that you can either. I believe that our sins will, or maybe I should say have been, dealt with and our faith is the issue at hand.

Immie

1990...and MCC (Metropolitan Church of Christ)....but I can see that you now really mean...Churches with beliefs that jive with YOU. I'm not surprised.

No, you are completely wrong... I'm not surprised.

Please explain why you are trying to change my words.

I stated that the State has no business being involved in marriage, not mine and not yours. Why is that a problem for you?

Immie

And then you throw in the "I believe you are committing a sin" crack....Why is my marriage a proble for you?

 

[bodecea]

Where the hell did I say anything at all about what people demand.

I don't give a shit what people demand, so why don't you stop being such an idiot? We do not have the right to demand that the state do anything for us. If the state chooses to promote stable families (for any reason) that is the right of the state. Promoting stable families is IMHO a good thing so let the state promote stability, but let it do so through Civil Unions and not interfere with the church.

I stated quite plainly that the government should treat all couples equally. It is not up to the government to decide whether or not my marriage is valid. The state has no business being involved in the Rite of Marriage, which is the domain of the church and was long before we became a nation.

Civil Unions would not affect the status between couples and the state at all. The state would grant the same rights it always has given to married couples to couples in civil unions. The only difference would be that the state would not be involved in the Rite of Marriage which IS a Rite of the Church.

Immie

You don't care that society demands the state recognize married couples?

Your belief in your crazy religious tenets over the USA Constitution is frightening. You are a prime example of why the state should stop subsidizing Churches with welfare and tax breaks.

Society has a say over any god damned church.

Blah, blah, blah.

Are you going to participate in the conversation or pontificate?

I believe in Civil Unions for all. It maintains the separation of church and state and is fair to homosexual couples which I believe is the issue here.

I believe any homosexual couple should be allowed to be married in a church if they so desire, however, I do not believe that any church should be forced to marry gay couples if it goes against their beliefs, plain and simple.

Now, get over yourself.

Immie

Absolutely...we don't want churches forced to marry gays like they are forced to marry interfaith couples or interracial couples.....no, wait.....

 

[Immanuel]

1990...and MCC (Metropolitan Church of Christ)....but I can see that you now really mean...Churches with beliefs that jive with YOU. I'm not surprised.

No, you are completely wrong... I'm not surprised.

Please explain why you are trying to change my words.

I stated that the State has no business being involved in marriage, not mine and not yours. Why is that a problem for you?

Immie

And then you throw in the "I believe you are committing a sin" crack....Why is my marriage a proble for you?

It is not. Did you stop reading at that "crack"? I said that I commit sins as well. My point was that I cannot judge your sins without judging my own and that I believe that your sin is no worse than any of the sins I commit.

Here is what I said, please read it all:

IMHO, the only thing that matters, besides your happiness is your relationship with God. I believe you are committing a sin. How that affects your relationship with God, I cannot say. I cannot and will not claim to have defeated sin in my life and do not expect that you can either. I believe that our sins will, or maybe I should say have been, dealt with and our faith is the issue at hand.

What I was saying is that we are both sinners. My sin is no better nor worse than your own. Your faith is what is important in this discussion not your sins.

Immie

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Where the hell did I say anything at all about what people demand.

I don't give a shit what people demand, so why don't you stop being such an idiot? We do not have the right to demand that the state do anything for us. If the state chooses to promote stable families (for any reason) that is the right of the state. Promoting stable families is IMHO a good thing so let the state promote stability, but let it do so through Civil Unions and not interfere with the church.

I stated quite plainly that the government should treat all couples equally. It is not up to the government to decide whether or not my marriage is valid. The state has no business being involved in the Rite of Marriage, which is the domain of the church and was long before we became a nation.

Civil Unions would not affect the status between couples and the state at all. The state would grant the same rights it always has given to married couples to couples in civil unions. The only difference would be that the state would not be involved in the Rite of Marriage which IS a Rite of the Church.

Immie

You don't care that society demands the state recognize married couples?

Your belief in your crazy religious tenets over the USA Constitution is frightening. You are a prime example of why the state should stop subsidizing Churches with welfare and tax breaks.

Society has a say over any god damned church.

Blah, blah, blah.

Are you going to participate in the conversation or pontificate?

I believe in Civil Unions for all. It maintains the separation of church and state and is fair to homosexual couples which I believe is the issue here.

I believe any homosexual couple should be allowed to be married in a church if they so desire, however, I do not believe that any church should be forced to marry gay couples if it goes against their beliefs, plain and simple.

Now, get over yourself.

Immie

You believe in civil unions for all the wrong reasons. I say the churches should stand on their own. Tax religion. It, Religion, is nothing but another vice for emotional cripples, pederasts, drunkards, thieves, and other misfits.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No, you are completely wrong... I'm not surprised.

Please explain why you are trying to change my words.

I stated that the State has no business being involved in marriage, not mine and not yours. Why is that a problem for you?

Immie

And then you throw in the "I believe you are committing a sin" crack....Why is my marriage a proble for you?

It is not. Did you stop reading at that "crack"? I said that I commit sins as well. My point was that I cannot judge your sins without judging my own and that I believe that your sin is no worse than any of the sins I commit.

Immie

You commit sins too? Yeah, when you post your hateful rants about gay people and others you dislike. Your religious tenets are the toilet of belief systems.

 

[Immanuel]

You don't care that society demands the state recognize married couples?

Your belief in your crazy religious tenets over the USA Constitution is frightening. You are a prime example of why the state should stop subsidizing Churches with welfare and tax breaks.

Society has a say over any god damned church.

Blah, blah, blah.

Are you going to participate in the conversation or pontificate?

I believe in Civil Unions for all. It maintains the separation of church and state and is fair to homosexual couples which I believe is the issue here.

I believe any homosexual couple should be allowed to be married in a church if they so desire, however, I do not believe that any church should be forced to marry gay couples if it goes against their beliefs, plain and simple.

Now, get over yourself.

Immie

You believe in civil unions for all the wrong reasons. I say the churches should stand on their own. Tax religion. It, Religion, is nothing but another vice for emotional cripples, pederasts, drunkards, thieves, and other misfits.

You are welcomed to your opinion, but you know what they say about opinions.

In this case, yours is about as important to me as... well, horse shit is more important than your opinion because it can be used as fertilizer.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

And then you throw in the "I believe you are committing a sin" crack....Why is my marriage a proble for you?

It is not. Did you stop reading at that "crack"? I said that I commit sins as well. My point was that I cannot judge your sins without judging my own and that I believe that your sin is no worse than any of the sins I commit.

Immie

You commit sins too? Yeah, when you post your hateful rants about gay people and others you dislike. Your religious tenets are the toilet of belief systems.

Hateful rants? Have you been reading my posts to TM or something?

I have not posted any hateful rants about gay people... at least not in a long time.

Immie