Heller Struck Down

[AtlasShrieked]

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives[2], and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So DOMA says States can recognize gay marriages performed in their own states or in other states.

At some point DOMA will be legally challenged on the grounds that it violates a civil right and at some point it will be found unconstitutional.

Why?

it's obvious.

 

[Shogun]

You aren't helping me understand anything. Once again, the constitution does not grant rights. It limits what laws can be passed to deny rights.

Indeed, and it clearly allows states to determine their own marriage requirements. I realize this issue is deeper than the employment status of your illegal labor but...

 

[Shogun]

any fool can cut & paste an amendment.
but ask them to explain what they mean and ...
...the 9th makes distinctions between the US/Federal government and the governments of the States and even between the people and the State and Federal governments.
very interesting. very interesting indeed
so a civil right not enumerated is a right reserved to the Sates or 'the people'?

feel free to start talking shit, yo. I enjoy a bit of that too.


I've posted my evidence. where is yours?

 

[Ravi]

Shall I remind you of the specific right ofthe FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION clarified by the first amendment? who are you do deem jacking off in a public pool as socially corrupt or a health issue? are you a doctor?


Hey Ravi, maybe you should spend less time crying over spilled milk and just SAYING im wrong and start posting your evidence...


you know.. Like..


On May 15, 2008 the California DOMA was found unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court as a violation of equal protection; the decision came into effect on June 16, 2008.[3][4] A proposed constitutional amendment overriding the Court's decision has been placed on the 2008 California general election ballot

Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep, spitting on me would also be violating my civil rights. Just like you in the pool. You aren't really this stupid, are you Shog?

I see you still haven't figured out that legislation and a constitutional amendment are not the same thing.

 

[Ravi]

Indeed, and it clearly allows states to determine their own marriage requirements. I realize this issue is deeper than the employment status of your illegal labor but...

Problem is that they can't in the end because it violates civil rights. A state cannot deny anyone a civil right. I know this is hard for you to grasp.

 

[Shogun]

So DOMA says States can recognize gay marriages performed in their own states or in other states.
At some point DOMA will be legally challenged on the grounds that it violates a civil right and at some point it will be found unconstitutional.
Why?
it's obvious.

make sure you hold that same attitude come the fall when California voters clarify who will qualify for marriage in their state.

I don't care if you don't agree with DOMA or how our federal Constitution delegates authority to the states. I don't really care if you confuse the racial element of civil rights and the equal protection of the 14th amendment either. Sure, it will be challenged. But, without a Constitutional Amendment like the 14th, you are going to be chewing on sour grapes when scotus upholds the DOMA.


obvious, eh? Obvious like obscenity is obvious?


again, feel free to start talking shit too, yo. Clearly, evidence isn't working out for you so far..

 

[Steerpike]

I think they this one correct as well but isn't this basically what was done in the California gay marriage ruling? The courts ruled that legislation was unconstitutional...where are the cries of activist judges?

I don't think it qualifies as judicial activism to correctly interpret an individual Constitutional right and rule that the people actually HAVE the right. It's not more judicial activism than a case ruling in favor of freedom of the press would be.

 

[Shogun]

Yep, spitting on me would also be violating my civil rights. Just like you in the pool. You aren't really this stupid, are you Shog?

I see you still haven't figured out that legislation and a constitutional amendment are not the same thing.

Im making arbitrary arguments that reflect your assumption of marriage rights.


You DO realize that an amendment IS the product of legislation, right?


Freedom of expression versus the assumption of threat isn't new, Ravi. I've told you before, go read up on Ferlinghetti and the other obscenity examples if you think i'm lying to you.


ps, spitting on your would be an assult.. you can always look the other way from someone jacking off in the pool.

 

[Shogun]

Problem is that they can't in the end because it violates civil rights. A state cannot deny anyone a civil right. I know this is hard for you to grasp.

MARRIAGE IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHT. Hell, read Loving for yourself. The statements are PEPPERED with racial references and mentions the 14th and racism specifically.


Indeed, tell me about grasping how our governemnt works one more time wile having absolutely ZERO evidence to offer.

 

[Ravi]

Im making arbitrary arguments that reflect your assumption of marriage rights.


You DO realize that an amendment IS the product of legislation, right?


Freedom of expression versus the assumption of threat isn't new, Ravi. I've told you before, go read up on Ferlinghetti and the other obscenity examples if you think i'm lying to you.


ps, spitting on your would be an assult.. you can always look the other way from someone jacking off in the pool.

Asshole. It floats.

Amending the constitution is a different process than either enacting legislation or voting on an issue. Read up on it.

 

[jillian]

MARRIAGE IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHT.

Yes, it is.

 

[Shogun]

Yes, it is.

do you wanna provide your source so I can get busy showing you how loving doesn't apply to gay marriage?

 

[jillian]

do you wanna provide your source so I can get busy showing you how loving doesn't apply to gay marriage?

have fun. then I can point out to you that anyone who thinks smoking is a fundamental right, but marriage isn't, lives in a fantasy world.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

 

[Shogun]

Asshole. It floats.

Amending the constitution is a different process than either enacting legislation or voting on an issue. Read up on it.

You assume some sexual perversion instead of the artistic performance art by jumping strait to ejaculation. INdeed, you seem to project your own sexual fetish against the rights of AN ARTIST.


Amending the constituion is STILL a legislative process. Voting on fucking seasonal recess is ALSO a different process but it's still strait from the legislative branch of the gov.


indeed, seems like YOU need to read up on it.


im still waiting for your evidence too, yo. Maybe if you and Jillian need to teem up... Im sure she's got something up her sleave that nullfied the DOMA..

 

[Shogun]

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 4-12.


first line in your source. YOU LOSE.

 

[jillian]

Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 4-12.


first line in your source. YOU LOSE.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... b/c you have no understanding that the Supreme Court is required to only rule on cases and controversies before it.

But marriage is still a fundamental right.

 

[Shogun]

have fun. then I can point out to you that anyone who thinks smoking is a fundamental right, but marriage isn't, lives in a fantasy world.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Property rights are an explicit aspect of the Constitution. Where can you say the same for marriage without hoping that someone wont read the very first line of your source that clarifies the RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (see 14th amendment) aspect of Loving?

 

[Shogun]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... b/c you have no understanding that the Supreme Court is required to only rule on cases and controversies before it.

But marriage is still a fundamental right.

Hey, i'll invite you to talk shit too if thats all you got left.


Marriage is no more a fundemental right than driving is. AND, when pressed for evidence I've quoted the very first line that conveys different than you'd suggest.



scandelous, Jillian. Scheisty shit like that is why there are lawyer at the bottom of the ocean jokes.

 

[Steerpike]

Problem is that they can't in the end because it violates civil rights. A state cannot deny anyone a civil right. I know this is hard for you to grasp.

Not entirely true. But if something is deemed to be a fundamental right then the State has a high burden of proof to meet if they're going to limit the right.

 

[AtlasShrieked]

So DOMA says States can recognize gay marriages performed in their own states or in other states.

At some point DOMA will be legally challenged on the grounds that it violates a civil right and at some point it will be found unconstitutional.

Why?

it's obvious.

make sure you hold that same attitude come the fall when California voters clarify who will qualify for marriage in their state.

I don't care if you don't agree with DOMA or how our federal Constitution delegates authority to the states. I don't really care if you confuse the racial element of civil rights and the equal protection of the 14th amendment either. Sure, it will be challenged. But, without a Constitutional Amendment like the 14th, you are going to be chewing on sour grapes when scotus upholds the DOMA.


obvious, eh? Obvious like obscenity is obvious?


again, feel free to start talking shit too, yo. Clearly, evidence isn't working out for you so far..

I don't care what the voters in California do. The racial elements of civil rights? I have no grapes.

But without a US Constitutional amendment banning gay marriages and a settling of that conflict with other amendments if it comes to that, teh state laws will eventually be declared unconstitutional.

btw, there are no racial elements to rights...only the bigots say that there are and I think you misspoke.

The Constitution grants us rights:

Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights

Amendment Text | Annotations
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
__________________

oops!!!! the Constitution does not grant rights...it enumerates them

sorry for the confusion

Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


which... AGAIN, brings me back to the farce that is the application of the interstate commerce clause.

ahhhhhh, a great point of interest.

it makes distinctions between the US/Federal government and the governments of the States and even between the people and the State and Federal governments.


very interesting. very interesting indeed

so a civil right not enumerated is a right reserved to the Sates or 'the people'?


.

Shogun, is a civil right not enumerated a right reserved to the Sates or 'the people'?