Another Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down DOMA

[bripat9643]

DOMA was always unconstitutional

Amazing it took this long

Your claim is accompanied by the usual evidence: none.

No, his claim is accompanied by DOMA losing in Federal Court...TWICE. (found unconstitutional no less)

That's only evidence of the fact that liberal judges don't like DOMA.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Your claim is accompanied by the usual evidence: none.

No, his claim is accompanied by DOMA losing in Federal Court...TWICE. (found unconstitutional no less)

That's only evidence of the fact that liberal judges don't like DOMA.

And now we have above an example of typical conservative hypocrisy, where DOMA represents Federal legislation dictating to the states how to manage their marriage law, a violation of ‘states’ rights.’

As the DOMA court noted:

Because DOMA is an unprecedented breach of longstanding deference to federalism that singles out same-sex marriage as the only inconsistency (among many) in state law that requires a federal rule to achieve uniformity, the rationale premised on uniformity is not an exceedingly persuasive justification for DOMA.

You and other rightists can’t have it both ways, if you support DOMA you must also support similar Federal legislation regulating other activities of the states.

 

[rightwinger]

DOMA was always unconstitutional

Amazing it took this long

Your claim is accompanied by the usual evidence: none.

DOMA is toast

Obama won't enforce this turkey, the courts won't hold it up

 

[rightwinger]

Your claim is accompanied by the usual evidence: none.

No, his claim is accompanied by DOMA losing in Federal Court...TWICE. (found unconstitutional no less)

That's only evidence of the fact that liberal judges don't like DOMA.

It was Conservative assholes who passed this turkey in the first place

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, his claim is accompanied by DOMA losing in Federal Court...TWICE. (found unconstitutional no less)

That's only evidence of the fact that liberal judges don't like DOMA.

It was Conservative assholes who passed this turkey in the first place

‘Defense of marriage,’ a truly idiotic and partisan notion.

 

[bripat9643]

No, his claim is accompanied by DOMA losing in Federal Court...TWICE. (found unconstitutional no less)

That's only evidence of the fact that liberal judges don't like DOMA.

It was Conservative assholes who passed this turkey in the first place

So? Even if that were true, how would it prove my statement was incorrect?

 

[bripat9643]

That's only evidence of the fact that liberal judges don't like DOMA.

It was Conservative assholes who passed this turkey in the first place

‘Defense of marriage,’ a truly idiotic and partisan notion.

Everything you post is idiotic and partisan.

 

[PaulS1950]

The "Defense of Marriage Act" does two things that are unconstitutional:
1. The federal government judged without constitutional authority that only opposing genders could marry.
2. As a product of that judgement that same gender couples did not have equal rights under the law.

My biggest problem with DOMA is that if the government gets to choose who we marry are they also going to decide who can have children? What other powers will the feds assume related to this? Maybe they can save SS by deciding who gets treatment and for what illnesses. Then they can decide if a child born with a devistating illness or sub-par mental faculties should live.
These decisions should be completely out of the scope of governmental power. People have always decided for themselves who they want to spend their lives with. Even before marriage existed partnerships formed or were arranged by parents but never by governments. Once a person reached the "age of consent" they were allowed to choose who they loved. Before the written languages they chose who they would marry and for how long.
The only interest that government has is where the taxes come from and who receives them when one of the partners die.
No one is mandating that religious practitioners must perform marriages that are beyond the scope of their belief system, though it would surprise most to know that a few religions actually have used ceremonies for same gender marriages, no one requires that they perform them. There are enough ministers that will perform the ceremony for same gender couples when those people want to make a lifetime commitment to each other.
All the same gender couples want are the same rights as other spouses have under current laws.
They threaten no one. They just want the same loving relationship with the same rights that spouses accross the USA are supposed to have.

 

[g5000]

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.

Lol, hate? I don't have to hater you, or any other homosexual for that matter, to hate the system that allows your perversions to be considered normal, natural and decent and to be taught to our kids as such. As for my opinions being antiquated, you'd have a hard time proving that by the fact that EVERY time the matter of gay "marriage" has ever been put to a popular vote, it's been rejected by decent thinking citizens. Now back to hate being a moral value, here's a clue Godless one, when you hate filth, corruption, immorality, sin in general, that IS a moral value, you just lack the moral to recognize it as such. It's those like you, that accept any kind of filth and perversion as the norm that have no moral values.

You gave yourself away as a bigoted hater the last time we met in a topic about gays.

No one argues homosexuality is normal. I explained that to you before, but your hatred has made your ignorance impenetrable.

The point is that homosexuality is not wrong. Fools like you need a dictionary. You believe "abnormal" is synonymous with "wrong".


.

 

[g5000]

Every time it has been put to a vote, the public has voted against making gay marriage legal.

Bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination always have been popular, no argument there.

Is that how Obama got elected?

So your argument is that if a person voted for Obama, they can't be a bigot toward gays?

Seriously?

Wow. I guess it is true that black people can't be prejudiced, eh? That's what you are saying, among other things.


.

 

[g5000]

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

I agree, you are in denial. Denying that ours is a family, deserving of the same legal marriage rights as heterosexuals, is being in deep denial.

There's no such thing as a homosexual family. Either you or your partner has no biological relationship to 'your' child. You are no more a family than if I started shacking up with a girlfriend who had a child out of wedlock.

Interesting. You've just said all those marriages where a man is married to a woman with a child by another man are not real families.


.

 

[Inthemiddle]

It's not my definition, it's THE definition

No.

 

[Freewill]

Aka government sticks its nose where it doesn't belong AGAIN....government has no business in marriage...its a contract between people that's all...no need for government to enforce people's beliefs in what marriage is based on some book of fiction.

YES, marry your first cousin or sister no problem at all.

 

[Freewill]

The "Defense of Marriage Act" does two things that are unconstitutional:
1. The federal government judged without constitutional authority that only opposing genders could marry.
2. As a product of that judgement that same gender couples did not have equal rights under the law.

My biggest problem with DOMA is that if the government gets to choose who we marry are they also going to decide who can have children? What other powers will the feds assume related to this? Maybe they can save SS by deciding who gets treatment and for what illnesses. Then they can decide if a child born with a devistating illness or sub-par mental faculties should live.
These decisions should be completely out of the scope of governmental power. People have always decided for themselves who they want to spend their lives with. Even before marriage existed partnerships formed or were arranged by parents but never by governments. Once a person reached the "age of consent" they were allowed to choose who they loved. Before the written languages they chose who they would marry and for how long.
The only interest that government has is where the taxes come from and who receives them when one of the partners die.
No one is mandating that religious practitioners must perform marriages that are beyond the scope of their belief system, though it would surprise most to know that a few religions actually have used ceremonies for same gender marriages, no one requires that they perform them. There are enough ministers that will perform the ceremony for same gender couples when those people want to make a lifetime commitment to each other.
All the same gender couples want are the same rights as other spouses have under current laws.
They threaten no one. They just want the same loving relationship with the same rights that spouses accross the USA are supposed to have.

The government already decides who can't marry it is nothing new. The equal protection part should come in only if two people of the opposite sex were denied marriage. But that is the case and has been for as long as there has been a marriage LICENCE. Rights are not LICENCED.

 

[Seawytch]

The "Defense of Marriage Act" does two things that are unconstitutional:
1. The federal government judged without constitutional authority that only opposing genders could marry.
2. As a product of that judgement that same gender couples did not have equal rights under the law.

My biggest problem with DOMA is that if the government gets to choose who we marry are they also going to decide who can have children? What other powers will the feds assume related to this? Maybe they can save SS by deciding who gets treatment and for what illnesses. Then they can decide if a child born with a devistating illness or sub-par mental faculties should live.
These decisions should be completely out of the scope of governmental power. People have always decided for themselves who they want to spend their lives with. Even before marriage existed partnerships formed or were arranged by parents but never by governments. Once a person reached the "age of consent" they were allowed to choose who they loved. Before the written languages they chose who they would marry and for how long.
The only interest that government has is where the taxes come from and who receives them when one of the partners die.
No one is mandating that religious practitioners must perform marriages that are beyond the scope of their belief system, though it would surprise most to know that a few religions actually have used ceremonies for same gender marriages, no one requires that they perform them. There are enough ministers that will perform the ceremony for same gender couples when those people want to make a lifetime commitment to each other.
All the same gender couples want are the same rights as other spouses have under current laws.
They threaten no one. They just want the same loving relationship with the same rights that spouses accross the USA are supposed to have.

The government already decides who can't marry it is nothing new. The equal protection part should come in only if two people of the opposite sex were denied marriage. But that is the case and has been for as long as there has been a marriage LICENCE. Rights are not LICENCED.

And yet gun ownership is licensed is it not? The SCOTUS has declared civil marriage a fundamental right on no less than three occasions.

 

[OODA_Loop]

And yet gun ownership is licensed is it not?

Not in my state.

 

[rightwinger]

That's only evidence of the fact that liberal judges don't like DOMA.

It was Conservative assholes who passed this turkey in the first place

So? Even if that were true, how would it prove my statement was incorrect?

You can't ignore politics in this country. Jackassed conservatives force through legislation that panders to the social conservatives of their base......liberal judges tell them to go to hell

 

[Seawytch]

It was Conservative assholes who passed this turkey in the first place

So? Even if that were true, how would it prove my statement was incorrect?

You can't ignore politics in this country. Jackassed conservatives force through legislation that panders to the social conservatives of their base......liberal judges tell them to go to hell

Except Judge Jacobs could hardly be called a liberal. The guy was originally appointed to the 2nd Circuit by Daddy Bush. Of course, by today's nutty standards GW was a liberal.

 

[bripat9643]

I agree, you are in denial. Denying that ours is a family, deserving of the same legal marriage rights as heterosexuals, is being in deep denial.

There's no such thing as a homosexual family. Either you or your partner has no biological relationship to 'your' child. You are no more a family than if I started shacking up with a girlfriend who had a child out of wedlock.

Interesting. You've just said all those marriages where a man is married to a woman with a child by another man are not real families.


.

Do homosexuals have a family tree? Nope, not one that extends past them. Why should anyone dispute the definition of "family" as genealogists define it?

Marriage exists because of the facts of biology, and the oxymoron called "homosexual marriage" will never get around those.

 

[bripat9643]

The "Defense of Marriage Act" does two things that are unconstitutional:
1. The federal government judged without constitutional authority that only opposing genders could marry.
2. As a product of that judgement that same gender couples did not have equal rights under the law.

My biggest problem with DOMA is that if the government gets to choose who we marry are they also going to decide who can have children? What other powers will the feds assume related to this? Maybe they can save SS by deciding who gets treatment and for what illnesses. Then they can decide if a child born with a devistating illness or sub-par mental faculties should live.
These decisions should be completely out of the scope of governmental power. People have always decided for themselves who they want to spend their lives with. Even before marriage existed partnerships formed or were arranged by parents but never by governments. Once a person reached the "age of consent" they were allowed to choose who they loved. Before the written languages they chose who they would marry and for how long.
The only interest that government has is where the taxes come from and who receives them when one of the partners die.
No one is mandating that religious practitioners must perform marriages that are beyond the scope of their belief system, though it would surprise most to know that a few religions actually have used ceremonies for same gender marriages, no one requires that they perform them. There are enough ministers that will perform the ceremony for same gender couples when those people want to make a lifetime commitment to each other.
All the same gender couples want are the same rights as other spouses have under current laws.
They threaten no one. They just want the same loving relationship with the same rights that spouses accross the USA are supposed to have.

The government already decides who can't marry it is nothing new. The equal protection part should come in only if two people of the opposite sex were denied marriage. But that is the case and has been for as long as there has been a marriage LICENCE. Rights are not LICENCED.

And yet gun ownership is licensed is it not? The SCOTUS has declared civil marriage a fundamental right on no less than three occasions.

Really? Name them.