Another Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down DOMA

[bigrebnc1775]

I have claimed only that Qball and his friends will not be able to deflect the universality of gay marriage.

And I won't be your superhero. You will have to marry bigrenbc, the satanist.

You are defining marriage for only the way you see it, Qball, but the legal sanctioning of that view is falling by the wayside. You are unable and will continue to be unable to stop it from redefining as universal marriage.

But . . . I make you this promise. That if anyone tries to make you marry someone of your own sex, I your superhero will fly to your rescue and defeat the evildoers.

Claiming victory in the debate isn't a valid argument, dipshit.

jakes getting his ass handed to him and satan will take the rest in hell.

 

[bripat9643]

Simply expand the size of the pie. Silly bripat. Your argument is as stupid as those of the race haters.

In other words, take more out of my hide?

Go **** yourself.

I'll be fighting that proposition until the day I die.

That's right...you are the kind of person who believes that somehow you lose out if others gain their rights. It's almost as if you learned that as a child....familial love, to you, was divided, not multiplied.


How sad to get that lesson as a child.

When others get cash out of the government till, I do lose. Every taxpayer loses.

Only an economic ignoramus fails to understand that.

On the other hand, morons like you think that if the government rapes the wealthy less than in the past, that constitutes an "income transfer" from the poor to the rich.

Libturds just can't keep their economic theories straight.

 

[rightwinger]

Of course there is a detrimental impact from allowing gays to marry> For one thing, that would divert precious resources from genuine families that are propagating the species to faux freak families that propagate nothing but dysfunction.

How do married gays pull resources from other couples?

If gay couples are getting tangible government benefits from the government, they are obviously reducing the share available for other purposes.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that if money goes to Richard Roe, then there is less money available to go to Jane Doe.

You want gays to pay in and not be eligible to receive benefits

What a moocher you are fingerboy

 

[Seawytch]

Actually, several states, DC, and the US military disagree with you.

It's changing, and that is OK.

This...isn't really a response to what I said, but okay. I mean, it's a little silly to say it's just the way I see it when my bottom line is marriage is and should remain the unique union of a man and a woman, which is what most people who have weighed in the issue have concluded as well.

the U.S. military says it's ok to **** animals.

No it doesn't.

 

[g5000]

We should not allow blacks to marry whites. They are obviously reducing the share of government resources available for other purposes.

How...refreshing to hear right wing bigots argue that marriage benefits cost us all valuable resources!


.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We should not allow blacks to marry whites. They are obviously reducing the share of government resources available for other purposes!

.

That would be based on race

 

[bripat9643]

How do married gays pull resources from other couples?

If gay couples are getting tangible government benefits from the government, they are obviously reducing the share available for other purposes.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that if money goes to Richard Roe, then there is less money available to go to Jane Doe.

Since they are already paying into Social Security, you are robbing them of the Social Security benefits everyone else receives, dipshit.

.

If they are paying into Social Security, they are already entitled to benefits, moron. The only way making gay marriage legal would change anything is if one of them wasn't paying into Social Security. He would still be entitled to survivor benefits. Why should an adult male who never paid a dime into the program be entitled to any benefits?

 

[bripat9643]

How do married gays pull resources from other couples?

If gay couples are getting tangible government benefits from the government, they are obviously reducing the share available for other purposes.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that if money goes to Richard Roe, then there is less money available to go to Jane Doe.

You want gays to pay in and not be eligible to receive benefits

What a moocher you are fingerboy

Anyone who pays in is already entitled to benefits, moron. Gays want to get benefits even though they haven't paid in.

 

[g5000]

Reproduction is not the only reason marriage is encouraged. If it was, then you would have to produce children before you could collect cash and prizes from the government.

Marriage brings many societal benefits. Married people are more stable, more reliable, more productive, and less prone to spreading sexually transmitted diseases.

This is why you don't have to have kids to file a federal married tax return.

If you DO have children, you get MORE cash and prizes. And you don't have to be MARRIED to collect cash and prizes for having children.

So the child argument collapses completely.

.

 

[rightwinger]

If gay couples are getting tangible government benefits from the government, they are obviously reducing the share available for other purposes.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that if money goes to Richard Roe, then there is less money available to go to Jane Doe.

Since they are already paying into Social Security, you are robbing them of the Social Security benefits everyone else receives, dipshit.

.

If they are paying into Social Security, they are already entitled to benefits, moron. The only way making gay marriage legal would change anything is if one of them wasn't paying into Social Security. He would still be entitled to survivor benefits. Why should an adult male who never paid a dime into the program be entitled to any benefits?

Because an adult female who is married is entitled to those benefits

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Reproduction is not the only reason marriage is encouraged. If it was, then you would have to produce children before you could collect cash and prizes from the government.

Marriage brings many societal benefits. Married people are more stable, more reliable, more productive, and less prone to spreading sexually transmitted diseases.

This is why you don't have to have kids to file a federal married tax return.

If you DO have children, you get MORE cash and prizes. And you don't have to be MARRIED to collect cash and prizes for having children.

.

Have you ever wondered why it's easier to get into a marriage than get out of one with children?
Because marriage was created to give stability to the children that were born in it.

 

[rightwinger]

If gay couples are getting tangible government benefits from the government, they are obviously reducing the share available for other purposes.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that if money goes to Richard Roe, then there is less money available to go to Jane Doe.

You want gays to pay in and not be eligible to receive benefits

What a moocher you are fingerboy

Anyone who pays in is already entitled to benefits, moron. Gays want to get benefits even though they haven't paid in.

Gays have paid in their whole lives and are not entitled to the same benefits afforded married heterosexuals

A clear violation of the 14th amendment

 

[bodecea]

Thank you for threatening me with your Lord Satan no less, and the admittance that he is your buddy.

I'm going to have Satan pay you a visit and end your troll ass.

So take it too court., Are you scared now troll? You said I'm a satanist your days are numbered if this is true.

Interesting comment. Almost like a threat.

 

[bodecea]

Reproduction is not the only reason marriage is encouraged. If it was, then you would have to produce children before you could collect cash and prizes from the government.

Marriage brings many societal benefits. Married people are more stable, more reliable, more productive, and less prone to spreading sexually transmitted diseases.

This is why you don't have to have kids to file a federal married tax return.

If you DO have children, you get MORE cash and prizes. And you don't have to be MARRIED to collect cash and prizes for having children.

.

Have you ever wondered why it's easier to get into a marriage than get out of one with children?
Because marriage was created to give stability to the children that were born in it.

So...legal, civil marriage is about the children.

 

[g5000]

I'm still laughing my ass off at the desperation which has led to a bigot actually arguing that government marriage benefits are a drain on our national resources.

What a fantastic admission!

.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

Of course there is a detrimental impact from allowing gays to marry> For one thing, that would divert precious resources from genuine families that are propagating the species to faux freak families that propagate nothing but dysfunction.

How do married gays pull resources from other couples?

If gay couples are getting tangible government benefits from the government, they are obviously reducing the share available for other purposes.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that if money goes to Richard Roe, then there is less money available to go to Jane Doe.

No, but it takes being a braindead bigot to think that way.

Simply expand the size of the pie. Silly bripat. Your argument is as stupid as those of the race haters.

In other words, take more out of my hide?

Go **** yourself.

I'll be fighting that proposition until the day I die.

That will be your finest contribution to society.

Thank you for threatening me with your Lord Satan no less, and the admittance that he is your buddy.

So take it too court., Are you scared now troll? You said I'm a satanist your days are numbered if this is true.

Interesting comment. Almost like a threat.

We should all fear the angry bigot on the other side of the interwebs.

 

[g5000]

If gay couples are getting tangible government benefits from the government, they are obviously reducing the share available for other purposes.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that if money goes to Richard Roe, then there is less money available to go to Jane Doe.

Thank you.

If the government wrote a law which resulted in handing out candy to everyone except white people, it would be illogical to argue that we should not give candy to white people too because it would cost more money.

bigreb, you have actually just proven the 14th Amendment is being violated, and you didn't even know it.

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Thank you for threatening me with your Lord Satan no less, and the admittance that he is your buddy.

So take it too court., Are you scared now troll? You said I'm a satanist your days are numbered if this is true.

Interesting comment. Almost like a threat.

If I were a satanist as the ****** said I was if I were you I would butt the **** out got that Butch?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Reproduction is not the only reason marriage is encouraged. If it was, then you would have to produce children before you could collect cash and prizes from the government.

Marriage brings many societal benefits. Married people are more stable, more reliable, more productive, and less prone to spreading sexually transmitted diseases.

This is why you don't have to have kids to file a federal married tax return.

If you DO have children, you get MORE cash and prizes. And you don't have to be MARRIED to collect cash and prizes for having children.

.

Have you ever wondered why it's easier to get into a marriage than get out of one with children?
Because marriage was created to give stability to the children that were born in it.

So...legal, civil marriage is about the children.

Yes it was at first

 

[Qball]

That some perceive a difference predicated on procreation isn’t Constitutionally valid, however; just as many once perceived separate but equal as appropriate. The primary benefit of the rule of law and judicial review is that those wishing to restrict the fundamental rights of others are compelled to provide objective, documented evidence in support of such restrictions; those seeking to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying have failed to do so.

The constitution doesn't directly say anything about marriage. The constitution has been determined to protect people's fundamental right to marry, but that has been done under the general assumption that "marriage" means the union of a man and a woman. It's not a restriction of anybody's right to marry because we define marriage in a way that doesn't appease some people. Even if we defined marriage as the union of any two consenting adults, that's still inclusive to some and exclusive to others, but that doesn't mean anybody's literal right to marry is being taken denied.

The law doesn't have to be tailored to your specific situation for it to be equal, nor are you being denied a specific right because it doesn't pertain to your preference.

The state couldn't deny one heterosexual couple a marriage license over another simply because one has children and the other doesn't, true. But we're talking about the definition of marriage and why it exists and why it doesn't tend to include same-sex couples. It does become a matter of privacy when we're talking about a type of couple that potentially could procreate and the discretion they use to determine whether or not to parent. It's less about privacy when talking about legalizing other forms of marriage that would not procreate regardless if it was a requirement or not.

The issue isn’t ‘legalizing another form of marriage.’ Indeed, same-sex couples seek only access to the same marriage law as opposite-sex couples have access to, as guaranteed them by the 14th Amendment; they have no desire to change marriage, just as they have no desire for some ‘alternate marriage.’

They do, in fact seek to change marriage if they're attempting to define in something broader than the union of a man and a woman. The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with this -- and this is a subtly false assumption many proponents make that more people need to start pointing out -- because "couples" don't have rights. You have an individual right to marry; you do not have a collective right to be called married. If that were true, it would be unconstitutional to deny polygamists a marriage license because they have a right to marry. It's also the case that the constitution does not require the creation of a law.

Marriage law in all 50 state is ‘gender neutral,’ the doctrine of coverture abandoned well over a generation ago. There is consequently nothing in any state’s marriage law that would prevent same-sex couples from accessing that law, exactly as that law is written today, with no changes or alterations.

I would say this is plainly incorrect. I mean, the text of Proposition 8 was, "only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in the state of California". In fact, it's more often the case than not that there's something that defines marriage on gender-specific terms.

And you keep using the word "requirement"...I didn't say anyone was required to have children. I don't think anyone really has said it was a requirement of marriage that people have children. The point is, many of the benefits tied to marriage exist given the fact that men and women tend to have children. They don't exist just as a gift of sorts for being in a romantically fulfilling relationship.

What you’re describing is a variation on the marriage theme; all marriages are equal regardless their constituent parts: the married couple may be of different races, the marriage may or may not have children, and the marriage may be of a same-sex couple. The benefits tied to marriage that exist due to the fact that men and women tend to have children may be relevant from a religious or personal standpoint, which would indicate that those holding such an opinion would not engage in same-sex marriage, but it’s not a ‘requirement’ of marriage, as some here have indeed argued.

In some ways, yes, all marriages are equal. But again, the government doesn't bestow certain benefits on married individuals just because people love one another or get into a committed relationship with someone. People seem more interested in asking why can't we legalize gay marriage than explaining why we should, and being like, "there's no good reason not to" doesn't really fulfill the argument as to why we should legalize it.

We have certain benefits and privileges tied to marriage, but that isn't reason alone to bestow them on any similar type of couple just for the sake of fairness.