Another Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down DOMA

[Seawytch]

>


Come midnight of November 6th, many heads will explode as the first Same-sex Civil marriages are approved at the ballot box.


>>>>

And I personally am looking forward to it happening in my state. There are going to be a great many gay couples who are going to rush to get married, and I plan on cashing in on the wedding boom. This is going to be great for our economy.

Are you in MD, the state about to give marriage rights via (unfortunately) the ballot box? What will the talking point be then?

 

[Seawytch]

That's why the benefits were created, dingbat. We have driver's licenses because it means people who drive are safer. That doesn't imply that anyone who has a license drives.

Liberal morons pretend they don't get the point because they haven't got any arguments to counter it.

It is only one of the "original" reasons for civil marriage and one that was never required. Your procreation argument has been tried...and lost in court.

I doubt that's the case. But even if it is, all it proves is that the judges involved are morons or hosebags or both.

Or they rule on law and precedent and not on your ick factor.

 

[Valerie]

bripat is retarded on this argument, it has been defeated in court, and let's move on.

Which can be perfectly understood by this precious little piece of projection...

Liberal morons pretend they don't get the point because they haven't got any arguments to counter it.

The sad thing is that everyone he disagrees with has been presenting scores arguments, based on evidence, case law, and a respect for personal freedoms. All he has is "EWWWW!"

Yeah, that's my reaction when I see a young woman marry an old man for money, or when I see someone get married and divorced multiple times, or when I see people unfaithful to their spouse, or when I see people trapped in an abusive marriage, or when I see drive-through weddings for people who just met... Eww eww eww!


Now, when elderly couples get married to help each other with their future finances, I say aww that's so sweet! And wow, can you believe the State doesn't even care if they're going to bear children..?

 

[Cheddarmelon]

That's why the benefits were created, dingbat. We have driver's licenses because it means people who drive are safer. That doesn't imply that anyone who has a license drives.

Liberal morons pretend they don't get the point because they haven't got any arguments to counter it.

It is only one of the "original" reasons for civil marriage and one that was never required. Your procreation argument has been tried...and lost in court.

I doubt that's the case. But even if it is, all it proves is that the judges involved are morons or hosebags or both.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrpBLDWyCI&feature=fvwp&NR=1]That is why you fail - YouTube[/ame]

 

[del]

That's true.


>>>>

I also agree. What that has to do with your spouse being the opposite or same sex, is mystifying.

It's called procreation, dipshit.

How many times to libturds have to be told that?

how many times a day do you have to wash the spittle off your monitor, mouthbreather?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Are you in MD, the state about to give marriage rights via (unfortunately) the ballot box? What will the talking point be then?

Yes I am. The state legislature passed the law earlier this year, but a few asshats insisted on taking it to the ballot. But the law has strong public support. A "yes" vote for question 6 allows the law to proceed.

Most of the talking points have actually been in support of the law. There's one group that's put out an ad. It's pretty pathetic, actually, saying that marriage "is about more than what adults want for themselves."

Meanwhile Rev. Deonte Hickman of Southern Baptist Church has been supporting question 6. See the video here.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

Are you in MD, the state about to give marriage rights via (unfortunately) the ballot box? What will the talking point be then?

Yes I am. The state legislature passed the law earlier this year, but a few asshats insisted on taking it to the ballot. But the law has strong public support. A "yes" vote for question 6 allows the law to proceed.

Most of the talking points have actually been in support of the law. There's one group that's put out an ad. It's pretty pathetic, actually, saying that marriage "is about more than what adults want for themselves."

Meanwhile Rev. Deonte Hickman of Southern Baptist Church has been supporting question 6. See the video here.

It boggles the mind that a persons rights can be voted on by others. It's ridiculous.

 

[kaz]

I read that one of the people involved in this lawsuit was an 83 year old woman who had to pay over $300K in estate taxes because her spouse was a female. If her spouse had been a male she would have paid nothing.

It is mind-boggling that the Libertarians support this travesty of justice, ESPECIALLY when it includes an unfair tax burden.

What an idiotic post. We oppose the death tax. I've never met a libertarian who supports it and I would seriously doubt anyone who said they support it is a libertarian. What the fuck are you even talking about that we "support" this?

It's actually liberals who support the death tax, that was a travesty of your own making. But seriously, to blame it on us? You're just butt stupid. Either that or this is just yet another of your trolling for dollars posts.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Yeah, that's my reaction when I see a young woman marry an old man for money, or when I see someone get married and divorced multiple times, or when I see people unfaithful to their spouse, or when I see people trapped in an abusive marriage, or when I see drive-through weddings for people who just met... Eww eww eww!

As Bill Maher said: As if anything you can do drunk out of your mind in front of an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas could be considered sacred.

 

[g5000]

There should be. Marriage is about procreation and children.

Adopted children to no make a family, only biological mothers and fathers can make a family.


All the benefits currently afforded to married couples should be stopped for those that don't meet the following conditions:

1. A DNA to show parentage of existing children.
2. There must be at least one biological offspring of the mother and father in the home to qualify, adopted children don't count.
3. Within 60 days all Civilly Married couples must provide proof of fertility to remain married.
4. If within 5 years of the Civil Marriage date no biological offspring have been produced then the marriage is automatically annulled on the grounds of biologic incompatibility.​

>>>>

Is this how you begin your thought process before posting?

Isn't that the premise though of what some have been saying in this thread?

1. Marriage exists for procreation.
2. The only structure that exists that is a family is the biological father and biological mother living in the same house with a biological child.
3. Adoption does not make a family because one or both of the parents has no biological intermingling of DNA in the child.​

Are not my statements the natural outgrowth of those conditions as stated in this thread?



>>>>

The procreation red herring is one propounded by those who hate gays.

Not even DOMA requires procreation as a condition of receiving cash and prizes for being married.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.3396.ENR:

.

 

[g5000]

I read that one of the people involved in this lawsuit was an 83 year old woman who had to pay over $300K in estate taxes because her spouse was a female. If her spouse had been a male she would have paid nothing.

It is mind-boggling that the Libertarians support this travesty of justice, ESPECIALLY when it includes an unfair tax burden.

The official Libertarian position is that the State should not be involved in marraige at all. No cash and prizes for anyone.

Equality doesn't get more tinkerproof than that.

.

 

[bripat9643]

It is only one of the "original" reasons for civil marriage and one that was never required. Your procreation argument has been tried...and lost in court.

I doubt that's the case. But even if it is, all it proves is that the judges involved are morons or hosebags or both.

Or they rule on law and precedent and not on your ick factor.

Wrong. They weren't selected as judges because of their devotion to the law. They got their positions by kissing ass. They are political hacks who rule the way they're told to rule.

 

[bripat9643]

The procreation red herring is one propounded by those who hate gays.

Not even DOMA requires procreation as a condition of receiving cash and prizes for being married.

Bill Text - 104th Congress (1995-1996) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

.

I've aleady explain the problem with your idiot theory at least 6 times.

Having a driver's license doesn't require you to drive, and having a marriage license doesn't require you to procreate.

 

[g5000]

The procreation red herring is one propounded by those who hate gays.

Not even DOMA requires procreation as a condition of receiving cash and prizes for being married.

Bill Text - 104th Congress (1995-1996) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

.

I've aleady explain the problem with your idiot theory at least 6 times.

Having a driver's license doesn't require you to drive, and having a marriage license doesn't require you to procreate.

Nor does the law.

And this, as you apparently have not caught onto after nearly 40 pages, is what the issue is about. Equal protection of the laws.

The law says married people can receive cash and prizes, no children required. Period.

Your procreation red herring is a colossal waste of time.

.

 

[bodecea]

I doubt that's the case. But even if it is, all it proves is that the judges involved are morons or hosebags or both.

Or they rule on law and precedent and not on your ick factor.

Wrong. They weren't selected as judges because of their devotion to the law. They got their positions by kissing ass. They are political hacks who rule the way they're told to rule.

And yet, they've accomplished so much more in their education and their lives that you have. You're just a zit on society's ass.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The procreation red herring is one propounded by those who hate gays.

Not even DOMA requires procreation as a condition of receiving cash and prizes for being married.

Bill Text - 104th Congress (1995-1996) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

.

I've aleady explain the problem with your idiot theory at least 6 times.

Having a driver's license doesn't require you to drive, and having a marriage license doesn't require you to procreate.

Whether you choose to drive or not...


How long do you really think a law barring a group from getting a drivers license based on race (biological), gender (also biological), or religion (choice) will stand up to Constitutional muster.


>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

Listen, you fuk, no one cares about what you explain, BECAUSE you have no case.

You are simply broken headed and nothing can fix that.

I've aleady explain the problem with your idiot theory at least 6 times. Having a driver's license doesn't require you to drive, and having a marriage license doesn't require you to procreate.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I doubt that's the case. But even if it is, all it proves is that the judges involved are morons or hosebags or both.

Or they rule on law and precedent and not on your ick factor.

Wrong. They weren't selected as judges because of their devotion to the law. They got their positions by kissing ass. They are political hacks who rule the way they're told to rule.

And now you've devolved to the absolute lowest form of tin-foil hatting political commentator. Damn, you're so pathetic it's painful to watch.

 

[g5000]

Sorry, homos. You have icky anal sex, we have always discriminated against you, God hates fags, and you are abnormal. These are the well thought out legal reasons to stop you from filing a married tax return. If we let you collect spousal Social Security death benefits then we would have to let Sandra Fluke marry a poodle. It just can't be helped. These are the facts.

Now could someone who evolved from a monkey make these incredibly legally brilliant arguments? I don't think so!

You lose.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Poodle?