Another Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down DOMA

[bigrebnc1775]

destroy civilization. Really.

What, are you retarded? - YouTube

You are just as big a bigot as anyone. It's not my fault you think a man sucking dick is ok. and normal. That just makes you abnormal.

You're a bigot because you hate bigots! one of the most mindless dumbfuck arguments that exists.

The world progresses. Sooner, hopfully, or later America will catch up with the rest of the civilized world. And then the bigots of the world will cry and moan impotently as the world passes them by as irrelevant.

You're just a fucking bigot bitch, do you understand that? So get off your fucking high horse and eat shit.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well, they certainly have standards. I'm sure you've been rejected.

Hey butch you just keep this in the back of your mind, I can take your woman away from you.

Not even with a loaded gun.

Right just keep thinking that. I have not had any problem taking Wives from their husbands back in the day, hell I'd even drive up to the front door with their husband there. But Butch just keep thinking your girlfriend can't be taken from you.

 

[del]

^

little nick is back

 

[bigrebnc1775]

^

little nick is back

Followed by a little turd^^^^^^^^

 

[Cheddarmelon]

You are just as big a bigot as anyone. It's not my fault you think a man sucking dick is ok. and normal. That just makes you abnormal.

You're a bigot because you hate bigots! one of the most mindless dumbfuck arguments that exists.

The world progresses. Sooner, hopfully, or later America will catch up with the rest of the civilized world. And then the bigots of the world will cry and moan impotently as the world passes them by as irrelevant.

You're just a fucking bigot bitch, do you understand that? So get off your fucking high horse and eat shit.

Don't worry. When the world moves on, you'll still have Obamacare and Social security to take care of you as you finish your life in irrelevancy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You're a bigot because you hate bigots! one of the most mindless dumbfuck arguments that exists.

The world progresses. Sooner, hopfully, or later America will catch up with the rest of the civilized world. And then the bigots of the world will cry and moan impotently as the world passes them by as irrelevant.

You're just a fucking bigot bitch, do you understand that? So get off your fucking high horse and eat shit.

Don't worry. When the world moves on, you'll still have Obamacare and Social security to take care of you as you finish your life in irrelevancy.

You're just a stain on the road of life. Shit stain that is.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I have not had any problem taking Wives from their husbands back in the day, hell I'd even drive up to the front door with their husband there.

*facepalm*

 

[Inthemiddle]

Once again you and your circle jerking cluck who are thanking you don't know what you're talking about. All DOMA says is that States don't have to recognize marriages performed in other States. Clearly a power of the Feds based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

The only people as ignorant as you are about the rule of law in this country are lawyers and politicians, are you one of those?

What makes you think that the Full Faith and Credit clause was meant to supercede equal protection under the law, as prescribed by the constitution?

 

[sfcalifornia]

There is a law the prohibits people who can't see from driving. Likewise, there is a law that prohibits people who can't procreate from getting married. Should the laws on licensing discriminate against the blind?

Please...stop embarrassing yourself
It is getting ugly

There is no law that prohibits people who can't procreate from marrying. Infertile couples can marry, Grandma can get remarried, couples who have no desire to have children get married

But why? One of the common arguments against SSM is that marriage is about having children - yet there is no objection to infertile people being married?

There have been instances where the Catholic Church has refused to marry infertile or handicapped couples for that very reason. Too bad for those who belong to that religion who are in that situation. Every other religion, as well as the government, finds infertility to be a stupid reason to deny a marriage ceremony to a couple these days.

 

[jtpr312]

Hitler accomplished a lot in his life as well.

Godwin's law. You lose. Now stay quiet.

Godwin's law is not a law, it's a dude's opinion, and in this case, as in most cases where someone drags it up, it irelevent and bs. The poster made a valid point, the fact that you "accomplish a lot" in your life is no indication of you being a good, decent or honest person. Would you have been more comfortable and less likely to pull up that Godwin's law nonsense if the poster had said, "Stalin accomplished a lot in his life also?

 

[kaz]

Once again you and your circle jerking cluck who are thanking you don't know what you're talking about. All DOMA says is that States don't have to recognize marriages performed in other States. Clearly a power of the Feds based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

The only people as ignorant as you are about the rule of law in this country are lawyers and politicians, are you one of those?

Obviously you’ve not read the ruling.

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.

DOMA’s classification of same-sex spouses was not
substantially related to an important government interest.
Accordingly, we hold that Section 3 of DOMA violates equal
protection and is therefore unconstitutional.

[L]aw (federal or state) is not concerned with holy matrimony. Government deals with marriage as a civil status--however fundamental--and New York has elected to
extend that status to same-sex couples.

Equal protection doctrine, therefore, applies to the Federal government as it does to state and local governments. True, the states for the last 60 years have been for the most part the entities responsible for acts offensive to the Constitution concerning violating their citizens’ civil liberties, but with DOMA we see Federal legislation inconsistently applied and absent a compelling governmental interest, inappropriately interfering with states’ marriage law.

If the state of New York wishes to extend marriage law to same-sex couples, it’s free to do so independent of Federal involvement.

The issue reviewed had nothing to do with ‘Full Faith and Credit,’ the court examined Congress’ authority to enact legislation designed to be punitive with regard to states’ acknowledgement of same-sex couples’ right to marry.

Actually if you read the full faith and credit clause, you read this ruling, it's game over. This is a rationalization for a liberal judge to decree their personal values. DOMA is pure Faith and Credit, nothing here justifies a liberal dictator ruling otherwise.

The most ridiculous part of this is how he says DOMA is interfering in State law. But actually it's the court who are doing that. DOMA says States don't have to recognize gay marriage performed in other States. How is that infringing on States? It's not. On the other hand, that ruling IS the court infringing on State rights. They are saying you MUST recognize gay marriages performed in other States. The ruling doesn't affect States that perform gay marriages at all, it removes choices from States that DON'T perform gay marriages. On the other hand, DOMA removes choice from no State.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

You're just a fucking bigot bitch, do you understand that? So get off your fucking high horse and eat shit.

Don't worry. When the world moves on, you'll still have Obamacare and Social security to take care of you as you finish your life in irrelevancy.

You're just a stain on the road of life. Shit stain that is.

Hush child. There there.

 

[Seawytch]

Once again you and your circle jerking cluck who are thanking you don't know what you're talking about. All DOMA says is that States don't have to recognize marriages performed in other States. Clearly a power of the Feds based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

The only people as ignorant as you are about the rule of law in this country are lawyers and politicians, are you one of those?

Obviously you’ve not read the ruling.

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.

DOMA’s classification of same-sex spouses was not
substantially related to an important government interest.
Accordingly, we hold that Section 3 of DOMA violates equal
protection and is therefore unconstitutional.

[L]aw (federal or state) is not concerned with holy matrimony. Government deals with marriage as a civil status--however fundamental--and New York has elected to
extend that status to same-sex couples.

Equal protection doctrine, therefore, applies to the Federal government as it does to state and local governments. True, the states for the last 60 years have been for the most part the entities responsible for acts offensive to the Constitution concerning violating their citizens’ civil liberties, but with DOMA we see Federal legislation inconsistently applied and absent a compelling governmental interest, inappropriately interfering with states’ marriage law.

If the state of New York wishes to extend marriage law to same-sex couples, it’s free to do so independent of Federal involvement.

The issue reviewed had nothing to do with ‘Full Faith and Credit,’ the court examined Congress’ authority to enact legislation designed to be punitive with regard to states’ acknowledgement of same-sex couples’ right to marry.

Actually if you read the full faith and credit clause, you read this ruling, it's game over. This is a rationalization for a liberal judge to decree their personal values. DOMA is pure Faith and Credit, nothing here justifies a liberal dictator ruling otherwise.

The most ridiculous part of this is how he says DOMA is interfering in State law. But actually it's the court who are doing that. DOMA says States don't have to recognize gay marriage performed in other States. How is that infringing on States? It's not. On the other hand, that ruling IS the court infringing on State rights. They are saying you MUST recognize gay marriages performed in other States. The ruling doesn't affect States that perform gay marriages at all, it removes choices from States that DON'T perform gay marriages. On the other hand, DOMA removes choice from no State.

No, the state will still have the right not to perform marriages for same sex couples, they just have to recognize the legal documents of another state...just like YOUR marriage license. You got married in one state, but your marriage is legally recognized in all 50. Getting rid of DOMA means that my marriage license is treated exactly like yours. Oh the inhumanity!!

 

[kaz]

Obviously you’ve not read the ruling.



Equal protection doctrine, therefore, applies to the Federal government as it does to state and local governments. True, the states for the last 60 years have been for the most part the entities responsible for acts offensive to the Constitution concerning violating their citizens’ civil liberties, but with DOMA we see Federal legislation inconsistently applied and absent a compelling governmental interest, inappropriately interfering with states’ marriage law.

If the state of New York wishes to extend marriage law to same-sex couples, it’s free to do so independent of Federal involvement.

The issue reviewed had nothing to do with ‘Full Faith and Credit,’ the court examined Congress’ authority to enact legislation designed to be punitive with regard to states’ acknowledgement of same-sex couples’ right to marry.

Actually if you read the full faith and credit clause, you read this ruling, it's game over. This is a rationalization for a liberal judge to decree their personal values. DOMA is pure Faith and Credit, nothing here justifies a liberal dictator ruling otherwise.

The most ridiculous part of this is how he says DOMA is interfering in State law. But actually it's the court who are doing that. DOMA says States don't have to recognize gay marriage performed in other States. How is that infringing on States? It's not. On the other hand, that ruling IS the court infringing on State rights. They are saying you MUST recognize gay marriages performed in other States. The ruling doesn't affect States that perform gay marriages at all, it removes choices from States that DON'T perform gay marriages. On the other hand, DOMA removes choice from no State.

No, the state will still have the right not to perform marriages for same sex couples, they just have to recognize the legal documents of another state...just like YOUR marriage license. You got married in one state, but your marriage is legally recognized in all 50. Getting rid of DOMA means that my marriage license is treated exactly like yours. Oh the inhumanity!!

I like how you started with "no" then didn't contradict anything I said

 

[Seawytch]

Actually if you read the full faith and credit clause, you read this ruling, it's game over. This is a rationalization for a liberal judge to decree their personal values. DOMA is pure Faith and Credit, nothing here justifies a liberal dictator ruling otherwise.

The most ridiculous part of this is how he says DOMA is interfering in State law. But actually it's the court who are doing that. DOMA says States don't have to recognize gay marriage performed in other States. How is that infringing on States? It's not. On the other hand, that ruling IS the court infringing on State rights. They are saying you MUST recognize gay marriages performed in other States. The ruling doesn't affect States that perform gay marriages at all, it removes choices from States that DON'T perform gay marriages. On the other hand, DOMA removes choice from no State.

No, the state will still have the right not to perform marriages for same sex couples, they just have to recognize the legal documents of another state...just like YOUR marriage license. You got married in one state, but your marriage is legally recognized in all 50. Getting rid of DOMA means that my marriage license is treated exactly like yours. Oh the inhumanity!!

I like how you started with "no" then didn't contradict anything I said

I said "no, they would not have to perform same sex marriages". All the "no fags" amendments to state Constitutions wouldn't be touched...those will go away in later rulings. Repealing DOMA will treat my LEGAL marriage exactly like your LEGAL marriage. Isn't that the point of FF&C? It also means that I get to file joint taxes just like you do. How terrible. I'm sure the world will end.

 

[bodecea]

I have not had any problem taking Wives from their husbands back in the day, hell I'd even drive up to the front door with their husband there.

*facepalm*

I know. He shows how much the Sanctity of Marriage means to him. Of course, it's all in his head. Women really laugh at him.

 

[bodecea]

There is a law the prohibits people who can't see from driving. Likewise, there is a law that prohibits people who can't procreate from getting married. Should the laws on licensing discriminate against the blind?

Please...stop embarrassing yourself
It is getting ugly

There is no law that prohibits people who can't procreate from marrying. Infertile couples can marry, Grandma can get remarried, couples who have no desire to have children get married

A 64 year old woman recently had a baby, so, yes, grandma can procreate. Furthermore, grandma has already procreated. People who do not have children can later change their minds.

No matter how hard you try, you can't weasel around the fact that marriage exists because of procreation.

It's dark down in that hole you're digging, isn't it?

 

[rightwinger]

Hitler accomplished a lot in his life as well.

Godwin's law. You lose. Now stay quiet.

Godwin's law is not a law, it's a dude's opinion, and in this case, as in most cases where someone drags it up, it irelevent and bs. The poster made a valid point, the fact that you "accomplish a lot" in your life is no indication of you being a good, decent or honest person. Would you have been more comfortable and less likely to pull up that Godwin's law nonsense if the poster had said, "Stalin accomplished a lot in his life also?

Its a LAW damn it!

Obey it or face the consequences

 

[WorldWatcher]

Actually if you read the full faith and credit clause, you read this ruling, it's game over. This is a rationalization for a liberal judge to decree their personal values. DOMA is pure Faith and Credit, nothing here justifies a liberal dictator ruling otherwise.

The most ridiculous part of this is how he says DOMA is interfering in State law. But actually it's the court who are doing that. DOMA says States don't have to recognize gay marriage performed in other States. How is that infringing on States? It's not. On the other hand, that ruling IS the court infringing on State rights. They are saying you MUST recognize gay marriages performed in other States. The ruling doesn't affect States that perform gay marriages at all, it removes choices from States that DON'T perform gay marriages. On the other hand, DOMA removes choice from no State.

I'm sorry Kaz, you have multiple errors in this post that indicate you should review (a) the text of DOMA, and (b) the two Fedreal court decision that have called part of DOMA unconstitutional.


*********************************************

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ199/html/PLAW-104publ199.htm


The text of DOMA can be found at the above link.

DOMA has TWO operational sections. Section 2, which you may be referring to as the exercising of Congressional authority under Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. Section 2, exempts states from not having to recognize Civil Marriage from outside their state based solely on the gender composition of the Civil Marriage (which has it's own problems with the concept of Due Process and Equal Protection, but the courts have been asked to address that). Section 3 on the other hand, defines Civil Marriage as only that between a man and a woman for federal purposes. The decisions pertaining to DOMA at this point have focused on this section, not Section 2.


*********************************************

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisio...f10a35f-7dc6-4623-b569-a3bf12d4dfc8/2/hilite/


As shown in the rulling from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, the decision leaves in place the Full Faith & Credit portion of the law and only strikes down Section 3 of DOMA which usurps the states power to define Civil Marriage which had been the situation prior to DOMA where the Federal government recognized ALL Civil Marriages legally entered into under State law.

Neither Federal Court of Appeals has overturned the Full Faith & Credit operability of DOMA, only section 3.


*********************************************

Yes, DOMA did interfere with state law. Under New York law the claimant was Civilly Married and because the Federal government failed to respect that law based on gender (the terms in which the law was written) she suffered monetary damages of (IIRC) approximately $350,000 which she would not have suffered if the Federal government had no usurped the power of the State pertaining to the recognition of Civil Marriage.

In Gill v Office of Personal Management there are other examples of DOMA interfering with the States handling of it's citizens under State law caused by the impact of DOMA. Two examples include the State administration of it's MedicAid program and the administration of Veteran's cemetaries (again managed by the State). By treating same-sex couples as Civilly Marriaged, they are non-compliant with DOMA (from Gill) "and the Department of Health and Human Services, through its Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, has discretion to rescind Medicaid funding to noncomplying states." The second example concerns burial of veterans. In designated cemetaries veterans and their spouses can be buried. The cemetaries are administered by the States. Massachusetts is then forced to treat like situated couples differently based on the gender composition of the couples. A honorably serving veteran can have their opposite gender spouse buried with them, an honorably serving veteran in a same-sex Civil Marriage cannot. If MA allowed this, then the Department of Veteran's Affairs can not only remove future matching federal funds, but can all past federal funding used to support the Veteran's Cemetary.




Hope this helps.


>>>>

 

[Qball]

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

It's changing, and that is OK.

Uh huh, and the rest of the states agree with me. So in many ways, things are staying the same, and that's also okay.

He's wrong about any state or Washington DC, or the military disagreeing with you. No of the people in these entities have ever voted to approve homosexual marriage. Every time it's voted on, it gets voted down. Unelected judges or government bureaucrats have imposed it wherever it exists.

You're right.