Another Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down DOMA

[Qball]

Actually, the people of the state did agree through their elected legislatures or their appointed judges.

Yes, it is changing inevitably.

DOMA is dead. DADT is dead. Your opposition is dying.

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.

I can see you're not really trying to make an argument, but just trying to argue. The people didn't directly vote for same-sex marriage, so it's a little difficult to say they now approve of it. Many of them don't mind it, obviously, but usually the people who implement it don't have to worry about losing to a Republican candidate, which is why they take the risk. Appointed judges aren't beholden to the electorate which is why so many people want judges to just legalize it, because the people would be pretty much helpless to stop them.

 

[Qball]

The 14th amendment said that laws cannot be applied to different people differently. Literally. If you are gay and I am straight, we can both enter into a man-woman marriage.

Listen, trying to insert your own personal post hoc interpretations of the constitution is simply stupid and indicative of an ignorant and unknowledgeable mind. The Judiciary has the constitutional charge to interpret the laws.

But you didn't respond to what he said. If the 14th Amendment requires that laws be applied equally, and yet people irrespective of their sexual orientation are allowed or denied the same thing, the law is not in violation of the EPC. It's not a post-hoc interpretation (which you used incorrectly) because you want it to mean something different.

Neither of us can enter into a man-man marriage. That is how the law works, "who you want" is a formula.

And this demonstrates the outright failures of your position. "Who you want" is freedom. But of course, you don't believe that people should have freedom.

Being petulant isn't a response. You can have whomever you want, the government isn't required to recognize it as a marriage. They're not required to change the meaning of plain English just to bestow some kind of blessing on whatever relationship you get into.

 

[Qball]

You clearly know nothing about equal protection law. Here's what it comes down to: Do gay people represent a class of people that meets the criteria of a suspect or quasi-suspect class? The court has found the answer to be yes. Next, since homosexuals represent a quasi-suspect class, intermediate scrutiny is applied to examine the law. To pass intermediate scrutiny, the challenged law must further an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest.

You clearly know nothing about the law at all. The law is literal, it's not based on formulas. The 14th amendment said that laws cannot be applied to different people differently. Literally. If you are gay and I am straight, we can both enter into a man-woman marriage. Neither of us can enter into a man-man marriage. That is how the law works, "who you want" is a formula. Which was my point on singles, they are married to "who they want," yet you discriminate against them. Stop being such a dumb ass and address my points, don't ignore them and repeat your ridiculous logic.

There in fact is no law which has a formula in it until the left discovered that the 14th amendment was in fact a formula.

The 14th Amendment mandates that the states afford each citizen equal protection of the law, and equal access to all state laws accordingly. One does not forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his state of residence; and a ‘state can not deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws,’ including marriage law.

"And equal access to all state laws accordingly" is a subtle fabrication. The law doesn't have to pertain to your individual situation for it to be constitutional. It's not a violation of civil liberty because the law doesn't give some kind of official status for your relationship.

The states are free to manage marriage as each sees fit, determining who may or may not marry, provided the criteria for marriage is applied to each citizen equally; because there is no justification, rational basis, or evidence in support of prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying, and because such laws are motivated by animus alone toward same-sex couples, the courts have held these statutes un-Constitutional.

Because proponents of gay marriage have faithfully pretended as though they don't understand the rationale for treating different couples differently doesn't mean there is no rational bases for doing so. Like I've said, though, couples do not have rights. And given that we're not defining marriage in some brand-new type of way that's expressly and intentionally exclusive to gays and lesbians, it's a little difficult to argue that wanting to maintain the age-old understanding of marriage is nothing but animus. Antiquated, outmoded, unfair -- pick one. But reducing it down to "hatred for gay people" is a simplistic argument I doubt most people believe.

In the case of DOMA, rather than a law being applied inappropriately to a class of persons, here the states are subject to an inconsistent Federal policy, where Congress has singled-out a particular aspect of a state’s marriage law, and subjected it to capricious and unfounded regulation.

Again, "marriage is the union of a man and a woman" is not a "capricious" regulation. DOMA simply says no state is required to recognize marriage outside of that definition, and the federal government, with regards to the dispensation of federal benefits, defines the term "marriage" as a man and woman. This was almost ten years before any state even legalized same-sex marriage, and even then, it was MA who had done it through the courts. At least DOMA was passed democratically and reflected some uniformity in marriage policy of the rest of the country.

 

[Inthemiddle]

But you didn't respond to what he said.

What he said was a fantasy. He's not even talking about the topic. He's trying to recreate the subject within the terms he wants, so as to force through the conclusion he wants.

If the 14th Amendment requires that laws be applied equally, and yet people irrespective of their sexual orientation are allowed or denied the same thing, the law is not in violation of the EPC.

Yes it is. It treats homosexuals differently than straight people. It's really very simple.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

But you didn't respond to what he said.

What he said was a fantasy. He's not even talking about the topic. He's trying to recreate the subject within the terms he wants, so as to force through the conclusion he wants.

If the 14th Amendment requires that laws be applied equally, and yet people irrespective of their sexual orientation are allowed or denied the same thing, the law is not in violation of the EPC.

Yes it is. It treats homosexuals differently than straight people. It's really very simple.

Well hell they are different, they are not normal.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Actually, the people of the state did agree through their elected legislatures or their appointed judges.

Yes, it is changing inevitably.

DOMA is dead. DADT is dead. Your opposition is dying.

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.

I can see you're not really trying to make an argument, but just trying to argue. The people didn't directly vote for same-sex marriage, so it's a little difficult to say they now approve of it. Many of them don't mind it, obviously, but usually the people who implement it don't have to worry about losing to a Republican candidate, which is why they take the risk. Appointed judges aren't beholden to the electorate which is why so many people want judges to just legalize it, because the people would be pretty much helpless to stop them.

He never makers an argument, he just trolls

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Junior I'm 30 years your senior, so shut the **** up shit strain.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

I know I can take your woman away from you,

 

[jtpr312]

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

Origin
Mike Godwin coined his observation as a “natural law of Usenet” in 1990

Godwin’s Law is an internet adage that is derived from one of the earliest bits of Usenet wisdoms, which goes “if you mention Adolf Hitler or Nazis within a discussion thread, you’ve automatically ended whatever discussion you were taking part in.”

Just plain ole bs.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am not arguing at all, simply stating what is happening. The change is happening now, universal application is coming, and you can oppose but not stop it.

Actually, the people of the state did agree through their elected legislatures or their appointed judges.

Yes, it is changing inevitably.

DOMA is dead. DADT is dead. Your opposition is dying.

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.

I can see you're not really trying to make an argument, but just trying to argue. The people didn't directly vote for same-sex marriage, so it's a little difficult to say they now approve of it. Many of them don't mind it, obviously, but usually the people who implement it don't have to worry about losing to a Republican candidate, which is why they take the risk. Appointed judges aren't beholden to the electorate which is why so many people want judges to just legalize it, because the people would be pretty much helpless to stop them.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am not arguing at all, simply stating what is happening. The change is happening now, universal application is coming, and you can oppose but not stop it.

Actually, the people of the state did agree through their elected legislatures or their appointed judges.

Yes, it is changing inevitably.

DOMA is dead. DADT is dead. Your opposition is dying.

I can see you're not really trying to make an argument, but just trying to argue. The people didn't directly vote for same-sex marriage, so it's a little difficult to say they now approve of it. Many of them don't mind it, obviously, but usually the people who implement it don't have to worry about losing to a Republican candidate, which is why they take the risk. Appointed judges aren't beholden to the electorate which is why so many people want judges to just legalize it, because the people would be pretty much helpless to stop them.

As in Satan's New World Order? is that the universal application you're speaking of?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Says the satanic little brother of the New Order. Come on, bigrebnc, stop the demonizing.

You are calling We the People and our beliefs Satan's New Order? Really?

 

[bodecea]

But you didn't respond to what he said.

What he said was a fantasy. He's not even talking about the topic. He's trying to recreate the subject within the terms he wants, so as to force through the conclusion he wants.

If the 14th Amendment requires that laws be applied equally, and yet people irrespective of their sexual orientation are allowed or denied the same thing, the law is not in violation of the EPC.

Yes it is. It treats homosexuals differently than straight people. It's really very simple.

Well hell they are different, they are not normal.

You are not normal either. I vote we have the government treat you differently. For one thing...we sure don't want you reproducing (tho I suspect that isn't a problem).

 

[bodecea]

*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.

I know I can take your woman away from you,

Your fantasies amuse me...and amuse my wife when I show her.

 

[Katzndogz]

Normalization of same sex relationships always happens in the culture that's degrading. Then it is replaced by a culture that doesn't.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I know I can take your woman away from you,

With what? What can you possibly offer her that Boddecia can't? Your magnificent, mighty penis? Just goes to show how gay you are. Any straight man knows that no penis is even on millionth as enticing as a vagina.

Tell me, do you like to put it in the butt?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Normalization of same sex relationships always happens in the culture that's degrading. Then it is replaced by a culture that doesn't.

Yeah, it just brought the Spartans to their knees.

 

[bodecea]

Normalization of same sex relationships always happens in the culture that's degrading. Then it is replaced by a culture that doesn't.

INteresting.....the Romans fell after they forced Christianity on their Empire.

 

[g5000]

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.

I can see how you believe you are a morally superior specimen. Nothing degenerate about you! No, sir! No threat to the institution of marriage here, either.

You win.




.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Says the satanic little brother of the New Order. Come on, bigrebnc, stop the demonizing.

You are calling We the People and our beliefs Satan's New Order? Really?

Do you have any idea what the **** you are talking about?