Another Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down DOMA

[JoeB131]

That's why it has to be decided in the Supreme Court. We have a nation in decline and decay, I expect DOMA to be struck down by the Supreme Court, we are simply becoming too degenerate to survive.

Not seeing how gay marriage is contributing to that decline.

We are in decline because for the last 40 years, the wealthy have been undermining the middle class and the gains the middle class have made since the progressive era.

That said, I would rather have this issue resolved in the legislative arena than the courts.

 

[Seawytch]

The children are not the offspring of the "couple," so the question is irrelevant. Every child has a biological mother and a biological father. None has two biological mothers or two biological fathers.

So...this poster wants to throw adopted children and step children out with the bath water.....Why? Because them there dang gays wanna get hitched....*snort!

Whatever I want is beside the point. The statement made was factually inaccurate. There is no such thing as children resulting from a homosexual couple.

Again, my children would disagree. We decided, as a couple, to have children. We, just like thousands and thousands of heterosexual couples, used science to create our families. We have two children that came from a 100% gay union (we used gay sperm) so to say that no children can result is just plain stupid.

Were you aware that one of Romney's sons had to use invitro fertilization and a surrogate to have children. Do we get to annul their marriage?

 

[JoeB131]

Then the law would prohibit monogamous brothers and sisters from benefiting from the law, or fathers and daughters. Or, people who voluntarily want to be in marriages of multiples. Why shouldn't five women get tax filing benefits or death benefits if they all want to be married to the same man. It's love. Warren Jeffs didn't do anything wrong. Why is he in prison? He just loved more than one woman and took more than one woman to wife.

Why is it when you wingnuts try to make an argument against Gay marriage, you talk about other things besides gays...

This isn't about incest or polygamy. (Both of which are illegal in all 50 states, rendering this a moot point).

Tell me why two consenting adults of the same sex getting married would be a bad thing for anyone.

Even so, mainstreaming homosexual marriages into legality would not come close to causing the kind of damage that it will without the ability to punish people who do not accept that legality. Legalize same sex marriage as far as government benefits go, but allow the wedding cake baker, the photographer, the relationship counselor to say no. Allow schools the power to send homosexual children home and by all means, permit the Boy Scouts to tell the newly outed scout that he doesn't get the Eagle badge.

Then you have an argument that this is only about federal rights.

By that same logic, it should be acceptable for me to discriminate against Mormons. I don't like them, I should be able to refuse to do business with them.

It should be acceptable for diner owners to refuse to serve black people or Asian people.

I could see a relationship counselor being able to beg off on the rationale that his views make it impossible to give a gay couple any useful advice. But a Wedding Cake Baker? Seriously?

 

[JoeB131]

That's why it has to be decided in the Supreme Court. We have a nation in decline and decay, I expect DOMA to be struck down by the Supreme Court, we are simply becoming too degenerate to survive.

Can you explain how two adults in a monogamous relationship filing a married tax return is degenerate?

.

Because they butt **** each other's shit holes.

Next question...

1) Straight people engage in Anal Sex as well. 38% of straight people surveyed have admitted to trying anal sex at least once. In fact, nothing gays do (sodomy, cunnilingus, fellatio) is alien to straight couples.

2) Why is it that whenever a homophobe squeals about this issue, they always describe sex acts in the most graphic ways they can? It's kind of like the so-called vegetarian who just can't stop talking about steak.

 

[Seawytch]

You mean it is being ruled unconstitutional by a few liberal judges.

Your point?

Now you're really being an idiot. Lots of conservative judges are striking down the discrimination these days. Get with it.

Name one.

Judge Dennis Jacobs, the Chief Justice that ruled in the case being discussed in this thread.

 

[Seawytch]

LOL at the dopes that think civil rights can be put to a vote.

By definition, Civil Rights are put to a vote, moron.

Yes, and when they do they are challenged and lose. It happened with interracial marriage and it will happen with gay marriage. It will continue to lose in court all the way to the SCOTUS. Good thing the SCOTUS didn't wait for popular opinion when it came to interracial marriage. If they did, blacks wouldn't have been allowed to marry whites until the 1990s instead of 1965.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Equal protection yes, but why all of a sudden is gays getting married considered equal protection? The fact that married people get more benefits than two single people can theoretically be considered a violation of equal protection by your standards.

Listen, you really need to become educated on this stuff before you bother speaking. You look more ridiculous than a black dude with an afro and bad teeth wearing a superman costume.

A suspect classification is one where the classification meets the criteria that have been determined through historical jurisprudence as suggesting that said class is probably being discriminated against. When an equal protection issue is brought up for a suspect class, law challenged receives strict scrutiny. Religion and race/national origin are suspect classes.

A "quasi-suspect" class is one that meets lesser criteria but still warrant heightened scrutiny beyond the rational basis test. Those criteria as outlined by the courts are:

A) whether the class has been historically subjected to discrimination.
B) whether the class has a defining characteristic that frequently bears a relation to ability to perform or contribute to society.
C) whether the class exhibits obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group.
D) whether the class is a minority or politically powerless.

The third and fourth are not strictly necessary characteristics of the class, but they are indicative of being a quasi-suspect class and are considered by the court.

The class of "single people" meets none of these criteria. Therefore, it cannot be a quasi-suspect class. And therefore, there can be no complaint of equal protection as you have alleged.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Well roe V wade is another crappy decsion, so you arent going to win points with me there.

Taking evasive maneuvers, Captain!!

And all you are arguing is again, tradition

No.

and precedent.

Yes. You should educate yourself on the legal precedents before you try to babble about stare decisis of all things.

Thanks for making my point again, and you can also go **** yourself for the laughing balls.

Translation: You got nothing and are pissed that you're getting your penis-craving ass handed to you.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Bans on interracial marriage were against the spirit of the intent of the Civil war amendments. The purpose of which was to create a colorblind version of the consitution, in anticipation of the very Jim Crow laws that eventually occured in the south and the midwest. What the framers did not anticipate was a supreme court that would ignore the amendments, much as the courts now ingnore the intent of the consituion itself to fit whatever social agenda is the flavor of the month.

and your evidence is pretty freaking weak. A painting on a tomb from egypt? really?

If the intention of the 14th amendment was to only apply to racial matters, it would have specifically been written to specify racial matters. Kinda like how other amendments were specifically written in regards to gender matters, and age matters. But the 14th was written with a wider purpose. This much has been well established by the courts already. Once again, GET EDUCATED before you talk anymore.

 

[bodecea]

LOL at the dopes that think civil rights can be put to a vote.

By definition, Civil Rights are put to a vote, moron.

WOW...that's as good as saying There's a List!

 

[bodecea]

By definition, Civil Rights are put to a vote, moron.

No they aren't. Are you an American? If so, you certainly don't know much about the constitution.

You mean Congress didn't vote on Civil Rights bill I and Civil Rights bill II?

YOu mean you don't know those bills were voted and passed to ENFORCE rights that people were already supposed to have but were not getting due to the racist governments of the South......

I too wonder if you are a citizen of the U.S....you sure don't know much about how our system of government works.

 

[Inthemiddle]

No, I want the judicial system to stand by the defintioin of the word marriage

As a wedding officiant I can tell you that my spiritual organization defines marriage as a commitment between two consenting adults to share with each other a life of devoted love, caring, nurturing, and respect, without regard to the gender of those two individuals.

which is a union between a man and woman, period.

That's your definition.

Two dykes, or two sodomites living together and having sex with eachother is not marriage

Says you.

it's perversion and perverse and deviant behavior should not be rewarded in any civilized nation.

So, you think government should enforce YOUR definition, and punish YOUR idea of "perversion," when there is absolutely nobody other than the people involved who are affected. That is, by definition, tyranny.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Gay adoption shouldn't be allowed because it's not in the best interests of the child

How about single parent adoptions? How about divorce when there are children? How about continued single parent custody subsequent to widowdom?

Here's one: What if it's a single mother in poverty who doesn't even want the child? Abortion in the first trimester?

 

[Seawytch]

Gay adoption shouldn't be allowed because it's not in the best interests of the child

How about single parent adoptions? How about divorce when there are children? How about continued single parent custody subsequent to widowdom?

Here's one: What if it's a single mother in poverty who doesn't even want the child? Abortion in the first trimester?

How about the fact that what he says is wrong on its face. What is in the best interest of any child is two parents that love them unconditionally. The sexual orientation of those parents is irrelevant.

My son has three best friends...not a one of them has parents that are still together. My son is the only one not from a "broken home". THAT is what matters to kids.

 

[bripat9643]

Who is the author of this twaddle? UNless it appears in a Supreme Court decision, it's just so much horse manure. Even if it did, single people fit all the criteria mentioned. Why shouldn't they be entitled to the same rights as married people?

Equal protection yes, but why all of a sudden is gays getting married considered equal protection? The fact that married people get more benefits than two single people can theoretically be considered a violation of equal protection by your standards.

Listen, you really need to become educated on this stuff before you bother speaking. You look more ridiculous than a black dude with an afro and bad teeth wearing a superman costume.

A suspect classification is one where the classification meets the criteria that have been determined through historical jurisprudence as suggesting that said class is probably being discriminated against. When an equal protection issue is brought up for a suspect class, law challenged receives strict scrutiny. Religion and race/national origin are suspect classes.

A "quasi-suspect" class is one that meets lesser criteria but still warrant heightened scrutiny beyond the rational basis test. Those criteria as outlined by the courts are:

A) whether the class has been historically subjected to discrimination.
B) whether the class has a defining characteristic that frequently bears a relation to ability to perform or contribute to society.
C) whether the class exhibits obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group.
D) whether the class is a minority or politically powerless.

The third and fourth are not strictly necessary characteristics of the class, but they are indicative of being a quasi-suspect class and are considered by the court.

The class of "single people" meets none of these criteria. Therefore, it cannot be a quasi-suspect class. And therefore, there can be no complaint of equal protection as you have alleged.

 

[bripat9643]

Gay adoption shouldn't be allowed because it's not in the best interests of the child

How about single parent adoptions? How about divorce when there are children? How about continued single parent custody subsequent to widowdom?

Here's one: What if it's a single mother in poverty who doesn't even want the child? Abortion in the first trimester?

How about the fact that what he says is wrong on its face. What is in the best interest of any child is two parents that love them unconditionally. The sexual orientation of those parents is irrelevant.

Wrong. There is considerable evidence that having gay parents leads to social mal adjustment. The idea that having a couple of gay parents causes no harm to a child is homosexual propaganda.

My son has three best friends...not a one of them has parents that are still together. My son is the only one not from a "broken home". THAT is what matters to kids.

Nice fairy tale. Too bad it's just not true.

 

[bodecea]

Who is the author of this twaddle? UNless it appears in a Supreme Court decision, it's just so much horse manure. Even if it did, single people fit all the criteria mentioned. Why shouldn't they be entitled to the same rights as married people?

Equal protection yes, but why all of a sudden is gays getting married considered equal protection? The fact that married people get more benefits than two single people can theoretically be considered a violation of equal protection by your standards.

Listen, you really need to become educated on this stuff before you bother speaking. You look more ridiculous than a black dude with an afro and bad teeth wearing a superman costume.

A suspect classification is one where the classification meets the criteria that have been determined through historical jurisprudence as suggesting that said class is probably being discriminated against. When an equal protection issue is brought up for a suspect class, law challenged receives strict scrutiny. Religion and race/national origin are suspect classes.

A "quasi-suspect" class is one that meets lesser criteria but still warrant heightened scrutiny beyond the rational basis test. Those criteria as outlined by the courts are:

A) whether the class has been historically subjected to discrimination.
B) whether the class has a defining characteristic that frequently bears a relation to ability to perform or contribute to society.
C) whether the class exhibits obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group.
D) whether the class is a minority or politically powerless.

The third and fourth are not strictly necessary characteristics of the class, but they are indicative of being a quasi-suspect class and are considered by the court.

The class of "single people" meets none of these criteria. Therefore, it cannot be a quasi-suspect class. And therefore, there can be no complaint of equal protection as you have alleged.

They are.

 

[bripat9643]

No they aren't. Are you an American? If so, you certainly don't know much about the constitution.

You mean Congress didn't vote on Civil Rights bill I and Civil Rights bill II?

YOu mean you don't know those bills were voted and passed to ENFORCE rights that people were already supposed to have but were not getting due to the racist governments of the South......

I too wonder if you are a citizen of the U.S....you sure don't know much about how our system of government works.

In other words, Civil Rights are voted on.

 

[bripat9643]

They are.

What is what?

 

[bripat9643]

If the intention of the 14th amendment was to only apply to racial matters, it would have specifically been written to specify racial matters. Kinda like how other amendments were specifically written in regards to gender matters, and age matters. But the 14th was written with a wider purpose. This much has been well established by the courts already. Once again, GET EDUCATED before you talk anymore.

There is no Amendment written in regards to gender matters. The only one that mentions age has to do with voting, and nothing else.