After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345] (1 Viewer)

[AGENT J]

After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits - First Read

“The decision means that same-sex married couples will have access to some federal benefits, but will not have access to the full range of marriage benefits due to state marriage bans,” said Mark Daley, a spokesperson for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

this is why the fall of DOMA will aid in getting equal rights nationalized.
All its going to take now is some court cases here and there to pave the way.

SO many scenarios can now push the issues and shine light on the fact this is inequality.

The process will now be faster and soon all states will have to end their discrimination.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits - First Read




this is why the fall of DOMA will aid in getting equal rights nationalized.
All its going to take now is some court cases here and there to pave the way.

SO many scenarios can now push the issues and shine light on the fact this is inequality.

The process will now be faster and soon all states will have to end their discrimination.

If discrimination against a right was actually going on. It isn't.

 

[Wiseone]

If discrimination against a right was actually going on. It isn't.

If gay marriage doesn't affect you at all, why do you care?

 

[davidtaylorjr]

If gay marriage doesn't affect you at all, why do you care?

Because it isn't marriage.

 

[AGENT J]

If discrimination against a right was actually going on. It isn't.

the courts disagree with you :shrug:

 

[davidtaylorjr]

the courts disagree with you :shrug:

Some courts. And to my knowledge they haven't agreed that Gay Marriage is a right, otherwise the Supreme Court would have ruled as such. To my knowledge, correct me if I am wrong, they didn't.

 

[digsbe]

There is equal rights, the people in states that voted and support SSM bans have every right to do so. SSM is not this over-hyped "equal rights" mantra that many want to push. It's a social issue that redefines legal marriage that people can support or not support and have those beliefs upheld in law.

 

[AGENT J]

Some courts.
2.) And to my knowledge they haven't agreed that Gay Marriage is a right
3.) otherwise the Supreme Court would have ruled as such.
4.) To my knowledge, correct me if I am wrong, they didn't.

1.) yep which starts the path way to equality and ending discrimination
2.) they havent even discussed it, they only agree MARRIAGE is a right
3.) false not how it works
4.) correct the full issues has not been pushed to the supreme court only some states supreme courts where they did rule it violates rights and equality

so like i said.

the courts disagree with you and you are wrong

 

[Mr. Invisible]

There is equal rights, the people in states that voted and support SSM bans have every right to do so. SSM is not this over-hyped "equal rights" mantra that many want to push. It's a social issue that redefines legal marriage that people can support or not support and have those beliefs upheld in law.

So what you are saying is that you are alright with the tyranny of the majority even though it infringes on the freedom and liberty of others?

 

[davidtaylorjr]

1.) yep which starts the path way to equality and ending discrimination
2.) they havent even discussed it, they only agree MARRIAGE is a right
3.) false not how it works
4.) correct the full issues has not been pushed to the supreme court only some states supreme courts where they did rule it violates rights and equality

so like i said.

the courts disagree with you and you are wrong

Actually you agreed with me. I never said SOME courts disagree. But it is not the law of the land, just some leftist states.

 

[digsbe]

So what you are saying is that you are alright with the tyranny of the majority even though it infringes on the freedom and liberty of others?

No, what I'm fine with is people voting and having their beliefs put into law on social issues. I view it as tyranny to override that process because a minority didn't get their way in some states.

 

[AGENT J]

There is equal rights, the people in states that voted and support SSM bans have every right to do so. SSM is not this over-hyped "equal rights" mantra that many want to push. It's a social issue that redefines legal marriage that people can support or not support and have those beliefs upheld in law.

again when pushed courts dont seem to agree with you

eventually the discrimination will fail, all it is gonna take is some court cases and pushing the issue

for example if im married to my wife in PA and we are granted all the state and federal rights but then she is traveling in SC and gets in a car accident is it right for them not to notify me to make medical decesions if that state does recognize my marriage?
what if she dies? can they just not tell me since they dont see us as married?
of if i go there to i not have visitation rights since in that state we arent married?
etc etc etc

it will be cases like these and 1000 other possibilities that will end stat discrimination and it will be even easier with the fall of DOMA.

Granting equal rights is coming soon, it may not be around the corner but ending doma and granting federal rights is the foundation and launching pad. When its pushed the courts will have trouble ruling any other way.

 

[AGENT J]

Actually you agreed with me. I never said SOME courts disagree. But it is not the law of the land, just some leftist states.

you said no discrimination is going on, you are wrong :shrug:
this fact will not change

 

[digsbe]

again when pushed courts dont seem to agree with you

eventually the discrimination will fail, all it is gonna take is some court cases and pushing the issue

for example if im married to my wife in PA and we are granted all the state and federal rights but then she is traveling in SC and gets in a car accident is it right for them not to notify me to make medical decesions if that state does recognize my marriage?
what if she dies? can they just not tell me since they dont see us as married?
of if i go there to i not have visitation rights since in that state we arent married?
etc etc etc

it will be cases like these and 1000 other possibilities that will end stat discrimination and it will be even easier with the fall of DOMA.

Granting equal rights is coming soon, it may not be around the corner but ending doma and granting federal rights is the foundation and launching pad. When its pushed the courts will have trouble ruling any other way.

The courts did not reverse the bans in states that have legal traditional marriage. Largely the courts did agree with me, I wanted DOMA struck down because it prevented federal marriage benefits from states that legalize SSM. I have supported that SSM is a state issue and that it's appropriate either way to redefine marriage to include SSM or to uphold the traditional definition of marriage and not recognize same sex relationships.

 

[AGENT J]

No, what I'm fine with is people voting and having their beliefs put into law on social issues. I view it as tyranny to override that process because a minority didn't get their way in some states.

its not ok voting on equality, discrimination, rights etc and thats why when pushed these votes are thrown out and its exactly the opposite of tyranny.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)The courts did not reverse the bans in states that have legal traditional marriage.
2.) Largely the courts did agree with me
3.) I wanted DOMA struck down because it prevented federal marriage benefits from states that legalize SSM.
4.) I have supported that SSM is a state issue and that it's appropriate either way to redefine marriage to include SSM or to uphold the traditional definition of marriage and not recognize same sex relationships.

1.) actually they(some state supreme courts) have in a few cases when the issue was pushed, SCOTUS didnt just do that recently because that was not the argument presented to them, huge difference
2.) no because what you are saying wasnt being heard (states right to discriminate)
3.) good for you, it needed struck down
4.) but it s simply not and once pushed it will fail as a state issue and this is already slowly happening when this specific issue is pushed to the courts

 

[AGENT J]

again when pushed courts dont seem to agree with you

eventually the discrimination will fail, all it is gonna take is some court cases and pushing the issue

for example if im married to my wife in PA and we are granted all the state and federal rights but then she is traveling in SC and gets in a car accident is it right for them not to notify me to make medical decesions if that state does recognize my marriage?
what if she dies? can they just not tell me since they dont see us as married?
of if i go there to i not have visitation rights since in that state we arent married?
etc etc etc

it will be cases like these and 1000 other possibilities that will end stat discrimination and it will be even easier with the fall of DOMA.

Granting equal rights is coming soon, it may not be around the corner but ending doma and granting federal rights is the foundation and launching pad. When its pushed the courts will have trouble ruling any other way.

The courts did not reverse the bans in states that have legal traditional marriage. Largely the courts did agree with me, I wanted DOMA struck down because it prevented federal marriage benefits from states that legalize SSM. I have supported that SSM is a state issue and that it's appropriate either way to redefine marriage to include SSM or to uphold the traditional definition of marriage and not recognize same sex relationships.

no comment on my examples i gave you? interesting

 

[Mr. Invisible]

No, what I'm fine with is people voting and having their beliefs put into law on social issues. I view it as tyranny to override that process because a minority didn't get their way in some states.

Why should people's freedoms and liberties be decided by others? The only way in which people should have curbs on their freedoms is if those actions were to infringe on the liberty of others (eg rape, murder, and the like). By putting people's freedoms and rights up to the people, what you are doing is effectively showing that you do not care about freedom or liberty for individuals and would welcome a tyranny of the majority.

 

[digsbe]

its not ok voting on equality, discrimination, rights etc and thats why when pushed these votes are thrown out and its exactly the opposite of tyranny.

We can label anything as "equality, discrimination, and tyranny." I could go on and on about how it's tyranny to have a progressive tax system that discriminates against the wealthy by making them pay a higher percentage of their income, people vote on tax issues that do not impact them because they are in lower financial brackets. It's tyranny that someone is subject to a higher rate than someone else because the majority got their way politically. I think many in the pro-SSM camp have done a fantastic job at contorting the issue by completely demonizing their opponents as if they are akin to the racists during the civil rights movement and highlighting some kind of persecution complex that people buy into. It's over-hyped. The fact of the matter is that it's a social issue, not this equal rights issue where a minority is strongly discriminated against. No one makes gays sit in the back of the bus, it's not illegal to be gay, there aren't separate schools for gays and the enjoy the same exact rights and freedoms as every other citizen. What some states won't do is alter and change the definition of marriage to recognize homosexual unions as a marriage because the people in that state support the traditional, default definition for our nation.

With a democracy the political minority looses, that's just how it works. In a Republic the states have rights.

Why should people's freedoms and liberties be decided by others? The only way in which people should have curbs on their freedoms is if those actions were to infringe on the liberty of others (eg rape, murder, and the like). By putting people's freedoms and rights up to the people, what you are doing is effectively showing that you do not care about freedom or liberty for individuals and would welcome a tyranny of the majority.

I do care about freedom and liberty, that's why I respect the rights of those who disagree with me and recognize the issue as a social issue that, those who disagree with me on, can have their votes heard and put into legal action. People are free to vote on issues, they have the liberty to believe what they want and have the democratic process change laws. Forcing same sex marriage is not a constitutional right, the default definition is that marriage is between a man and woman. The law has to change to accommodate for same sex marriages and have the term of "marriage" be redefined. It's a social issue discussing changing a legal definition, and on such a change people can have their voices heard and their votes cast like with other issues.

 

[windowdressing]

The courts did not reverse the bans in states that have legal traditional marriage. Largely the courts did agree with me, I wanted DOMA struck down because it prevented federal marriage benefits from states that legalize SSM. I have supported that SSM is a state issue and that it's appropriate either way to redefine marriage to include SSM or to uphold the traditional definition of marriage and not recognize same sex relationships.

interesting question ... if a state wants to deny certain rights to certain groups, should they be able to do that? For example, suppose a state wants to give restaurant owners the right to deny service to black customers, should they be able to do that?

 

[davidtaylorjr]

you said no discrimination is going on, you are wrong :shrug:
this fact will not change

I did say that you are correct. And realistically there is no discrimination. Do courts agree? Not all of them. However, just because a court says something doesn't make it so, it just makes it law, right or wrong. That being said, everyone already has the right to marry.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)We can label anything as "equality, discrimination, and tyranny." I could go on and on about how it's tyranny to have a progressive tax system that discriminates against the wealthy by making them pay a higher percentage of their income, people vote on tax issues that do not impact them because they are in lower financial brackets.
It's tyranny that someone is subject to a higher rate than someone else because the majority got their way politically.

2.)I think many in the pro-SSM camp have done a fantastic job at contorting the issue by completely demonizing their opponents as if they are akin to the racists during the civil rights movement and highlighting some kind of persecution complex that people buy into. It's over-hyped.

3.) The fact of the matter is that it's a social issue, not this equal rights issue where a minority is strongly discriminated against. No one makes gays sit in the back of the bus, it's not illegal to be gay, there aren't separate schools for gays and the enjoy the same exact rights and freedoms as every other citizen.

4.) What some states won't do is alter and change the definition of marriage to recognize homosexual unions as a marriage because the people in that state support the traditional, default definition for our nation.

3.)With a democracy the political minority looses, that's just how it works. In a Republic the states have rights.

you could TRY but the trick is getting it to the courts and having them decided and when this has happened its been labled as discrimination and a violation of equality.

2.) yes the bigotry and discrimination is made up and doesnt really exists. It is a civil rights issues and when pushed this has been the decision. :shrug:

3.) 100% wrong thats not a fact thats your opinion that has no support when actually pushed to the courts

4.) to think gays arent discriminated against is pure ignorance and or dishonesty. saying they have the same rights and freedoms as everyone else when examples of what you say doesnt happen can be found is inane.

5.) they will have to sooner or later equality is coming, and when this issues as reached state supreme courts its exactly what happened, the states werent allowed to discriminate.

6.) good think we arent a complete democracy then and the fed protects our rights, the states do have rights but they dont have free reign to do what they want, thats why when pushed they lost so far.

 

[digsbe]

no comment on my examples i gave you? interesting

No comment on my argument :lol:?

Hypotheticals don't always make for strong arguments. If I get licensed as a pharmacist and move to another state why can I not use my license from the other state to work? Why can't I legal make decisions related to pharmacy practice? Do those states not recognize my legal credentials and legal license issued somewhere else? It's up to the state, if a state doesn't recognize a same sex marriage then they don't have to extend any kind of benefits or legal status to it. It's a state issue, as far as another state is concerned there is no legal validity between two men or women who are "married" somewhere else. It doesn't matter what PA does, when in SC the laws of SC govern things. Pot may be legal in Colorado, but if you bring it to another state expect a lawsuit. The other state doesn't have to recognize the laws of Colorado and give you a pass or special privileges that their citizens do not have. If the other state has laws against what you could legally do in another state then expect to have a lawsuit.

 

[AGENT J]

I did say that you are correct.
2.)And realistically there is no discrimination.
3.)Do courts agree? Not all of them.
4.)However, just because a court says something doesn't make it so, it just makes it law,
5.) right or wrong.
6.) That being said, everyone already has the right to marry.

1.) i know i am, facts make it that way
2.) realistically you are wrong
3.) yes when the issues has actually been pushed, what you are trying to sell and nobody is buying is that the courts that didnt hear the issues and havent ruled disagree, this simply isnt true because thats not the same thing.
4.) yes it dsoes make it so, thats exactly what happens
5.) your opinion of right or wrong is meaningless to me and this debate and the law
6.) false and already proven wrong when the courts actually decided on this matter. if that was true the courts couldnt have ruled it violated equality. But that didnt happen, hence you are wrong.

 

[digsbe]

you could TRY but the trick is getting it to the courts and having them decided and when this has happened its been labled as discrimination and a violation of equality.

2.) yes the bigotry and discrimination is made up and doesnt really exists. It is a civil rights issues and when pushed this has been the decision. :shrug:

3.) 100% wrong thats not a fact thats your opinion that has no support when actually pushed to the courts

4.) to think gays arent discriminated against is pure ignorance and or dishonesty. saying they have the same rights and freedoms as everyone else when examples of what you say doesnt happen can be found is inane.

5.) they will have to sooner or later equality is coming, and when this issues as reached state supreme courts its exactly what happened, the states werent allowed to discriminate.

6.) good think we arent a complete democracy then and the fed protects our rights, the states do have rights but they dont have free reign to do what they want, thats why when pushed they lost so far.

Please don't categorize what I said into points, that's not what I posted. Also, don't misrepresent what I said because it's convenient for you. I am not claiming that bigotry and discrimination is made up for doesn't exist. There are plenty of people on the pro-SSM side that are bigots and discriminatory against those who are against it and visa versa. Although the fact remains that it's a social issue discussing changing a civil right. So, you say I'm 100% wrong on the fact of the matter being that SSM is a social issue and disprove that with your opinion that it's an equal rights issue? When pushed into courts it seems that it is the state's right to define marriage either way :shrug: In my state SSM is banned, DOMA is unconstitutional largely because it prevents legal couples in states that legalize SSM to receive federal benefits. I also never claimed that gays are never discriminated against, what I did say is that it's far overplayed and over-hyped.

Your post is dishonest, you are applying things to my argument that I never said, argued, or believed.