DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional by Federal Judge!

[crebigsol]

Did you even read the rest of the damned thread?

There is no excuse for that kind of stupidity!

Dumbass.

I am SHOCKED that this hasn't been posted already! It's about a week old!

Federal Court Rules DOMA Sec. 3 Violates Equal Protection - Poliglot


VICTORY!

Any victory to homosexuality is a big loss to America! Why should we offer the gays equal protection? Does homosexuality contribute equally to the society as the heterosexuality? Let's go to extreme: Removing all the gays from society, a society continues; removing all the heterosexual lovers but leaving only the gays there, the society will die in 50 years. Isn't it obvious that the heterosexual lovers are enslaved to offer "equal protection" to gays?

 

[roguenuke]

Any victory to homosexuality is a big loss to America! Why should we offer the gays equal protection? Does homosexuality contribute equally to the society as the heterosexuality? Let's go to extreme: Removing all the gays from society, a society continues; removing all the heterosexual lovers but leaving only the gays there, the society will die in 50 years. Isn't it obvious that the heterosexual lovers are enslaved to offer "equal protection" to gays?

A few big problems with your logic.

One, you assume that marriage is required to have/make a baby. We all know this is not true.

Two, you assume that there are not now ways to get pregnant without actually having sex. We all know that there is something called artificial insemination.

Three, you are equating opposite sex marriage with making/raising babies. This is not what marriage is about. Especially not civil marriage. The government does not mention child bearing or rearing as a stipulation for a man and a woman to get/be married. In fact, there are at least 4 states where at least one man/woman couple type is legally prohibited from being able to produce their own children in order to have their marriage legally recognized by the state and therefore, the federal government.

 

[ptif219]

Such as...?

That the courts will get involved.

 

[middleagedgamer]

A few big problems with your logic.

One, you assume that marriage is required to have/make a baby. We all know this is not true.

Two, you assume that there are not now ways to get pregnant without actually having sex. We all know that there is something called artificial insemination.

Three, you are equating opposite sex marriage with making/raising babies. This is not what marriage is about. Especially not civil marriage. The government does not mention child bearing or rearing as a stipulation for a man and a woman to get/be married. In fact, there are at least 4 states where at least one man/woman couple type is legally prohibited from being able to produce their own children in order to have their marriage legally recognized by the state and therefore, the federal government.

That man doesn't deserve to be entertained. His views are so radically bigoted that he's probably just trolling.

That the courts will get involved.

How is that a big assumption?

So far, the courts have gotten involved quite well. In fact, they have been the voice of reason when the polls have shown that a majority of people are ignorant homophobic bigots.

 

[middleagedgamer]

In fact, there are at least 4 states where at least one man/woman couple type is legally prohibited from being able to produce their own children in order to have their marriage legally recognized by the state and therefore, the federal government.

Although, I do find this sentence to be really intriguing.

Would you care to provide some citation for this?

 

[tryreading]

Any victory to homosexuality is a big loss to America! Why should we offer the gays equal protection? Does homosexuality contribute equally to the society as the heterosexuality? Let's go to extreme: Removing all the gays from society, a society continues; removing all the heterosexual lovers but leaving only the gays there, the society will die in 50 years. Isn't it obvious that the heterosexual lovers are enslaved to offer "equal protection" to gays?

the hell...?

 

[roguenuke]

Although, I do find this sentence to be really intriguing.

Would you care to provide some citation for this?

Actually it is 6 states. In Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Utah, and Wisconsin, first cousins or first cousins once removed are only allowed to legally get married if they are of a certain age or cannot bear children.

Cousin Marriage Laws in the United States -- Legal Status of Marriages of Cousins
State laws and cousin marriage - CousinCouples.com
State Laws Regarding Marriages Between First Cousins

 

[crebigsol]

A few big problems with your logic.

One, you assume that marriage is required to have/make a baby. We all know this is not true.

Two, you assume that there are not now ways to get pregnant without actually having sex. We all know that there is something called artificial insemination.

Three, you are equating opposite sex marriage with making/raising babies. This is not what marriage is about. Especially not civil marriage. The government does not mention child bearing or rearing as a stipulation for a man and a woman to get/be married. In fact, there are at least 4 states where at least one man/woman couple type is legally prohibited from being able to produce their own children in order to have their marriage legally recognized by the state and therefore, the federal government.

There is a much bigger problem with your logic.

One. Having baby without marriage is traditionally a result of adultery. So, homosexual is encouraging adultery to make its own behavior look no sin.

Two. Artificial insemination must combine the ingredients from opposite sex, so you are exposing and accusing the barren nature of homosexual. If a homo does not need opposite sex to satisfy love, don't even ask anything that only the opposite sex can offer. This is the same logic: If the homo feels so proud of what they do, do not parasite in a society that is resulted by opposite sex marriage and ask for "equal protection". How many babies are producing out of the homo community nowadays? Frankly, by the time the homo community make "enough" babies without the contribution from the opposite sex marriage, the Islamic world would have long conquered America, and all the homo would have been stoned. Their pride will be found in the pile of their corpses. Be honest, one of the enjoyment of the homosexual is to escape the responsibility of raising babies. The speckles of baby adoption is a sinful cover up about their crime in destructing the American society.

Three. "you are equating opposite sex marriage with making/raising babies. This is not what marriage is about." Two people in love get married and have babies, the nation thus extends. That is what marriage is about: A nation needs to extend, to survive, it needs new generations. You don't even have to equate it, it is absolutely natural and vital to a nation. If all individual members of a mammal species goes homo, this species must die! There is no government law to convene, Mother Nature governs it all.

 

[roguenuke]

There is a much bigger problem with your logic.

One. Having baby without marriage is traditionally a result of adultery. So, homosexual is encouraging adultery to make its own behavior look no sin.

Two. Artificial insemination must combine the ingredients from opposite sex, so you are exposing and accusing the barren nature of homosexual. If a homo does not need opposite sex to satisfy love, don't even ask anything that only the opposite sex can offer. This is the same logic: If the homo feels so proud of what they do, do not parasite in a society that is resulted by opposite sex marriage and ask for "equal protection". How many babies are producing out of the homo community nowadays? Frankly, by the time the homo community make "enough" babies without the contribution from the opposite sex marriage, the Islamic world would have long conquered America, and all the homo would have been stoned. Their pride will be found in the pile of their corpses. Be honest, one of the enjoyment of the homosexual is to escape the responsibility of raising babies. The speckles of baby adoption is a sinful cover up about their crime in destructing the American society.

Three. "you are equating opposite sex marriage with making/raising babies. This is not what marriage is about." Two people in love get married and have babies, the nation thus extends. That is what marriage is about: A nation needs to extend, to survive, it needs new generations. You don't even have to equate it, it is absolutely natural and vital to a nation. If all individual members of a mammal species goes homo, this species must die! There is no government law to convene, Mother Nature governs it all.

Actually, having a baby outside of marriage is usually from extramarital sex, but rarely adultery. Adultery is having an affair while married. Many children are born outside of any wedlock.

You are the one who is trying to argue that allowing homosexuals marriage recognition will somehow lead to all people being homosexual. I believe this is a laughable position. Homosexuality is a natural occurence. But, if we are going off the hypothetical that all people become homosexual, I believe they would be smart enough to understand that in order for the species to survive, babies would have to be made somehow. There are homosexuals now who want to procreate.

Your initial premise is completely obsurd however, because homosexuality has been accepted in other societies as "okay", and they did not all become homosexuals.

The government recognition of marriage is the overall debate here. From a natural standpoint, homosexuality is completely natural. Marriage is actually not natural. When people form legal unions, doctrine, religion, tradition, society and personal desires encourage such things, not nature. And, legally, homosexuals can get married, even in states where they aren't legally recognized as "married". They can still have a marriage ceremony, they are just not married.

Judging from the amount of species that have demonstrated homosexual behaviors, I'd say Mother Nature is perfectly fine with homosexuality. Heck, She probably sees it as a blessing, in that it helps to reduce the increase in the human population, at least a little bit. A slow down in population growth means less of a strain on natural resources.

 

[ptif219]

That man doesn't deserve to be entertained. His views are so radically bigoted that he's probably just trolling.


How is that a big assumption?

So far, the courts have gotten involved quite well. In fact, they have been the voice of reason when the polls have shown that a majority of people are ignorant homophobic bigots.

The supreme court is federal this is now a state issue

 

[middleagedgamer]

Any victory to homosexuality is a big loss to America! Why should we offer the gays equal protection? Does homosexuality contribute equally to the society as the heterosexuality? Let's go to extreme: Removing all the gays from society, a society continues; removing all the heterosexual lovers but leaving only the gays there, the society will die in 50 years. Isn't it obvious that the heterosexual lovers are enslaved to offer "equal protection" to gays?

I have a question:

What part of Alabama are you from?

 

[roguenuke]

The supreme court is federal this is now a state issue

This was a federal court ruling. The state sued the federal government. Most likely the SCOTUS will take this case down the road, if it gets appealed all the way. If it stops with a ruling like this one, deeming DOMA unconstitutional, then the federal government has to accept DOMA as unconstitutional. Most likely, they are appealing the decision though.

 

[ptif219]

This was a federal court ruling. The state sued the federal government. Most likely the SCOTUS will take this case down the road, if it gets appealed all the way. If it stops with a ruling like this one, deeming DOMA unconstitutional, then the federal government has to accept DOMA as unconstitutional. Most likely, they are appealing the decision though.

Keep assuming but they make kick it back to the state

 

[middleagedgamer]

Keep assuming but they make kick it back to the state

Oh, for the love of God!

Listen, moron, and listen good:

This

case

might

only

kick

it

back

to

the

state,

but

Perry

v.

Schwarzenegger

will

force

the

states

to

legalize

gay

marriage!


What part of that don't you understand?

 

[roguenuke]

Keep assuming but they make kick it back to the state

What are you talking about? The US government was being sued. It was sued in U.S. District Court. The ruling was against the US government, specifically DOMA. In order for the ruling not to stand, the US government must appeal the decision. The US Appeals court can reverse or uphold the decision of the previous court, if they decide to hear the case. Then, the losing party has the option to appeal to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS has the option to hear the case or not. If the SCOTUS decides not to hear the case, then the US Appeals court decision stands. Most likely this will reach the SCOTUS, since it is about the constitutionality of a federal act.

Now, the US government can choose not to appeal the ruling, but this is highly unlikely, considering how so many in the government are still defending DOMA. If they don't appeal the ruling, then DOMA must be repealed immediately.

 

[middleagedgamer]

The US Appeals court can reverse or uphold the decision of the previous court, if they decide to hear the case.

The appellate court MUST hear the appeal.

The right to appeal a district court decision at least once is a fundamental part of procedural due process.

 

[roguenuke]

The appellate court MUST hear the appeal.

The right to appeal a district court decision at least once is a fundamental part of procedural due process.

I wasn't sure on that part. I knew the SCOTUS could refuse to hear the case, but I wasn't sure on the Appeals court. My bad.

 

[middleagedgamer]

I wasn't sure on that part. I knew the SCOTUS could refuse to hear the case, but I wasn't sure on the Appeals court. My bad.

Well, think about it:

The Constitution specifically says that the government cannot deny anyone life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Well, doesn't that include procedural due process?

And, isn't the right to appeal a part of the procedure?

If that weren't the case, how do you explain murderers sitting on death row for fifteen years? There's a big appeals process they have to go through.

 

[crebigsol]

Actually, having a baby outside of marriage is usually from extramarital sex, but rarely adultery. Adultery is having an affair while married. Many children are born outside of any wedlock.

You are the one who is trying to argue that allowing homosexuals marriage recognition will somehow lead to all people being homosexual. I believe this is a laughable position. Homosexuality is a natural occurence. But, if we are going off the hypothetical that all people become homosexual, I believe they would be smart enough to understand that in order for the species to survive, babies would have to be made somehow. There are homosexuals now who want to procreate.

Your initial premise is completely obsurd however, because homosexuality has been accepted in other societies as "okay", and they did not all become homosexuals.

The government recognition of marriage is the overall debate here. From a natural standpoint, homosexuality is completely natural. Marriage is actually not natural. When people form legal unions, doctrine, religion, tradition, society and personal desires encourage such things, not nature. And, legally, homosexuals can get married, even in states where they aren't legally recognized as "married". They can still have a marriage ceremony, they are just not married.

Judging from the amount of species that have demonstrated homosexual behaviors, I'd say Mother Nature is perfectly fine with homosexuality. Heck, She probably sees it as a blessing, in that it helps to reduce the increase in the human population, at least a little bit. A slow down in population growth means less of a strain on natural resources.

Extramarital sex and adultery are of different definitions but the same nature: irresponsible sex.
"You are the one who is trying to argue that allowing homosexuals marriage recognition will somehow lead to all people being homosexual." You make up this argument. It is not from me. My argument is that, by going to extreme, see which one of the two hypothetic societies can last.
"if we are going off the hypothetical that all people become homosexual, I believe they would be smart enough to understand that in order for the species to survive, babies would have to be made somehow." Somehow, they have not been smart enough to see that the Islamic world has been so heavily oppressing the West. It will not take much longer from today for the Europe to be succumbed. Before what you believe becomes reality, the overwhelming reality would have been that they are able to clear every closet with stones.
"The government recognition of marriage is the overall debate here." I know; that is why I said "Any victory to homosexuality is a big loss to America! ". "From a natural standpoint, homosexuality is completely natural. Marriage is actually not natural." We obviously have different concept about what is natural. Assuming your marriage means opposite sexual activity, then the continuation of the mammal species has been a result of unnatural activity allowed by Mother Nature for more than 100 million years on earth. In order to be natural and extremely natural, then let all mammals, such as lions, rats, bears, dogs... become homo and "smart enough to understand that in order for the species to survive, babies would have to be made somehow."
"Heck, She probably sees it as a blessing, in that it helps to reduce the increase in the human population, at least a little bit. A slow down in population growth means less of a strain on natural resources." On this particular point, I cannot agree with you more, 100% indeed. That is also one of the methods that some agricultural experts use to terminate a certain kind of insect; lure them, particularly the male ones, to chase after the same sex. Who can say America's enemy is not using the same tactic to extinguish, or at least to destruct, the American society? It is true that when the world gets over populated, the entire human species must go to hell for an uneven distribution on natural resources. However, which of the following action will bring a person more pride: knealing down to commit suicide in front of the enemy or tell the enemy: "Yes, we both go to hell, but you go first"?

 

[ptif219]

Oh, for the love of God!

Listen, moron, and listen good:

This

case

might

only

kick

it

back

to

the

state,

but

Perry

v.

Schwarzenegger

will

force

the

states

to

legalize

gay

marriage!


What part of that don't you understand?

The part you are assuming will happen. States have rights to make their own laws and they give voters a voice. all votes for state constitution amendments have said marriage is one man one woman

 

[ptif219]

What are you talking about? The US government was being sued. It was sued in U.S. District Court. The ruling was against the US government, specifically DOMA. In order for the ruling not to stand, the US government must appeal the decision. The US Appeals court can reverse or uphold the decision of the previous court, if they decide to hear the case. Then, the losing party has the option to appeal to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS has the option to hear the case or not. If the SCOTUS decides not to hear the case, then the US Appeals court decision stands. Most likely this will reach the SCOTUS, since it is about the constitutionality of a federal act.

Now, the US government can choose not to appeal the ruling, but this is highly unlikely, considering how so many in the government are still defending DOMA. If they don't appeal the ruling, then DOMA must be repealed immediately.

What does that have to do with state laws on marriage and states rights

 

[roguenuke]

What does that have to do with state laws on marriage and states rights

DOMA is about federal recognition of marriage, mainly. This means that the federal government will have to repeal DOMA and start recognizing same sex marriages.

Now, as far as state recognition goes, the reason DOMA was passed in the first place was because of the 14th Amendment's Full Faith and Credit Clause, and our representatives knew that this would be a conflict if Hawaii had allowed SSM to be legal before DOMA could get passed. The SCOTUS will still have to decide if the FF&CC should be deemed invalid when it comes to SSM or if like interracial marriage, it has complete standing and those states will have to accept those marriages as valid even if the state refuses to allow the marriage to be performed there or not (if the SCOTUS doesn't just decide that SSM has to be allowed in every state as it did interracial marriage). The SCOTUS has ruled that marriages that actually violate laws of other states (such as statutory rape laws and incest laws) do not have to be recognized by other states, however, since homosexuality is not illegal, then this ruling doesn't really apply.

 

[ptif219]

DOMA is about federal recognition of marriage, mainly. This means that the federal government will have to repeal DOMA and start recognizing same sex marriages.

Now, as far as state recognition goes, the reason DOMA was passed in the first place was because of the 14th Amendment's Full Faith and Credit Clause, and our representatives knew that this would be a conflict if Hawaii had allowed SSM to be legal before DOMA could get passed. The SCOTUS will still have to decide if the FF&CC should be deemed invalid when it comes to SSM or if like interracial marriage, it has complete standing and those states will have to accept those marriages as valid even if the state refuses to allow the marriage to be performed there or not (if the SCOTUS doesn't just decide that SSM has to be allowed in every state as it did interracial marriage). The SCOTUS has ruled that marriages that actually violate laws of other states (such as statutory rape laws and incest laws) do not have to be recognized by other states, however, since homosexuality is not illegal, then this ruling doesn't really apply.

It is still the states that make marriage laws not the feds. So this means they will get tax breaks big deal. You make more out of this than what it is. This means it is no longer a fed issue but left up to each state individually

 

[roguenuke]

It is still the states that make marriage laws not the feds. So this means they will get tax breaks big deal. You make more out of this than what it is. This means it is no longer a fed issue but left up to each state individually

Most of the benefits of marriage come from the fed, not the states. But I am not making any more of this than it deserves. This is a small victory that could be overturned by the SCOTUS (depends on what the Appeals Court decides and if the SCOTUS decides to hear the case). However, there is a ways to go before every state is forced to uphold the FF&CC of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. The victory in this comes if the SCOTUS sides with DOMA being unconstitutional, which will force the fed. government to recognize same sex marriages as legal marriages and give those couples the benefits they should already be getting. Within the next 10 to 15 years, we most likely will have every state recognizing same sex marriages as legal marriages, whether they perform same sex marriages in those states or not.

 

[JustineCredible]

The part you are assuming will happen. States have rights to make their own laws and they give voters a voice. all votes for state constitution amendments have said marriage is one man one woman

Judge Walker disagreed completely with that idea. Civil Rights of the people should NEVER be left to a Popular Vote!