I know, that is the point. Dude, what the hell?
Liberals on this issue alone are enormous hypocrites denying the right to marry for all sorts of people. They just make one more exception than the people you are talking about. Not really that much to cheer about honestly.
The liberal position is not taking government out of marriage and that is what I support. While its great they support gays marrying they are not really going about it in a way I approve of.
Well, if that is your point then I misunderstood.
Obviously.
But can you explain this then? How are they hypocrites? What exception do they make? Why would you cheer this ruling?
The "hell" is that you are not making much sense.
The liberals are attempting to remove government barriers to marriage via prejudicial licensing laws. That's what the argument you pretend to support is about. It's not about allowing the States, the Federal government and employers to ignore your right to contract.
No, they support benefits provided by government to be available to people that marry and giving that ability to only one more group. I do not support benefits provided by the state, I do not support a contract with the state, and I do not support only extending it to one more group.
What was the basis of the decision in this particular instance?
All of their victories now come through liberal courts rather than popular vote. Not at all something to celebrate actually, quite the opposite. It is a false victory to celebrate defeating the will of the people.
That is why beneficiaries of Affirmative Action are ridiculed, that is why the immigrants are so hated.
Actually, it's an excellent victory when justice prevails over the tyranny of the masses.
I wonder what you will trigger when I answer?
Anyway, they ruled it was a violation of the equal protection clause to not allow gay couples the "federal benefits" of marriage.
Of course, the "federal benefits" are also unconstitutional.
we conclude that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional.
Wrong answer - try reading the decision and not just the news story
Do you consider "equal protection" to be unconstitutional?
Right, that still does not explain why you would NOT (left that out in version you quoted above) cheer this ruling.
I think, you are PRETENDING to be libertarian to hold out for some nuclear option. It allows you to pretend to be in favor of marriage equality but not really support marriage equality. I have no idea what specific people you are claiming "liberals" deny the right to marry. But the state is not obligated to honor contracts it finds to impossible to enforce or that pervert justice. For instance, the state is not obligated to enforce a contract entered into under duress or where one party lacked the capacity to consent.
A real libertarian supports equality before the law and extending that wherever possible. As long as the state is providing benefits it should provide them to all without regard to the contract participants gender, race, creed or other traits. The fact that they are providing benefits is not a valid reason to deny someone a FUNDAMENTAL right.
Oh god dude, I went over that at least twice already.
I think you are trying your best to label me as a false libertarian and doing a piss poor job of doing it. I even made a point to say as long as they consent, but you clearly didn't even read that part or you are ignoring it so you can continue to say I'm not a real libertarian. Try reading, ok?
The liberals find the "benefits" as rights. Do you? Btw, when I make it point to say I'm for the right to marry anyone you wish as long as they consent that is what I mean. Try to understand that.
You did not. If your position were sincere I would think you would cheer this decision.
No, I was making a point about the fact that not all contracts have to be honored by the state.
You have failed to give any specifics over to whom you believe "liberals" are denying the right of marriage.
No, the benefits are not rights. That is not AT ALL what the courts have held. The right is "equal protection" or equality before the law. You have no right to any state provided benefits. You have a right to equal access to the benefit. The state can't give preference to one group and not the other unless the distinction serves a valid state interest. For instance, you cannot tax a black couple at one rate and mixed race couple at another.
I have already gave you my reasons for not cheering the decision and I promise you my position is sincere. Please though go about proving that it's not. Seriously, what complete bull**** to call me not a libertarian. You have zero proof that I'm not but you continue on like you do. Just stop it already.
Yeah, by making it a point to bring up something I already said as if I didn't. Seriously, its a page or so back when I said "as long as all parties involved consent." Can you please read what I'm saying for a change?
Polygamy for one. If all parties consent they should be allowed to marry. This is actually something they refuse to accept because they see it as wrong for someone to marry two or more partners. I personally don't care as long as all parties involved want to be involved. I know you won't like that example, but frankly I don't care. You asked for an example and there you go.
What part of "liberals find the benefits as rights" did you not get? I didn't say they were rights or that the courts view them as such. You still are not reading.
All of their victories now come through liberal courts rather than popular vote. Not at all something to celebrate actually, quite the opposite. It is a false victory to celebrate defeating the will of the people.
That is why beneficiaries of Affirmative Action are ridiculed, that is why the immigrants are so hated.
Actually, it's an excellent victory when justice prevails over the tyranny of the masses.
Not exactly the mass's...a few
An unprecedented Gallup study involving more than 120,000 interviews finds that 3.4% of U.S. adults identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender; the highest incidence is among those who are nonwhite, younger, and less educated.
Special Report: 3.4% of U.S. Adults Identify as LGBT
The "masses" I was referring to are those opposed to GM. And it was more of an over the top response to a stupid conservative hack comment.
that is why the immigrants are so hated.
This is the second ruling against DOMA by a federal appeals court
The court's justification for its decision
It all comes down to "What is the societal benefit which justifies treating a discernible 'class' as worthy of discrimination?"
All of their victories now come through liberal courts rather than popular vote. Not at all something to celebrate actually, quite the opposite. It is a false victory to celebrate defeating the will of the people.
That is why beneficiaries of Affirmative Action are ridiculed, that is why the immigrants are so hated.
Not everything should be left to popular vote. This is one of those issues which should not be left to popular vote.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?