- Joined
- Nov 3, 2010
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 12,605
- Location
- New York City
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
What is an "anti-DOMA" act?
So do you support some sort of act that enforces SSM in a language that brings it to states that want nothing of the sort?
50 bucks says it's coming in your lifetime.
Had to log in today just to see what was going on after this ruling?
all i have to say is WOOOOOWHOOOOOO!!!!!!
not the end,not a HUGE/FINAL step but a very important and great one!
That is not a class of people.
Nothing. I do not care about them.
Gays are not defined by they sexual behavior.
Yes, we support state governments not being able to infringe on constitutionally protected civil rights.
Uh oh ... you mean the huge final step is gay marriage is gonna be mandatory?
Psst....the liberalization of the country began....before and during the revolution from the monarchy of Britain.So you're saying that there hasn't been a hyper-liberalization of the country, usually to its detriment, in the past 40 years.
Sure, sure. Go ahead and get me a tinfoil hat.
Again, the SC found it to be a basic, fundamental right of the people in Loving v Virginia.I don't consider SSM to be "Constitutionally protected", let alone a civil right. That's fine though - I don't consider any marriage to be.
In a perfect world, DOMA gets wiped from the boards and the discussion on marriage altogether ends here, never to be brought up again - on either side - unless the talks concern abolition of the practice in its entirety.
Many Married Advocates
What do you have against Polygamy? It's not hurting you right? :lol:
You don't think other groups whose identities are defined by their sexual behaviors are not going to run with this precedent? Really?
why would any marriage ever be "mandatory"?that makes zero sense
Again, the SC found it to be a basic, fundamental right of the people in Loving v Virginia.
... and that should have told you something.
But I'm curious what the huge final step would actually look like.
Sure they are
Gays are identified by what they are attracted to and who they have sex with
So are Polygamists. Who are you to judge them and insinuate they are second class citizens? Bigot
You just insinuated they are second class citizens. Bigot
Yes they are
Loving only shot down the prohibition of interracial marriage.
Everyone should have a "right" to get married. Not everyone should be rewarded to do so.
So you want unequal treatment under the law. You want the law to proscribe rewards for some people and not for others.
Loving only shot down the prohibition of interracial marriage.
Okay, let me come at this another way - I'll be happy when marriage is, in no way, federally recognized or encouraged through financial benefits.
Everyone should have a "right" to get married. Not everyone should be rewarded to do so.
They can run with it all they want. In fact, marriage being opposite sex only never stopped them from trying to challenge the number of spouses a person could legally have. The cases will still come down to what the legitimate state interest the state can show it has for that particularly restriction in marriage. For same sex marriage it was a restriction on sex/gender and the Court ruled that maintaining this restriction was not, in itself, a legitimate state interest essentially. However, the restriction involved in polygamy is on number of spouses any person can have and the state arguments have centered on much more than simply "this is how its always been" or something of this nature. Instead, the state has said that there are much more legitimate reasons to restrict how many people can be legally defined as another's spouse. Since other contracts allow for such a restriction on how many people are involved, there is no reason to believe that this will not hold up for marriage, where that restriction is instrumental in how the current laws of marriage operate. No other contracts are limited based on gender/sex.
Um, I want no rewards for anyone.
Gays are recognized as a class of people by the court. Polygamists not so much. Name calling from ignorance is going to fail.
You are making **** up now.
Wrong again. You can be gay and celibate. You can be gay and have sex with people of the opposite sex.
Do you want spouses to automatically inherit their dead spouses' property upon death, in such instances as there is no written will?
The argument can be made that Polygamy is closer to real marriage than Gay Marriage. Both are sham marriages however. In a Polygamist marriage, the union is still man + woman, you're just adding a (s). Children can still be conceived and born naturally without some Frankenstein science experiment. I see a lot of people cheering this decision, but Gay Marriage was not made Constitutional today. The defense of marriage act merely made the Federal definition of recognized marriage man + woman, as the definition has been known since the beginning of mankind. The oligarchy of black robes merely said marriage can mean anything because there is now no US Federal Definition of what marriage means. Has nothing to do with gays specifically.
I'm laughing my a** off watching liberals call people bigots while making the case that we should restrict marriage equality from people who want to marry more than one person. "Marriage Equality" apparently only applies to liberal approved sexual interest groups. Anyone else who wants in on marriage equality to justify who/what they want to marry are still second class citizens. What legitimate reason would a state have to ban polygamy? This DOMA case was brought to the court because of a tax issue. Why should polygamy and group marriage be illegal? Why can't fathers marry adult sons? Sisters marry sisters?
Based upon their sexual behavior. Same as polygamists. "Marriage Equality" only applies to your pre approved list of sexual interest groups? Bigot
You're the one insinuating they don't deserve "marriage equality". Bigot.
Homosexuals are identified by their sexual behavior and sexual preferences. Now you're basically claiming there is no such thing as gay people. :lol:
Based upon their sexual behavior. Same as polygamists. "Marriage Equality" only applies to your pre approved list of sexual interest groups? Bigot
You're the one insinuating they don't deserve "marriage equality". Bigot.
Homosexuals are identified by their sexual behavior and sexual preferences. Now you're basically claiming there is no such thing as gay people. :lol:
No, not only, again the court stated that marriage is a basic, fundamental right.Loving only shot down the prohibition of interracial marriage.
That is changing the topic, from marriage being a right....to federal tax policy and survivor benefits, to say nothing of contract law whether at the state or federal level.Okay, let me come at this another way - I'll be happy when marriage is, in no way, federally recognized or encouraged through financial benefits.
Well, that flies in the face of our society.....which is reflected in our laws.Everyone should have a "right" to get married. Not everyone should be rewarded to do so.
So a ruling which says that the federal government has to respect what a state does in terms of marriage is somehow trampling on states rights?
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?