DOMA declared unconstitutional... AGAIN

Jul 31, 2012 | Posted by: Rick in Kansas | Full story: www.dailykos.com

The U.S. District Court for Connecticut has struck down the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" adding to the litany of federal courts finding the 1996 law to be unconstitutional.

Comments (Page 3)

Showing posts 41 - 60 of80
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41
Aug 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
No federal right to gay marriage.
that's reality.
try again.
Why do you guys always pretend you are elite?
your not.
Did black marriages provide moms and dads?
yes, that's why the overturn of race laws automatically negated marriage laws. have you noticed the same is not true for gays?
look into that...
but if you try the "no REQUIREMENT to procreate" stuff, I will say you are out of your league...
that only works in your hippie blogs, not in the courts...
Did you even notice that the DOMA cases all declared no right to gay marriage?
too busy celebrating them to read them huh?
Actually overtuning "race laws" didn't automatically negate the inter-racial marriage bans. It took a specific lawsuit to finally overturn all inter-racial bans, and it had NOTHING to do with procreation.

The right to marry in every state will come later; federal recognition is just another step to equality.
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
Aug 8, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually overtuning "race laws" didn't automatically negate the inter-racial marriage bans. It took a specific lawsuit to finally overturn all inter-racial bans, and it had NOTHING to do with procreation.
The right to marry in every state will come later; federal recognition is just another step to equality.
again, these DOMA decisions are negating FEDERAL recognition...

DID YOU EVEN READ THEM?

Once racial laws were overturned, that alone supported overturning inter-racial marriage laws...
LOOK IT UP...
However the same is not true here...guess why...
inter-racial couples can PROCREATE...
Here is the first circuit:

"Following Baker, "gay rights" claims prevailed in several well known decisions, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.620 (1996), but neither mandates that the Constitution requires states to permit same-sex marriages."

also, blacks were a suspect class...gays are NOT. In other words, the courts have consistently found that gays are no where close to racial civil rights. you are self aggrandizing to think you are. again the first circuit says:

"First, this court in Cook v. Gates, 528 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2763 (2009), has already declined to create a major new category of "suspect classification" for statutes distinguishing based on sexual preference. Cook rejected an equal protection challenge to the now-superceded "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy adopted by Congress for the military, pointing out that Romer itself avoided the suspect classification label. Cook, 528 F.3d at 61-62. This binds the panel. San Juan Cable LLC v. P.R. Tel. Co., 612 F.3d 25, 33 (1st Cir. 2010).
Second, to create such a new suspect classification for same-sex relationships would have far-reaching implications--in particular, by implying an overruling of Baker, which we are neither empowered to do nor willing to predict. Nothing indicates that the Supreme Court is about to adopt this new suspect classification when it conspicuously failed to do so in Romer--a case that could readily have been disposed by such a demarche. That such a classification could overturn marriage laws in a huge majority of individual states underscores the implications."

These quotes are directly from a decision you are celebrating...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
Aug 8, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
again, these DOMA decisions are negating FEDERAL recognition...
DID YOU EVEN READ THEM?
Once racial laws were overturned, that alone supported overturning inter-racial marriage laws...
LOOK IT UP...
However the same is not true here...guess why...
inter-racial couples can PROCREATE...
Here is the first circuit:
"Following Baker, "gay rights" claims prevailed in several well known decisions, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.620 (1996), but neither mandates that the Constitution requires states to permit same-sex marriages."
also, blacks were a suspect class...gays are NOT. In other words, the courts have consistently found that gays are no where close to racial civil rights. you are self aggrandizing to think you are. again the first circuit says:
"First, this court in Cook v. Gates, 528 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2763 (2009), has already declined to create a major new category of "suspect classification" for statutes distinguishing based on sexual preference. Cook rejected an equal protection challenge to the now-superceded "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy adopted by Congress for the military, pointing out that Romer itself avoided the suspect classification label. Cook, 528 F.3d at 61-62. This binds the panel. San Juan Cable LLC v. P.R. Tel. Co., 612 F.3d 25, 33 (1st Cir. 2010).
Second, to create such a new suspect classification for same-sex relationships would have far-reaching implications--in particular, by implying an overruling of Baker, which we are neither empowered to do nor willing to predict. Nothing indicates that the Supreme Court is about to adopt this new suspect classification when it conspicuously failed to do so in Romer--a case that could readily have been disposed by such a demarche. That such a classification could overturn marriage laws in a huge majority of individual states underscores the implications."
These quotes are directly from a decision you are celebrating...
Keep quoting old cases which will be irrelevant once the Federal DOMA is overturned by the SCOTUS.

True, gays haven't been classified as a suspect class YET; "yet" being the key phrase. And as previous cases have shown, we don't even need to be classified as a suspect class in order to overturn these unconstitutional bans.

Everyone knows how this ends. Same-sex couples will have the right to marry in every state by the end of the decade.

Just knowing how much that bothers you & your fellow teabagging aniti-gay GOPasaurs is what makes the wait worth it.
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44
Aug 8, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep quoting old cases which will be irrelevant once the Federal DOMA is overturned by the SCOTUS.
True, gays haven't been classified as a suspect class YET; "yet" being the key phrase. And as previous cases have shown, we don't even need to be classified as a suspect class in order to overturn these unconstitutional bans.
Everyone knows how this ends. Same-sex couples will have the right to marry in every state by the end of the decade.
Just knowing how much that bothers you & your fellow teabagging aniti-gay GOPasaurs is what makes the wait worth it.
Old cases as in the DOMA decision from this MAY? 2 months old?
So you didn't even read it!

Here is the decision if you want to speak intelligently about it...
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl...

if you want to pull out the pom poms and cheer, reply to someone else...
if you wasnt to talk about the real facts and law, you have some reading to do.

Everything you wrote is absolutely negated by the very decision you celebrate...
that's why they call it "bliss".

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45
Aug 8, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Old cases as in the DOMA decision from this MAY? 2 months old?
So you didn't even read it!
Here is the decision if you want to speak intelligently about it...
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl...
if you want to pull out the pom poms and cheer, reply to someone else...
if you wasnt to talk about the real facts and law, you have some reading to do.
Everything you wrote is absolutely negated by the very decision you celebrate...
that's why they call it "bliss".
Apart from the link, your post is bloviation. Nothing more.

How about excepting from the link to support a specific point ... other than that you don't like gay people in general, and "Curteese" in particular.

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46
Aug 8, 2012
 
Sorry .... I meant : "sheeple" in particular.

(Though of course "Curteese" is included in the "general", as are countless others you don't know personally, and about whom you appear to feel more than a little animus)
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47
Aug 8, 2012
 
snyper wrote:
Sorry .... I meant : "sheeple" in particular.
(Though of course "Curteese" is included in the "general", as are countless others you don't know personally, and about whom you appear to feel more than a little animus)
I have animus against faux elitism mixed with ignorance...
and yes, you identify the constant offenders...

like how I already cut and pasted directly from the DOMA case and was told it was "old" law from two months ago...ya know, the title of the thread?

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#48
Aug 8, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I have animus against faux elitism mixed with ignorance...
and yes, you identify the constant offenders...
like how I already cut and pasted directly from the DOMA case and was told it was "old" law from two months ago...ya know, the title of the thread?
I've read your posts, and I agree that we are facing both a poisoned pill and a chess fork.

The REAL gain would be a SCOTUS ruling of "Suspect Classification" in our favor. On THAT basis we ultimately get the whole enchilada.

As it stands, the uncharacteristic rollovers by certain members of our opposition in favor of our interests on various matters, are precisely to scuttle attempts to successfully make the Suspect Class argument. They remove the "access to the political process" argument.

I think that the "faux elite" you object to are just shortsighted and, while decent tactical thinkers, have limited strategic talents (not an uncommon skillset limitation. Few can think 12-20 moves ahead simultaneously on multiple boards)

Relying on the strategic incompetence of the real decision makers by ignoring them, by simply focusing on tactics, or only the obvious political pawns and shortterm advances, is the mistake of the greenie.

Our opposition,(composed of such as the Koch and Mars families, the C-Street Family, etc) are at the top of the tactical and political heap, and did not get there by being obvious, facile, shortsighted, or clumsy in methodology or execution.
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#49
Aug 8, 2012
 
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I've read your posts, and I agree that we are facing both a poisoned pill and a chess fork.
The REAL gain would be a SCOTUS ruling of "Suspect Classification" in our favor. On THAT basis we ultimately get the whole enchilada.
As it stands, the uncharacteristic rollovers by certain members of our opposition in favor of our interests on various matters, are precisely to scuttle attempts to successfully make the Suspect Class argument. They remove the "access to the political process" argument.
I think that the "faux elite" you object to are just shortsighted and, while decent tactical thinkers, have limited strategic talents (not an uncommon skillset limitation. Few can think 12-20 moves ahead simultaneously on multiple boards)
Relying on the strategic incompetence of the real decision makers by ignoring them, by simply focusing on tactics, or only the obvious political pawns and shortterm advances, is the mistake of the greenie.
Our opposition,(composed of such as the Koch and Mars families, the C-Street Family, etc) are at the top of the tactical and political heap, and did not get there by being obvious, facile, shortsighted, or clumsy in methodology or execution.
frankly, I don't know how to take this...

its lucid and reasonable....
it has no place on this board!:)

On that topic, I want you to know that I have no issue at all with being gay...none.
I obviously have a strong opinion on marriage...

I think as soon as that distinction is recognized by your side, it will be less of a black and white issue for them like it is now.

Gays need to wrap their head around the fact that MOST people do not want to interfere in any way in what people want to do, but marriage serves a useful purpose which is not served by allowing gays to marry.
That's why when polling the ask if gay marriage should be ILLEGAL, so folks think of gays being locked up....MOST people would NEVER want that...so they say NO. Hence the positive polls.

But when they ask about support for gay marriage, folks say NO.

Gays need to start asking why this is, instead of automatically deeming any opposition as bigotry...

In short, as is common in the modern era, the crowd shouting for tolerance needs to show some and the crowd preaching compassion needs to show some...

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50
Aug 8, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
frankly, I don't know how to take this...
its lucid and reasonable....
it has no place on this board!:)
On that topic, I want you to know that I have no issue at all with being gay...none.
I obviously have a strong opinion on marriage...
I think as soon as that distinction is recognized by your side, it will be less of a black and white issue for them like it is now.
Gays need to wrap their head around the fact that MOST people do not want to interfere in any way in what people want to do, but marriage serves a useful purpose which is not served by allowing gays to marry.
That's why when polling the ask if gay marriage should be ILLEGAL, so folks think of gays being locked up....MOST people would NEVER want that...so they say NO. Hence the positive polls.
But when they ask about support for gay marriage, folks say NO.
Gays need to start asking why this is, instead of automatically deeming any opposition as bigotry...
In short, as is common in the modern era, the crowd shouting for tolerance needs to show some and the crowd preaching compassion needs to show some...
Like you just did, right?

I'm a legally married Lesbian......please explain why the federal government should be allowed to pick and choose what legal marriages they will recognized and which ones they won't. I'm rather interested in your opinion on this.

Thanks:-)

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51
Aug 8, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
frankly, I don't know how to take this...
its lucid and reasonable....
it has no place on this board!:)
On that topic, I want you to know that I have no issue at all with being gay...none.
I obviously have a strong opinion on marriage...
I think as soon as that distinction is recognized by your side, it will be less of a black and white issue for them like it is now.
Gays need to wrap their head around the fact that MOST people do not want to interfere in any way in what people want to do, but marriage serves a useful purpose which is not served by allowing gays to marry.
That's why when polling the ask if gay marriage should be ILLEGAL, so folks think of gays being locked up....MOST people would NEVER want that...so they say NO. Hence the positive polls.
But when they ask about support for gay marriage, folks say NO.
Gays need to start asking why this is, instead of automatically deeming any opposition as bigotry...
In short, as is common in the modern era, the crowd shouting for tolerance needs to show some and the crowd preaching compassion needs to show some...
If I tried to restrict your access to marriage to the person you love, how would you feel?

As equal sovereign Citizens, we should have equal access for OUR committed relationships to every aspect of participation in this nation.
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52
Aug 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
If I tried to restrict your access to marriage to the person you love, how would you feel?
As equal sovereign Citizens, we should have equal access for OUR committed relationships to every aspect of participation in this nation.
in essence, you are demanding a gov't student loan even though you don't go to school...ya know, equality and all...
hey, students often spend that money on cars and rent, so why shouldn't you get car and rent money...

SCHOOL! that's why!

Same with marriage...
its intended for folks building a nest (with exceptions, no rule is perfect, so we stick with a relationship that has both a mom and dad)

your simply not the people we want to encourage with marriage, not because your are gay, but because you are not building a marital family.

Its no more derogatory to gays to deny them marriage as it is to those who do not get a student loan...
you may have a great relationship with someone, or you may be a young entrepreneurial...either way, your not the crowd we are inducing...
"equality" claims don't change that.

And if you want to have the same name and equality, why do you separate yourselves out into the LGBT community...a denotation denied to straights based on nothing but sexual orientation.

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#53
Aug 9, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
in essence, you are demanding a gov't student loan even though you don't go to school...ya know, equality and all...
hey, students often spend that money on cars and rent, so why shouldn't you get car and rent money...
SCHOOL! that's why!
Same with marriage...
its intended for folks building a nest (with exceptions, no rule is perfect, so we stick with a relationship that has both a mom and dad)
your simply not the people we want to encourage with marriage, not because your are gay, but because you are not building a marital family.
Its no more derogatory to gays to deny them marriage as it is to those who do not get a student loan...
you may have a great relationship with someone, or you may be a young entrepreneurial...either way, your not the crowd we are inducing...
"equality" claims don't change that.
And if you want to have the same name and equality, why do you separate yourselves out into the LGBT community...a denotation denied to straights based on nothing but sexual orientation.
We were separated out by that Prussian writer who coined a term for us in the late 19th century.

Since every erotic play activity engaged in by gay people is also enjoyed by heteros, it isn't the activities that separate us. That was and is the error of perception inherent in the term.

Since the same actions occur on both sides of the ledger, it is reasonable to cancel them both out and consider what remains.

Try it.

If you can't come up with the answer on your own, I'll tell you.
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#54
Aug 9, 2012
 
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
We were separated out by that Prussian writer who coined a term for us in the late 19th century.
Since every erotic play activity engaged in by gay people is also enjoyed by heteros, it isn't the activities that separate us. That was and is the error of perception inherent in the term.
Since the same actions occur on both sides of the ledger, it is reasonable to cancel them both out and consider what remains.
Try it.
If you can't come up with the answer on your own, I'll tell you.
yah, i think I am going to have to ask you to give me a little more on this, I am not following it at all...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#55
Aug 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Old cases as in the DOMA decision from this MAY? 2 months old?
So you didn't even read it!
Here is the decision if you want to speak intelligently about it...
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl...
if you want to pull out the pom poms and cheer, reply to someone else...
if you wasnt to talk about the real facts and law, you have some reading to do.
Everything you wrote is absolutely negated by the very decision you celebrate...
that's why they call it "bliss".
There's nothing to discuss. Everyone with even half a brain knows same-sex couples will have the right to marry everywhere in the US by the end of the decade. It's only a matter of time.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#56
Aug 9, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
frankly, I don't know how to take this...
its lucid and reasonable....
it has no place on this board!:)
On that topic, I want you to know that I have no issue at all with being gay...none.
I obviously have a strong opinion on marriage...
I think as soon as that distinction is recognized by your side, it will be less of a black and white issue for them like it is now.
Gays need to wrap their head around the fact that MOST people do not want to interfere in any way in what people want to do, but marriage serves a useful purpose which is not served by allowing gays to marry.
That's why when polling the ask if gay marriage should be ILLEGAL, so folks think of gays being locked up....MOST people would NEVER want that...so they say NO. Hence the positive polls.
But when they ask about support for gay marriage, folks say NO.
Gays need to start asking why this is, instead of automatically deeming any opposition as bigotry...
In short, as is common in the modern era, the crowd shouting for tolerance needs to show some and the crowd preaching compassion needs to show some...
Simple answer-

Opposition to equality IS bigotry.

Next question.....

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#57
Aug 9, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
yah, i think I am going to have to ask you to give me a little more on this, I am not following it at all...
ok.

Take every act that you consider to be uniquely gay. Since those acts are also enjoyed by heteros, they can't rally be said to be defining characteristics of gay people. So, since they aren't uniquely gay activities, simply subtract them from consideration.

Now ask yourself what is left that uniquely defines gay people?

The answer is nothing.

Not a single act is uniquely and definitely gay.

What IS uniquely gay is that we pairbond with our own genotype.
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#58
Aug 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
ok.
Take every act that you consider to be uniquely gay. Since those acts are also enjoyed by heteros,
sex with the same gender?
are you completely unhinged at this point?

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59
Aug 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Has anyone thought of the state tax implications if and when the IRS begins to allow same-sex tax filing? Many state tax regulations pertain to marriage, and relate to how the Federal forms are completed. Data is simply taken from the Federal return and inserted on the state form. If a state wishes to continue the ban, they are going top have to make major changes to their state tax filing. Missouri is one of them and I can't wait to hear the screams coming from Jefferson City about how much it will cost them to completely revamp the tax system. I guess the burden of cost will be on the shoulders of Education. That is how they usually come up with money....take it away from the Education budget

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60
Aug 10, 2012
 
RalphB wrote:
Has anyone thought of the state tax implications if and when the IRS begins to allow same-sex tax filing? Many state tax regulations pertain to marriage, and relate to how the Federal forms are completed. Data is simply taken from the Federal return and inserted on the state form. If a state wishes to continue the ban, they are going top have to make major changes to their state tax filing. Missouri is one of them and I can't wait to hear the screams coming from Jefferson City about how much it will cost them to completely revamp the tax system. I guess the burden of cost will be on the shoulders of Education. That is how they usually come up with money....take it away from the Education budget
Actually it'll be up to the individual to make sure they put the right info on their state tax return, just as it is now.

If your state uses data from the federal form, then you'll have to figure out your federal taxes both ways (married,single) and use the appropriate data for your state form.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 41 - 60 of80
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

72 Users are viewing the Gay/Lesbian Forum right now

Search the Gay/Lesbian Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Racist, rabid-right Republicans 13 min Fa-Foxy 52
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 16 min NorCal Native 39,906
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 19 min Frankie Rizzo 66,969
B: The Forgotten Letter in LGBT 22 min Chance 23
Lesbian police chief with 20 years service is s... 40 min lides 23
Why Are We Being Forced To Accept Homosexuality? (Feb '12) 43 min lides 279
Proudly Representing the 'B' in LGBT: Let's Hea... 49 min Absolutely 5
CO Baker Found Guilty for Denying Gay Couple We... 1 hr Hug a Tortoise 9,493
•••
•••
•••
•••