WH Backs Defense of Marriage Reversal

Jul 19, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: MyFoxPhilly

The White House is supporting legislation to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Comments
121 - 127 of 127 Comments Last updated Jul 26, 2011
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

“Angry Antlers ”

Since: Sep 08

Miami

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132
Jul 26, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

WOW, hearing crickets from the Reich about one of their followers murdering children and bombing government buildings in Oslo, Norway.

The Fox Ministry of Propaganda, pushing their hatred of Muslims, immediately reported that it was "muslim terrorists" who clearly were responsible.

It was a Talibangelical right wing Christian extremist "New Knight's Templar" Nazi sympathizer nutter.

And anyone still listens to the Fox Ministry of Propaganda?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#133
Jul 26, 2011
 
Teach wrote:
<quoted text>
So...you worked as an OB-GYN in the military for 20+ years, including 2 combat tours with the Marines?
I have looked at divorce statistics, thanks.
I think you're a gay who hates heteros, christians and hates women, just my personal observation. Does that make it true, or allow me to state it as fact?
In any case, thanks for your service.
You're welcome.

Maybe you should research who delivers medical care to women in the military; it's not just OB-GYN docs. A medic/corpsman does the first screening, lab techs do the testing, and pharmacy techs dispense the drugs, preventive med techs track infection rates, etc. Any of those along with the OB-GYN staff would know how many female servicemembers are being treated for vaginal infections.

Btw, I only hate individual bigots- whether they are straight christian women or gay jewish men or bisexual athiest transgenders. Unlike you, I don't judge all people based on a single characteristic; I have to know them to hate them.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134
Jul 26, 2011
 
Teach wrote:
<quoted text>
Getting rid of DOMA doesn't necessarily mean the SC will legalize gay marriage, or be able to force all states to recognize it. They'll run into that pesky Constitution.
I never said they would; at least not initially.

The SCOTUS is likely to rule that section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional, which means the federal govt will have to treat ALL legal state marriages equally. They will leave the decision of who can get married up to the states for now, since that issue is not part of the case likely to come before them (Gill v OPM).

But eventually (within the decade) they WILL force all states to allow same-sex couples to marry based on equal protection & due process clauses of the constitution; just as they did with inter-racial marriage.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#135
Jul 26, 2011
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice spam. What does that have to do with marriage equality? Nothing.
Nothing, any more than you posing it as an equality question. You loons never quit, you just change direction. Every Legal Marriage has equality, notice I said legal. You are trying to suck government benefits, that's what it's really all about.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137
Jul 26, 2011
 
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Nothing, any more than you posing it as an equality question. You loons never quit, you just change direction. Every Legal Marriage has equality, notice I said legal. You are trying to suck government benefits, that's what it's really all about.
Constitutionally the STATES decide who can and can't marry, not the federal government.

That's why DOMA is being overturned by the courts as a violation of state's rights and equal protection.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#138
Jul 26, 2011
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Constitutionally the STATES decide who can and can't marry, not the federal government.
That's why DOMA is being overturned by the courts as a violation of state's rights and equal protection.
Like I said, that will work where liberal judges judicate from the bench, but I don't think it will fly well in the red states.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139
Jul 26, 2011
 
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Like I said, that will work where liberal judges judicate from the bench, but I don't think it will fly well in the red states.
Since DOMA is a FEDERAL law it doens't matter what the red states think. This is being overturned by FEDERAL judges, not state judges, and will end up at the SCOTUS where even Scalia has said DOMA is likely unconstitutional.

The current slate of cases challenging DOMA have already won at the lower court level and are pending in the appeals courts where they will all be upheld and then it's on to the SCOTUS.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 7
Next Last
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.

•••
•••