Defense of Marriage Act appears headed to Supreme Court after appeals ...

Full story: Fox News

In this June 23, 2009 file photo, Keegan O'Brien of Worcester, Mass., leads chants as members of the LGBT community protest the Defense of Marriage Act outside a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in Boston.
Comments
1 - 20 of 27 Comments Last updated Jun 7, 2012
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#1 Jun 1, 2012
I wonder if they are going to refuse to hear the case.
Bringmedinner

San Jose, CA

#2 Jun 1, 2012
DOMA was designed to interrupt the end-run attacks on the will of the States by homosexual activists. The Congress has every authority to disrupt conspiratorial attacks on the States. This is the element of Congressional intent, that should be addressed by the high Court. Homosexuals, used by Leftists, have repeatedly used the Constitution as if it were a suicide pact for the United States. DOMA allows self-rule by the States. This decision was obviously politically motivated, coming in such short order after the blatant shift of morality Obama exerted in his support of "gay marriage." These shallow attacks on the superior authority of Congress are due to some courts not recognizing the initial motivating assaults on Law by homosexuals. Such misuse of the legal process to undermine the authority of Congress will finally be addressed by a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage in its 6000 year tradition.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#3 Jun 5, 2012
Bringmedinner wrote:
DOMA was designed to interrupt the end-run attacks on the will of the States by homosexual activists. The Congress has every authority to disrupt conspiratorial attacks on the States. This is the element of Congressional intent, that should be addressed by the high Court. Homosexuals, used by Leftists, have repeatedly used the Constitution as if it were a suicide pact for the United States. DOMA allows self-rule by the States. This decision was obviously politically motivated, coming in such short order after the blatant shift of morality Obama exerted in his support of "gay marriage." These shallow attacks on the superior authority of Congress are due to some courts not recognizing the initial motivating assaults on Law by homosexuals. Such misuse of the legal process to undermine the authority of Congress will finally be addressed by a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage in its 6000 year tradition.
States MUST recognize ALL legal marriages performed in other states. That IS part of the Constitution. Nor does ANY state get to vote to take away any person's civil rights. Again, that is part of the Constitution.

And there is no such thing as a "6000 year" tradition of marriage. Over that time, and going much farther back into the past (for as long as there have been "humans") marriage has been whatever the local group has agreed it would be: polygamy, monogamy, casual ("Let's hook up for a while"), formal (all sorts of ceremonies & falderall) and every possible combination of these.
Reality

Montpelier, VT

#4 Jun 5, 2012
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
States MUST recognize ALL legal marriages performed in other states. That IS part of the Constitution. Nor does ANY state get to vote to take away any person's civil rights. Again, that is part of the Constitution.
right, but gay marriage isn't part of the constitution, so its like a fishing license...not required to be accepted out of state...
or like a junior driver's license, not applicable out of state...
opps I did it again

Edinburg, TX

#5 Jun 5, 2012
Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#6 Jun 5, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
right, but gay marriage isn't part of the constitution, so its like a fishing license...not required to be accepted out of state...
or like a junior driver's license, not applicable out of state...
No, it is just EXACTLY like a marriage license, and that means that if straight couples can get one in one state and have it accepted in all the other states, then gay couples can too.

That is what "equal protection" means...

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#7 Jun 5, 2012
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
States MUST recognize ALL legal marriages performed in other states. That IS part of the Constitution. Nor does ANY state get to vote to take away any person's civil rights. Again, that is part of the Constitution.
And there is no such thing as a "6000 year" tradition of marriage. Over that time, and going much farther back into the past (for as long as there have been "humans") marriage has been whatever the local group has agreed it would be: polygamy, monogamy, casual ("Let's hook up for a while"), formal (all sorts of ceremonies & falderall) and every possible combination of these.
Yeah Liam.. However the those who are opposed to same gender marriage do not even realize they're arguments are virtually the same ones that were made against interracial marriage. Just insert words for gay or homosexual for colored or black. It ends up being the same.
Reality

Montpelier, VT

#8 Jun 5, 2012
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it is just EXACTLY like a marriage license, and that means that if straight couples can get one in one state and have it accepted in all the other states, then gay couples can too.
That is what "equal protection" means...
maybe to you, but I'll look at what the courts say:

"The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state's classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination. Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment."

also, this part of DOMA (section 2) was not a part of the ruling, so you are flat wrong on all counts.
Reality

Montpelier, VT

#9 Jun 5, 2012
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah Liam.. However the those who are opposed to same gender marriage do not even realize they're arguments are virtually the same ones that were made against interracial marriage. Just insert words for gay or homosexual for colored or black. It ends up being the same.
actually, the courts have found no connection between gay rights and racial civil rights. Blacks were the original suspect classification and gays are not one.

your point is therefore empty rhetoric...
(and ignores that whole SLAVERY thing)
sorry try again.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#10 Jun 5, 2012
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah Liam.. However the those who are opposed to same gender marriage do not even realize they're arguments are virtually the same ones that were made against interracial marriage. Just insert words for gay or homosexual for colored or black. It ends up being the same.
Exactly. When it comes down to it, that is why I am here. Same sex marriage will never have any direct effect on me. Well, unless I end up officiating at one...

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#11 Jun 5, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
maybe to you, but I'll look at what the courts say:
"The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state's classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination. Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment."
also, this part of DOMA (section 2) was not a part of the ruling, so you are flat wrong on all counts.
Oh, no. I am quite correct, just ahead of my time...

DOMA in its entirety is unconstitutional and will eventually be struck down.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#12 Jun 5, 2012
Bringmedinner wrote:
DOMA was designed to interrupt the end-run attacks on the will of the States by homosexual activists. The Congress has every authority to disrupt conspiratorial attacks on the States. This is the element of Congressional intent, that should be addressed by the high Court. Homosexuals, used by Leftists, have repeatedly used the Constitution as if it were a suicide pact for the United States. DOMA allows self-rule by the States. This decision was obviously politically motivated, coming in such short order after the blatant shift of morality Obama exerted in his support of "gay marriage." These shallow attacks on the superior authority of Congress are due to some courts not recognizing the initial motivating assaults on Law by homosexuals. Such misuse of the legal process to undermine the authority of Congress will finally be addressed by a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage in its 6000 year tradition.
"Traditional marriage" is polygamy.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#13 Jun 5, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
actually, the courts have found no connection between gay rights and racial civil rights. Blacks were the original suspect classification and gays are not one.
your point is therefore empty rhetoric...
(and ignores that whole SLAVERY thing)
sorry try again.
Yeah but it is going to the Supreme Court where sooner or later you little fools are going to be forced to crawl back under your rocks.. And by the way.. this issue much like Loving V Virginia was not even a civil rights issue. Till you little homophobic little religious f*cktards made it into one..

Sooner or later fool.. People of the same Gender are going to be married. And hey if it takes a Loving V Virgina type of SCOTUS Decision to make it happen. So much the better.
Reality

Montpelier, VT

#14 Jun 6, 2012
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah but it is going to the Supreme Court where sooner or later you little fools are going to be forced to crawl back under your rocks.. And by the way.. this issue much like Loving V Virginia was not even a civil rights issue. Till you little homophobic little religious f*cktards made it into one..
Sooner or later fool.. People of the same Gender are going to be married. And hey if it takes a Loving V Virgina type of SCOTUS Decision to make it happen. So much the better.
so much anger...
dare I say hate...

but keep preaching tolerance....
it's not hypocritical or anything...
oh right YOUR deeply held beliefs justify your actions...
consistency is not your side's virtue.
That_Dude

Newark, DE

#15 Jun 6, 2012
Bringmedinner wrote:
DOMA was designed to interrupt the end-run attacks on the will of the States by homosexual activists. The Congress has every authority to disrupt conspiratorial attacks on the States. This is the element of Congressional intent, that should be addressed by the high Court. Homosexuals, used by Leftists, have repeatedly used the Constitution as if it were a suicide pact for the United States. DOMA allows self-rule by the States. This decision was obviously politically motivated, coming in such short order after the blatant shift of morality Obama exerted in his support of "gay marriage." These shallow attacks on the superior authority of Congress are due to some courts not recognizing the initial motivating assaults on Law by homosexuals. Such misuse of the legal process to undermine the authority of Congress will finally be addressed by a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage in its 6000 year tradition.
You're a f*cking retard. Gay people pay taxes. They deserve all the rights you take for granted. All they want is to marry and to be left alone. You're clearly a conspiracy nut who find groups to scapegoat. Wanna know what's making this country utter sh*t? Take a hard, long look in the mirror.
Reality

Montpelier, VT

#16 Jun 6, 2012
That_Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a f*cking retard. Gay people pay taxes. They deserve all the rights you take for granted. All they want is to marry and to be left alone. You're clearly a conspiracy nut who find groups to scapegoat. Wanna know what's making this country utter sh*t? Take a hard, long look in the mirror.
I am straight, and pay my taxes and I am denied eqaul legal status based on nothing but my orientation. That is LGBT status.

Yet LGBT status has no requirement you be gay to be LGBT. Straight transgenders are LGBT, so why are other straights banned?
All straights being considered LGBT in no way reduces your own LGBT status.

is it BIGOTRY that is responsible for denial of all straights from LGBT?

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#17 Jun 6, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
so much anger...
dare I say hate...
but keep preaching tolerance....
it's not hypocritical or anything...
oh right YOUR deeply held beliefs justify your actions...
consistency is not your side's virtue.
Aww did I strike a nerve.. Well good.. Maybe you might wake up and realize it is not about your homophobia or religious bigotry. That it is really about two people that are willing to make a commitment to each other. That, yes, two people that happen to be of the same gender do and should have the same legal rights and privileges as a hetero couple.
Reality

Montpelier, VT

#18 Jun 6, 2012
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
Aww did I strike a nerve.. Well good.. Maybe you might wake up and realize it is not about your homophobia or religious bigotry. That it is really about two people that are willing to make a commitment to each other. That, yes, two people that happen to be of the same gender do and should have the same legal rights and privileges as a hetero couple.
no you didn't. I was commenting about your anger as a critique, not that it does anything...

Since I am not afraid of gays and I am not religious, your assumptions are not right. But I get why you need to paint me that way...its easier to spout insults than to address the real issue.

CU's would provide equal rights if you tried, but this marriage route...well, it aint working for you...

neither is claiming people who fully support CU's are bigots...but I don't care if you want to keep badgering people that way...but its a waste of your time...

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#19 Jun 6, 2012
opps I did it again wrote:
Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Well I like Steve so that is who I want to marry. If you get to marry Eve (assuming you are a straight guy) I should get to marry Steve. Since I don't want to marry Eve that is less competition for you.

Here are some threads everyone should check out:

Mayor Alvin Brown's position on human rights ordinance could be tricky

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/jacksonville-...

Letters from readers: Equal, not special, rights

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/jacksonville-...

Waffle House Customers Assaulted; Crime Stoppers Wants Tips

http://www.topix.com/forum/columbus/T4IB0287Q...

2 Men Beaten Inside Waffle House

http://www.topix.com/forum/columbus/TM3GAK6NK...

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#20 Jun 6, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
no you didn't. I was commenting about your anger as a critique, not that it does anything...
Since I am not afraid of gays and I am not religious, your assumptions are not right. But I get why you need to paint me that way...its easier to spout insults than to address the real issue.
CU's would provide equal rights if you tried, but this marriage route...well, it aint working for you...
neither is claiming people who fully support CU's are bigots...but I don't care if you want to keep badgering people that way...but its a waste of your time...
Not anger.. Just the pointing out the sheer stupidity of being a homophobe and a religious bigot. That is at the end all you fools have for arguments.

So please keep your do not insult my intelligence by claiming that because gays have no right to marry. It should be denied.

And your opinion is noted and rejected.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

First Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
US to release memo justifying drone strikes May '14 spytheweb 1
Prison officials: Inmate doesn't need sex change May '14 SirPrize 8
Prison officials: Inmate doesn't need sex change May '14 Bama Yankee 1
Major victory for BC in court battle over Belfa... (Jun '13) Apr '14 rock white 21
Mass. Prison Officials Appeal Sex-Change Ruling (Jan '14) Mar '14 Dubya Tee Eff 35
Enforcement of 'net ban' back off for now (Oct '13) Oct '13 robert lawson 1
Court rejects suit in officer shooting in NH (Apr '13) Jul '13 No Badges 2
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

First Circuit Court of Appeals People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••