DOMA Is Unconstitutional

SmarterthanYou said:
doesn't a law against killing people satisfy that balance? whereas a law that prohibits the possession of a tool capable of that is considered prior restraint and overreach, right?
Click to expand...

And that's the whole debate... Where is the line..?
 
Hate to burst your liberal bubble- OK, I love bursting your liberal bubbles:

50 The number of states whose marriage laws remain the same after the Court’s marriage decisions.

38 The number of states with laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. That includes California, where the scope of today’s Prop 8 decision beyond the specific plaintiffs will be the subject of ongoing debate and, most likely, further litigation.

12 The number of states that can now force the federal government to recognize their redefinition of marriage. The Court struck Section 3 of DOMA, which means that it must recognize same-sex marriages in states that redefine marriage.

1 The number of sections of the Defense of Marriage Act struck down yesterday (Section 3). Section 2, which ensures that no state will be forced to recognize another state’s redefinition of marriage, is still law.

0 The number of states forced to recognize other states’ redefinition of marriage.
Click to expand...
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/27...eme-courts-marriage-decisions-by-the-numbers/
 
DamnYankee said:
Hate to burst your liberal bubble- OK, I love bursting your liberal bubbles:

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/27...eme-courts-marriage-decisions-by-the-numbers/
Click to expand...
The truth is, you are on the losing side of history just like the racists before you were. You don't have to like it. You don't personally ever have to acknowledge a same sex marriage as valid, but before you die, all fifty states will acknowledge them or be forced to by the full faith and credit clause. In 1847 no one would have thought that slaves would ever be free. In 1865 no one would have ever believed that black people would have the right to vote. In 1958, lots of people would have never thought that Black people would be allowed to legally marry white people. ALL those people were wrong and one day you will be as well. I look forward to that day, not so you will be wrong, but so that free people will be allowed to love and express that love freely.
 
Socrtease said:
The truth is, you are on the losing side of history just like the racists before you were. You don't have to like it. You don't personally ever have to acknowledge a same sex marriage as valid, but before you die, all fifty states will acknowledge them or be forced to by the full faith and credit clause. In 1847 no one would have thought that slaves would ever be free. In 1865 no one would have ever believed that black people would have the right to vote. In 1958, lots of people would have never thought that Black people would be allowed to legally marry white people. ALL those people were wrong and one day you will be as well. I look forward to that day, not so you will be wrong, but so that free people will be allowed to love and express that love freely.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is merely about the definition of a word. You libs in retarded states can redefine it any way you please, but common sense prevails in my state, enshrined in our state Constitution. LOL!
 
Socrtease said:
The truth is, you are on the losing side of history just like the racists before you were. You don't have to like it. You don't personally ever have to acknowledge a same sex marriage as valid, but before you die, all fifty states will acknowledge them or be forced to by the full faith and credit clause. In 1847 no one would have thought that slaves would ever be free. In 1865 no one would have ever believed that black people would have the right to vote. In 1958, lots of people would have never thought that Black people would be allowed to legally marry white people. ALL those people were wrong and one day you will be as well. I look forward to that day, not so you will be wrong, but so that free people will be allowed to love and express that love freely.
Click to expand...

Well said!!!

I'm sorry it's taking so long in some states. But it will happen.
 
tekkychick said:
RE STY trying to turn this into another of his fanatical gun rights threads - Let's just ignore his comments, ok?
Click to expand...
yes. lets ignore the debunking of false equivalency crap when one of the liberals fucks up and talks about equal rights. maybe you should pay better attention to the whole thread instead of the cherry picking you like to do
 
OOO!! Everyone! Try this -

Go to google.com and type in something like LGBT or Lesbian or whatever in the search bar and hit enter.

Very cool!
 
SmarterthanYou said:
no reasonable person would believe that shooting randomly in to a crowd of people would be a right, no matter how happy it makes the shooter.
Click to expand...

Funny, you think that following someone is perfectly fine...and should they retaliate you have the right to shoot and kill them.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
doesn't a law against killing people satisfy that balance? whereas a law that prohibits the possession of a tool capable of that is considered prior restraint and overreach, right?
Click to expand...

Your words make you the biggest hypocrite here. "a law against killing people satisfy that balance"???? When you're all too willing to put a bullet in my head for beating your ass for following me?
 
DamnYankee said:
Hate to burst your liberal bubble- OK, I love bursting your liberal bubbles:

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/27...eme-courts-marriage-decisions-by-the-numbers/
Click to expand...

So DY, your world is falling apart. The Federal Government will now recognise all gay marriages that took place in a state where such a marriage was legal, so if my friend lives in Florida but is married in Maine, when he returns to Florida after the wedding, he will still qualify for his husband's Marine Corps retirement benefits.

California's law defining marriage as between a man and a woman has been struck down and is no longer the law.

More states are following...

Soon, the S. Ct. will rule on the legality of any state outlawing same sex marriage, and I suspect Freedom will win, much like it was won with Federal intervention regarding the segregation issue. When that happens the remainder of DOMA will be gone and all states will be required to accept other state marriages as legal.

Soon, most states will voluntarily see the bigotry of the past and self correct, unlike how the South finally was forced to desegregate by the Federal Government.
 
Jarod said:
So DY, your world is falling apart. The Federal Government will now recognise all gay marriages that took place in a state where such a marriage was legal, so if my friend lives in Florida but is married in Maine, when he returns to Florida after the wedding, he will still qualify for his husband's Marine Corps retirement benefits.

California's law defining marriage as between a man and a woman has been struck down and is no longer the law.

More states are following...

Soon, the S. Ct. will rule on the legality of any state outlawing same sex marriage, and I suspect Freedom will win, much like it was won with Federal intervention regarding the segregation issue. When that happens the remainder of DOMA will be gone and all states will be required to accept other state marriages as legal.

Soon, most states will voluntarily see the bigotry of the past and self correct, unlike how the South finally was forced to desegregate by the Federal Government.
Click to expand...

It is only your dream that judges overrule the will of the people, but the people in most states have spoken and they like the traditional definition of the word. You're the one hating on freedom, not me.
 
DamnYankee said:
It is only your dream that judges overrule the will of the people, but the people in most states have spoken and they like the traditional definition of the word. You're the one hating on freedom, not me.
Click to expand...

Discrimination by ballot box? sorry, charley, not in our country. You aren't allowed to take someone's rights away at the ballot box.

It may temporarily be in place by vote in those states. But it's unconstitutional and just wrong, wrong, wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top