DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional

[racrguy]

Other than the fact that the number of people in the social contract is 2, I can't think of a single argument that gay marriage advocates have used that cannot be used by an advocate of Polygamist marriage.

Let me re-iterate the fact that I don't believe that the federal government should have anything to do with marriage in the first place.

While I may personally believe in what DOMA was, it had no place in federal government.

This is a state thing, and most likely where the ground war on this will be fought, no matter where the subject ends up....

I don't see what the big deal about polygamy is either? Why can't adults get married to more than one spouse? DOMA was horseshit, and has no place in any level of government.

[ELVIS]

i dont give a shit what anyone else does.

god bless.

[Gargamel]

I don't see what the big deal about polygamy is either? Why can't adults get married to more than one spouse? DOMA was horseshit, and has no place in any level of government.

If marriage is considered a cornerstone of civilized society (which can obviously be debated), some sort of government influence will be involved. If government influence is involved, a definition is required.

Some believe that it is an outdated institution and serves little purpose.

If so, then you are correct and DOMA is basically worthless even at the state level.

I happen to believe that marriage should still serve as a societal cornerstone.

But hey, I'm an evil conservative creepy cracker... LOL

[Vertnut]

Do we REALLY have to go over this bullshit line of thinking again? This has already been hashed out and explained. Why do opponents of gay marriage think that because a couple of dudes or a couple of chicks can get married the next logical step is kid fucking? Pedophiles do have rights, the same rights you and I do until they're removed via due process.


Define what a strong majority is. I'm thinking you cross the threshold of strong majority when you progress into double digit percentage points difference.

Remember: Majority rules, minority rights.

This response is one reason I've made it a point to duck threads you're in ever since you lied about voting/not voting for Obama (I'm still not sure which it is, but no matter). 62%-38% is a "strong majority" by any measure. If the supreme's "decide" that pedophiles have "rights", that's all it takes. Again, they just took away the states' right to vote. Where does it stop? You (of all people) certainly can't tell the future of what the supreme court can/will decide. After the Obama-Care decision, i'm thinking anything is open to debate.

[Forever_frost]

How about if the supreme court decides that pedophiles have "rights"? Does a guy have the "right" to marry a ten-year-old girl? Boy? Both? Several of each?
With no "basis" other than someone's "right", where's the limit?
The people of California voted, with a strong majority, against "gay marriage", and the supreme court just nullified the entire voting populace of California. What's next?

Not really. Prop 8 is still law. Those who brought the suit had no standing and it vacated the lower court's ruling. Still good law

[Vertnut]

Not really. Prop 8 is still law. Those who brought the suit had no standing and it vacated the lower court's ruling. Still good law

Gov Brown just said that in 30 days, same-sex marriage will resume, right?

[Baron Von Crowder]

This response is one reason I've made it a point to duck threads you're in ever since you lied about voting/not voting for Obama (I'm still not sure which it is, but no matter). 62%-38% is a "strong majority" by any measure. If the supreme's "decide" that pedophiles have "rights", that's all it takes. Again, they just took away the states' right to vote. Where does it stop? You (of all people) certainly can't tell the future of what the supreme court can/will decide. After the Obama-Care decision, i'm thinking anything is open to debate.

correct me if I am wrong, but it doesnt change state law, just federal. So you can file your federal taxes as married, so long as you were married in a state that it is legal.

[Vertnut]

correct me if I am wrong, but it doesnt change state law, just federal. So you can file your federal taxes as married, so long as you were married in a state that it is legal.

Correct, but see above post. Remember that the lower federal judge (that is now openly gay) approved same-sex marriage for a brief time and it's being reinstated.

[Nash B.]

62%-38% is a "strong majority" by any measure.

3 vs 2. It's close.

[Forever_frost]

Gov Brown just said that in 30 days, same-sex marriage will resume, right?

He's refusing to enforce current law like Obama is but that doesn't make it legal. What he's doing is illegal according to the law of California. Easier explaination would be: Obama permits amnesty for 'dreamers' despite what the law says. Is it legal? No. Are those in charge of enforcing the law going to enforce the law? No.

[racrguy]

This response is one reason I've made it a point to duck threads you're in ever since you lied about voting/not voting for Obama (I'm still not sure which it is, but no matter).

[needs citation]

62%-38% is a "strong majority" by any measure.

By those qualifiers, the opposition had a "strong majority."

If the supreme's "decide" that pedophiles have "rights", that's all it takes.

You need to be more specific about which rights you're talking about, then we can have a discussion about pedophiles' rights.

Again, they just took away the states' right to vote.

To which decision are you referring?

Where does it stop?

What, the SCOTUS making rulings on things? Never.

You (of all people) certainly can't tell the future of what the supreme court can/will decide.

You're absolutely right, and neither can you.

After the Obama-Care decision, i'm thinking anything is open to debate.

Everything IS open for debate. If you discuss two opposing viewpoints, it's a debate.

All in all, you need to be more specific about what you're talking about so we can discuss it. Vagueries only lead to confusion and each of us talking past each other.

[Vertnut]

3 vs 2. It's close.

Show me one election that considers that "close" when a presidential election is considered a "land slide" when it's a 5 point difference.

[Vertnut]

He's refusing to enforce current law like Obama is but that doesn't make it legal. What he's doing is illegal according to the law of California. Easier explaination would be: Obama permits amnesty for 'dreamers' despite what the law says. Is it legal? No. Are those in charge of enforcing the law going to enforce the law? No.

Gays will be legally getting married in California.

[Vertnut]

[needs citation]

By those qualifiers, the opposition had a "strong majority."

You need to be more specific about which rights you're talking about, then we can have a discussion about pedophiles' rights.

To which decision are you referring?

What, the SCOTUS making rulings on things? Never.

You're absolutely right, and neither can you.

Everything IS open for debate. If you discuss two opposing viewpoints, it's a debate.

All in all, you need to be more specific about what you're talking about so we can discuss it. Vagueries only lead to confusion and each of us talking past each other.

I don't need to be more specific about anything. If you dont understand, I can't help you. No citation needed. You admitted you lied (one way or the other) after the election to show you had "balls" to do it. It doesn't surprise me that you don't remember it considering your "selective" memory.

[Baron Von Crowder]

I don't need to be more specific about anything. If you dont understand, I can't help you. No citation needed. You admitted you lied (one way or the other) after the election to show you had "balls" to do it. It doesn't surprise me that you don't remember it considering your "selective" memory.

Dont go all skidmark on us, but what does the federal law changing to allow gay couples have to do with state laws?