Another Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down DOMA

[bripat9643]

LOL at the dopes that think civil rights can be put to a vote.

By definition, Civil Rights are put to a vote, moron.

Yes, and when they do they are challenged and lose. It happened with interracial marriage and it will happen with gay marriage. It will continue to lose in court all the way to the SCOTUS. Good thing the SCOTUS didn't wait for popular opinion when it came to interracial marriage. If they did, blacks wouldn't have been allowed to marry whites until the 1990s instead of 1965.

Every time it has been put to a vote, the public has voted against making gay marriage legal.

 

[bripat9643]

And what about gay couples WITH children?

The children are not the offspring of the "couple," so the question is irrelevant. Every child has a biological mother and a biological father. None has two biological mothers or two biological fathers.

Biology has nothing to do with parenting.

It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that.

 

[bodecea]

You mean Congress didn't vote on Civil Rights bill I and Civil Rights bill II?

YOu mean you don't know those bills were voted and passed to ENFORCE rights that people were already supposed to have but were not getting due to the racist governments of the South......

I too wonder if you are a citizen of the U.S....you sure don't know much about how our system of government works.

In other words, Civil Rights are voted on.

They are not. Read the Civil Rights Act....better yet:

Voting Rights Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. §§ 1973–1973aa-6)[1] is a landmark piece of national legislation in the United States that outlawed discriminatory voting practices that had been responsible for the widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans in the U.S.[2]

Nothing about voting or giving civil rights...only about outlawing practices taking away civil rights people already had.

 

[bodecea]

The children are not the offspring of the "couple," so the question is irrelevant. Every child has a biological mother and a biological father. None has two biological mothers or two biological fathers.

Biology has nothing to do with parenting.

It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that.

Wow....talk about misogynist!

 

[bripat9643]

So...this poster wants to throw adopted children and step children out with the bath water.....Why? Because them there dang gays wanna get hitched....*snort!

Whatever I want is beside the point. The statement made was factually inaccurate. There is no such thing as children resulting from a homosexual couple.

Again, my children would disagree. We decided, as a couple, to have children. We, just like thousands and thousands of heterosexual couples, used science to create our families. We have two children that came from a 100% gay union (we used gay sperm) so to say that no children can result is just plain stupid.

Were you aware that one of Romney's sons had to use invitro fertilization and a surrogate to have children. Do we get to annul their marriage?

Your children have a biological father, not two biological mothers. End of story.

 

[bripat9643]

Why is it when you wingnuts try to make an argument against Gay marriage, you talk about other things besides gays...

This isn't about incest or polygamy. (Both of which are illegal in all 50 states, rendering this a moot point).

Tell me why two consenting adults of the same sex getting married would be a bad thing for anyone.

It's called an analogy, you fucking dipstick. Why is it whenever someone presents an analogy that turds like you can't deal with, you call it "changing the subject?"

Even so, mainstreaming homosexual marriages into legality would not come close to causing the kind of damage that it will without the ability to punish people who do not accept that legality. Legalize same sex marriage as far as government benefits go, but allow the wedding cake baker, the photographer, the relationship counselor to say no. Allow schools the power to send homosexual children home and by all means, permit the Boy Scouts to tell the newly outed scout that he doesn't get the Eagle badge.

Then you have an argument that this is only about federal rights.

By that same logic, it should be acceptable for me to discriminate against Mormons. I don't like them, I should be able to refuse to do business with them.

It should be acceptable for diner owners to refuse to serve black people or Asian people.

I agree. The Constitution prevents government from discriminating, not individuals.

I could see a relationship counselor being able to beg off on the rationale that his views make it impossible to give a gay couple any useful advice. But a Wedding Cake Baker? Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

 

[bripat9643]

Now you're really being an idiot. Lots of conservative judges are striking down the discrimination these days. Get with it.

Name one.

Judge Dennis Jacobs, the Chief Justice that ruled in the case being discussed in this thread.

The fact that Bush appointed him doesn't make him a conservative. Bush originally wanted to appoint Harriet Meyers to the SC, and she definitely wasn't a conservative.

NEXT!

 

[bodecea]

Name one.

Judge Dennis Jacobs, the Chief Justice that ruled in the case being discussed in this thread.

The fact that Bush appointed him doesn't make him a conservative. Bush originally wanted to appoint Harriet Meyers to the SC, and she definitely wasn't a conservative.

NEXT!

Denial is NOT just a river in Egypt, I see.

 

[Ravi]

By definition, Civil Rights are put to a vote, moron.

Yes, and when they do they are challenged and lose. It happened with interracial marriage and it will happen with gay marriage. It will continue to lose in court all the way to the SCOTUS. Good thing the SCOTUS didn't wait for popular opinion when it came to interracial marriage. If they did, blacks wouldn't have been allowed to marry whites until the 1990s instead of 1965.

Every time it has been put to a vote, the public has voted against making gay marriage legal.

Again, civil rights cannot constitutionally be voted on.

 

[bodecea]

Whatever I want is beside the point. The statement made was factually inaccurate. There is no such thing as children resulting from a homosexual couple.

Again, my children would disagree. We decided, as a couple, to have children. We, just like thousands and thousands of heterosexual couples, used science to create our families. We have two children that came from a 100% gay union (we used gay sperm) so to say that no children can result is just plain stupid.

Were you aware that one of Romney's sons had to use invitro fertilization and a surrogate to have children. Do we get to annul their marriage?

Your children have a biological father, not two biological mothers. End of story.

And next you will have the government FORCE these biological fathers to participate in raising their children from birth til 18......right?...and marry the biological mother, right?

 

[bodecea]

Yes, and when they do they are challenged and lose. It happened with interracial marriage and it will happen with gay marriage. It will continue to lose in court all the way to the SCOTUS. Good thing the SCOTUS didn't wait for popular opinion when it came to interracial marriage. If they did, blacks wouldn't have been allowed to marry whites until the 1990s instead of 1965.

Every time it has been put to a vote, the public has voted against making gay marriage legal.

Again, civil rights cannot constitutionally be voted on.

Bripat is flailing....and it's quite amusing.

 

[Inthemiddle]

For once, I actually agree with Bripat. Civil rights most certainly are voted on. What he fails to realize is that that is the problem, and is how they become matters of discrimination. One of the criteria that are considered when identifying a suspect class is whether the class is politically disenfranchised. Thus, having such rights voted upon, and said class being politically unable to adequately defend itself is part of what makes the difference between equal protection and discrimination.

 

[bodecea]

By definition, Civil Rights are put to a vote, moron.

Yes, and when they do they are challenged and lose. It happened with interracial marriage and it will happen with gay marriage. It will continue to lose in court all the way to the SCOTUS. Good thing the SCOTUS didn't wait for popular opinion when it came to interracial marriage. If they did, blacks wouldn't have been allowed to marry whites until the 1990s instead of 1965.

Every time it has been put to a vote, the public has voted against making gay marriage legal.

Everytime it's been put to a vote, the margin of losing has shrunk. Are you smart enough to see the writing on the wall? I somewhat doubt that.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Everytime it's been put to a vote, the margin of losing has shrunk. Are you smart enough to see the writing on the wall? I somewhat doubt that.

He can't take his eyes off all the cock-n-balls drawings.

 

[Seawytch]

Name one.

Judge Dennis Jacobs, the Chief Justice that ruled in the case being discussed in this thread.

The fact that Bush appointed him doesn't make him a conservative. Bush originally wanted to appoint Harriet Meyers to the SC, and she definitely wasn't a conservative.

NEXT!

Wrong Bush.

 

[Seawytch]

Whatever I want is beside the point. The statement made was factually inaccurate. There is no such thing as children resulting from a homosexual couple.

Again, my children would disagree. We decided, as a couple, to have children. We, just like thousands and thousands of heterosexual couples, used science to create our families. We have two children that came from a 100% gay union (we used gay sperm) so to say that no children can result is just plain stupid.

Were you aware that one of Romney's sons had to use invitro fertilization and a surrogate to have children. Do we get to annul their marriage?

Your children have a biological father, not two biological mothers. End of story.

No, they have two loving parents and a sperm donor. End of story.

 

[Darkwind]

I don't know why we even bother with lower courts anymore. The left have abused the legal system so much, that only the SCOTUS will ever hear any cases. Unless, of course, the judgement goes their way in a lower court.

This will, of course, be one of those times when the right also follows that path.

Get rid of government, and we won't have these problems.

 

[g5000]

By definition, Civil Rights are put to a vote, moron.

Yes, and when they do they are challenged and lose. It happened with interracial marriage and it will happen with gay marriage. It will continue to lose in court all the way to the SCOTUS. Good thing the SCOTUS didn't wait for popular opinion when it came to interracial marriage. If they did, blacks wouldn't have been allowed to marry whites until the 1990s instead of 1965.

Every time it has been put to a vote, the public has voted against making gay marriage legal.

Bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination always have been popular, no argument there.


.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I don't know why we even bother with lower courts anymore. The left have abused the legal system so much, that only the SCOTUS will ever hear any cases. Unless, of course, the judgement goes their way in a lower court.

This will, of course, be one of those times when the right also follows that path.

Get rid of government, and we won't have these problems.

Except that the plaintiff was the appellee here.

 

[bripat9643]

Your children have a biological father, not two biological mothers. End of story.

No, they have two loving parents and a sperm donor. End of story.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.