Another Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down DOMA

[bigrebnc1775]

The case applies, as you well know.

People are allowed to marry, and you can't provide any law in modern America that prevents classes of people from marrying.

Loving vs Virginia

That was based on race not same sex why do faggots think all blacks are gay?

How does it apply how can you equate race to same sex? Does it mention same sex in loving versus Virginia?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Were y'all the 10 people @ Fluke's rally ?

Seawytch says she had children with "other couples." Apparently she believes procreation requires 3 people, and she has the gal to tell me I don't understand biology!

She also says she had a child with her lesbian partner. I'd like her to explain how that works. What part did her partner play in the act of conception?

These are the kind of nutburgers who try to tell us that marriage has nothing to do with procreation.

Marriage isn’t solely about procreation; again, it’s a contract between two committed individuals, their gender irrelevant, it doesn’t define marriage alone and legal, legitimate marriage can exist absent children.

Gender is a mandate to have a recognized marriage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have fail, as always, here. I don't have to apply Loving, because it does not apply to the right of marriage in general.

The case applies, as you well know.

People are allowed to marry, and you can't provide any law in modern America that prevents classes of people from marrying.

That was based on race not same sex why do faggots think all blacks are gay?

How does it apply how can you equate race to same sex? Does it mention same sex in loving versus Virginia?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Life started with a male and a female, not a male and male or female and female.

Actually, it started with an asexually reproducing virus.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Life started with a male and a female, not a male and male or female and female.

Actually, it started with an asexually reproducing virus.

You can call yourself a worm that's fine.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You have fail, as always, here. I don't have to apply Loving, because it does not apply to the right of marriage in general.

The case applies, as you well know.

People are allowed to marry, and you can't provide any law in modern America that prevents classes of people from marrying.

How does it apply how can you equate race to same sex? Does it mention same sex in loving versus Virginia?

Are family members a class of people?
Are you saying two brother who just happen to be gay should be allowed to marry?

 

[Qball]

Marriage isn’t solely about procreation; again, it’s a contract between two committed individuals, their gender irrelevant, it doesn’t define marriage alone and legal, legitimate marriage can exist absent children.

But procreation is a big part of the reason there is a legal institution of marriage to begin with. You're right that it's also a contract between two committed individuals, but that doesn't speak to the unique union of marriage. Without procreation you just have two people wanting to call themselves married to attain a type of social distinction while not fulfilling one of its most fundamental purposes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thanks for being stupid as usual.

If you wish to have gay brothers marry, go for it.

Several states and DC recognize gay marriage. DOMA is dead. DADT is dead.

All of this is over but you shouting.

You have fail, as always, here. I don't have to apply Loving, because it does not apply to the right of marriage in general.

How does it apply how can you equate race to same sex? Does it mention same sex in loving versus Virginia?

Are family members a class of people?
Are you saying two brother who just happen to be gay should be allowed to marry?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Thanks for being stupid as usual.

If you wish to have gay brothers marry, go for it.

Several states and DC recognize gay marriage. DOMA is dead. DADT is dead.

All of this is over but you shouting.

You have fail, as always, here. I don't have to apply Loving, because it does not apply to the right of marriage in general.

Are family members a class of people?
Are you saying two brother who just happen to be gay should be allowed to marry?

You're the idiot that supports gay marriage, So let's get back to your position on class of people. Should family members be given the same right to marry even those two gay brothers?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Marriage isn’t solely about procreation; again, it’s a contract between two committed individuals, their gender irrelevant, it doesn’t define marriage alone and legal, legitimate marriage can exist absent children.

But procreation is a big part of the reason there is a legal institution of marriage to begin with. You're right that it's also a contract between two committed individuals, but that doesn't speak to the unique union of marriage. Without procreation you just have two people wanting to call themselves married to attain a type of social distinction while not fulfilling one of its most fundamental purposes.

You're right marriage is partially about having Children and insuring those children born in to a marriage are taken care of.

 

[Qball]

Marriage isn’t solely about procreation; again, it’s a contract between two committed individuals, their gender irrelevant, it doesn’t define marriage alone and legal, legitimate marriage can exist absent children.

But procreation is a big part of the reason there is a legal institution of marriage to begin with. You're right that it's also a contract between two committed individuals, but that doesn't speak to the unique union of marriage. Without procreation you just have two people wanting to call themselves married to attain a type of social distinction while not fulfilling one of its most fundamental purposes.

You're right marriage is partially about having Children and insuring those children born in to a marriage are taken care of.

It's more than partially. Deciding that's not intrinsic to the purpose of legal marriage turns marriage into a club some people can get into and others can't, and that's cheapening and doesn't represent what marriage is about.

 

[Inthemiddle]

But procreation is a big part of the reason there is a legal institution of marriage to begin with.

No.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nothing to get back to except you stupidly shouting. OK, go for it.

Thanks for being stupid as usual.

If you wish to have gay brothers marry, go for it.

Several states and DC recognize gay marriage. DOMA is dead. DADT is dead.

All of this is over but you shouting.

Are family members a class of people?
Are you saying two brother who just happen to be gay should be allowed to marry?

You're the idiot that supports gay marriage, So let's get back to your position on class of people. Should family members be given the same right to marry even those two gay brothers?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nothing to get back to except you stupidly shouting. OK, go for it.

Thanks for being stupid as usual.

If you wish to have gay brothers marry, go for it.

Several states and DC recognize gay marriage. DOMA is dead. DADT is dead.

All of this is over but you shouting.

You're the idiot that supports gay marriage, So let's get back to your position on class of people. Should family members be given the same right to marry even those two gay brothers?

so you admit you are wrong?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

But procreation is a big part of the reason there is a legal institution of marriage to begin with.

No.

Marriage was to protect the rights of Children born into the relationship.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Marriage isn’t solely about procreation; again, it’s a contract between two committed individuals, their gender irrelevant, it doesn’t define marriage alone and legal, legitimate marriage can exist absent children.

But procreation is a big part of the reason there is a legal institution of marriage to begin with. You're right that it's also a contract between two committed individuals, but that doesn't speak to the unique union of marriage. Without procreation you just have two people wanting to call themselves married to attain a type of social distinction while not fulfilling one of its most fundamental purposes.

Let’s assume we have a man and woman who wish to marry, however the woman is infertile. According to the reasoning of some, because this union could not produce children, it should not be allowed.

And there are fertile opposite-sex couples who elect not to have children; no state would perceive either union as lesser than a union with offspring.

Consequently, the contract of marriage can not be conditioned upon the ability to, or desire to, have children.

As the Court noted in Lawrence, citing Bowers:

ndividual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.” 478 U.S., at 216 (footnotes and citations omitted).

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Since the decision to have children or not – or any other aspect of an intimate relationship, in the context of marriage or not – is protected by the fundamental right of privacy, the state may not forbid any couple from marrying because that union won’t produce children.

With this ‘requirement’ not in play, therefore, the state has no authority to disallow same-sex couples from marrying.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, you can't admit you fucked up, again.

Nothing to get back to except you stupidly shouting. OK, go for it.

You're the idiot that supports gay marriage, So let's get back to your position on class of people. Should family members be given the same right to marry even those two gay brothers?

so you admit you are wrong?

 

[bripat9643]

Marriage isn’t solely about procreation; again, it’s a contract between two committed individuals, their gender irrelevant, it doesn’t define marriage alone and legal, legitimate marriage can exist absent children.

But procreation is a big part of the reason there is a legal institution of marriage to begin with. You're right that it's also a contract between two committed individuals, but that doesn't speak to the unique union of marriage. Without procreation you just have two people wanting to call themselves married to attain a type of social distinction while not fulfilling one of its most fundamental purposes.

The only reason for the contract is to protect the offspring of the union. Without procreation, marriage wouldn't exist. Anyone who denies that is simply full of shit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anyone who insist on it, in fact, is full of shit like bripat.

Marriage isn’t solely about procreation; again, it’s a contract between two committed individuals, their gender irrelevant, it doesn’t define marriage alone and legal, legitimate marriage can exist absent children.

But procreation is a big part of the reason there is a legal institution of marriage to begin with. You're right that it's also a contract between two committed individuals, but that doesn't speak to the unique union of marriage. Without procreation you just have two people wanting to call themselves married to attain a type of social distinction while not fulfilling one of its most fundamental purposes.

The only reason for the contract is to protect the offspring of the union. Without procreation, marriage wouldn't exist. Anyone who denies that is simply full of shit.

 

[bripat9643]

Homosexuals have always been here.....it is society that is catching up

Birth defects have always been here. That doesn't mean that we should allow someone with Cerebral Palsy to become a brain surgeon.

No, but someone with Cerebral Palsy is allowed to marry

Homosexuals are allowed to become brain surgeons. How does that support your point?