Another Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down DOMA

[Cheddarmelon]

No it isn't. God created Man and Woman. He said man is to cleave unto his Wife. Read the Bible before you say stupid things like that, you would not look as foolish.

laws are not dictated by YOUR religion.

Laws are dictated by my state constitution......which makes gay marriage a no-no.

Sorry about your luck.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No it isn't. God created Man and Woman. He said man is to cleave unto his Wife. Read the Bible before you say stupid things like that, you would not look as foolish.

laws are not dictated by YOUR religion.

Laws are dictated by my state constitution......which makes gay marriage a no-no.

That will change.

 

[rightwinger]

Then your understanding of God is wrong.

According to God.

No it isn't. God created Man and Woman. He said man is to cleave unto his Wife. Read the Bible before you say stupid things like that, you would not look as foolish.

Thankfully......our laws are not ruled by the bible

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Bible is not properly understood by the far right crowd today is the problem.

Then your understanding of God is wrong.

No it isn't. God created Man and Woman. He said man is to cleave unto his Wife. Read the Bible before you say stupid things like that, you would not look as foolish.

Thankfully......our laws are not ruled by the bible

 

[rightwinger]

Same sex marriage is degenerate.

Thusly hilighting the point, that the only objection that really makes a lick of sense... (all the other ones are strawmen) is that opposition to it is nothing more than religious bigotry.

One day, Bigots will no longer have a voice strong enough to hold sway. It's time for the rest of the world to drag them kicking and screaming in to the 21st century.

It's not about two male perverts marrying each other either.

Bet you don't get quite so upset when you're watching your girl on girl porn.

So, are calling God a bigot? God is correct, you gays are wrong. Live with it.

Wouldn't be the first time God got moral issues wrong

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Same sex marriage is degenerate.

Thusly hilighting the point, that the only objection that really makes a lick of sense... (all the other ones are strawmen) is that opposition to it is nothing more than religious bigotry.

One day, Bigots will no longer have a voice strong enough to hold sway. It's time for the rest of the world to drag them kicking and screaming in to the 21st century.

It's not about two male perverts marrying each other either.

Bet you don't get quite so upset when you're watching your girl on girl porn.

So, are calling God a bigot? God is correct, you gays are wrong. Live with it.

Once you can prove god exists and the bible is indeed fact you’ll be in a position to dictate public policy.

In the meantime we’ll stick with the rule of law and consistent application of Constitutional principles requiring all citizens enjoy equal protection of the law, including same-sex couples with regard to marriage law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

AmericanFirst would happily slaughter Canaanites for Joshua and his "God" who told them to commit genocide.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

The worst part is, those who use the God angle to support their positions, don't even recognize the God as described in the bible.

 

[Qball]

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

No.

Yes.

 

[Inthemiddle]

That's why it has to be decided in the Supreme Court. We have a nation in decline and decay, I expect DOMA to be struck down by the Supreme Court, we are simply becoming too degenerate to survive.

Can you explain how two adults in a monogamous relationship filing a married tax return is degenerate?

.

Same sex marriage is degenerate.

Romney thinks that drinking alcohol is degenerate. But freedom means letting people decide for themselves when they aren't hurting anyone.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No it isn't. God created Man and Woman. He said man is to cleave unto his Wife. Read the Bible before you say stupid things like that, you would not look as foolish.

laws are not dictated by YOUR religion.

Laws are dictated by my state constitution......which makes gay marriage a no-no.

Not if a provision of your state’s constitution violates the Federal Constitution, in this case the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

 

[Inthemiddle]

Then your understanding of God is wrong.

According to God.

No it isn't. God created Man and Woman. He said man is to cleave unto his Wife. Read the Bible before you say stupid things like that, you would not look as foolish.

Why should we listen to your God? My Goddess says that "an it harm none, do as thou wilt." Let each worship unto their own. The very fact that you want the federal government to be involved in such matters shows your positive love for tyranny.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Then your understanding of God is wrong.

No it isn't. God created Man and Woman. He said man is to cleave unto his Wife. Read the Bible before you say stupid things like that, you would not look as foolish.

Why should we listen to your God? My Goddess says that "an it harm none, do as thou wilt." Let each worship unto their own. The very fact that you want the federal government to be involved in such matters shows your positive love for tyranny.

And the hypocrisy of conservative dogma.

 

[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.

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.

That's not their reasoning. Of course there are couples who cannot or will not have children. I'm not saying every couple can or even should have children. I'm saying the one of the overarching reasons for legal marriage is due to the fact that men and women have children. That's a fundamental by-product of romantic unions between two people of the opposite sex.

Same-sex couples do not produce children, which isn't to say gays and lesbians can't have their own kids or even bring kids into a familial fold. But whereas it's intrinsic to heterosexual unions, it fundamentally is not to same-sex couples, which to many people creates a clear difference that doesn't require we treat those couples as though they're the same.

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.

The state couldn't deny one heterosexual couple a marriage license over another simply because one has children and the other doesn't, true. But we're talking about the definition of marriage and why it exists and why it doesn't tend to include same-sex couples. It does become a matter of privacy when we're talking about a type of couple that potentially could procreate and the discretion they use to determine whether or not to parent. It's less about privacy when talking about legalizing other forms of marriage that would not procreate regardless if it was a requirement or not.

And you keep using the word "requirement"...I didn't say anyone was required to have children. I don't think anyone really has said it was a requirement of marriage that people have children. The point is, many of the benefits tied to marriage exist given the fact that men and women tend to have children. They don't exist just as a gift of sorts for being in a romantically fulfilling relationship.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I'm saying the one of the overarching reasons for legal marriage is due to the fact that men and women have children.

Then, you're wrong.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

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.

That's not their reasoning. Of course there are couples who cannot or will not have children. I'm not saying every couple can or even should have children. I'm saying the one of the overarching reasons for legal marriage is due to the fact that men and women have children. That's a fundamental by-product of romantic unions between two people of the opposite sex.

Same-sex couples do not produce children, which isn't to say gays and lesbians can't have their own kids or even bring kids into a familial fold. But whereas it's intrinsic to heterosexual unions, it fundamentally is not to same-sex couples, which to many people creates a clear difference that doesn't require we treat those couples as though they're the same.

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.

The state couldn't deny one heterosexual couple a marriage license over another simply because one has children and the other doesn't, true. But we're talking about the definition of marriage and why it exists and why it doesn't tend to include same-sex couples. It does become a matter of privacy when we're talking about a type of couple that potentially could procreate and the discretion they use to determine whether or not to parent. It's less about privacy when talking about legalizing other forms of marriage that would not procreate regardless if it was a requirement or not.

And you keep using the word "requirement"...I didn't say anyone was required to have children. I don't think anyone really has said it was a requirement of marriage that people have children. The point is, many of the benefits tied to marriage exist given the fact that men and women tend to have children. They don't exist just as a gift of sorts for being in a romantically fulfilling relationship.

Every single thing you said is entirely irrelevant to whether or not someone should have the right to marry.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Most couples, Qball, who marry, hetero or homo, want children. Your point below is insufficient to limit marriage to heterosexuals.

Qball writes, "That's not their reasoning. Of course there are couples who cannot or will not have children. I'm not saying every couple can or even should have children. I'm saying the one of the overarching reasons for legal marriage is due to the fact that men and women have children. That's a fundamental by-product of romantic unions between two people of the opposite sex."

 

[Qball]

I'm saying the one of the overarching reasons for legal marriage is due to the fact that men and women have children.

Then, you're wrong.

And you're trolling.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I'm saying the one of the overarching reasons for legal marriage is due to the fact that men and women have children.

Then, you're wrong.

And you're trolling.

No, I'm pointing out that you're wrong.

 

[Qball]

Every single thing you said is entirely irrelevant to whether or not someone should have the right to marry.

You're right, because what I said explained why we define marriage one way instead of another. I wasn't explaining why some people have the right to marry and some don't, because to my knowledge, the doesn't ban anyone from marrying. It just doesn't define marriage the way some want it to.