Another Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down DOMA

[Inthemiddle]

OK, let's examine your logic, Skippy. Heterosexual couples can marry who they want. Gays can't marry "who they want." So it's discriminatory. But single people married who they want too, no one, but you say fuck them. So the 14th amendment doesn't say that anyone can go into a man woman marriage is fair (according to you) and it doesn't say people can marry "who they want" (according to you), the 14th amendment, which doesn't mention gay people, in fact only applies to gay people.

So your argument boils down to that at the end of the Civil War when they thought they were denying the ability for government to subject black people to laws differently, they were actually saying gay people can get married and get government perks!

Gotcha. I love history lessons from liberals. Now I know what it's like taking acid.

You clearly know nothing about equal protection law. Here's what it comes down to: Do gay people represent a class of people that meets the criteria of a suspect or quasi-suspect class? The court has found the answer to be yes. Next, since homosexuals represent a quasi-suspect class, intermediate scrutiny is applied to examine the law. To pass intermediate scrutiny, the challenged law must further an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest.

Therefore, the question here is whether the DOMA furthers an important federal government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest. If you want to argue that the answer to this question is yes, feel free to explain how.

 

[rightwinger]

Within our society, it is still considered abnormal, meaning accepted by a small minority.

Being lefthanded is abnormal....but it doesn't harm anyone

Neither does Homosexuality

 

[bodecea]

Who are they?
And fags aren't icky they're sick bitches.

Well, they certainly have standards. I'm sure you've been rejected.

Hey butch you just keep this in the back of your mind, I can take your woman away from you.

Not even with a loaded gun.

 

[kaz]

You clearly know nothing about equal protection law. Here's what it comes down to: Do gay people represent a class of people that meets the criteria of a suspect or quasi-suspect class? The court has found the answer to be yes. Next, since homosexuals represent a quasi-suspect class, intermediate scrutiny is applied to examine the law. To pass intermediate scrutiny, the challenged law must further an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest.

You clearly know nothing about the law at all. The law is literal, it's not based on formulas. The 14th amendment said that laws cannot be applied to different people differently. Literally. If you are gay and I am straight, we can both enter into a man-woman marriage. Neither of us can enter into a man-man marriage. That is how the law works, "who you want" is a formula. Which was my point on singles, they are married to "who they want," yet you discriminate against them. Stop being such a dumb ass and address my points, don't ignore them and repeat your ridiculous logic.

There in fact is no law which has a formula in it until the left discovered that the 14th amendment was in fact a formula.

 

[bodecea]

Within our society, it is still considered abnormal, meaning accepted by a small minority.

Being lefthanded is abnormal....but it doesn't harm anyone

Neither does Homosexuality

and remember how left-handed people used to be treated.

 

[kaz]

Within our society, it is still considered abnormal, meaning accepted by a small minority.

Being lefthanded is abnormal....but it doesn't harm anyone

Neither does Homosexuality

Agreed. Excellent example. Neither homosexuals nor lefties should be discriminated against by government. And neither is entitled to perks for it either.

 

[rightwinger]

Within our society, it is still considered abnormal, meaning accepted by a small minority.

Being lefthanded is abnormal....but it doesn't harm anyone

Neither does Homosexuality

and remember how left-handed people used to be treated.

Yea......they used to try to "convert" them also

 

[JakeStarkey]

They are "entitled" to the same "perks" everyone else gets. You bet.
\

Within our society, it is still considered abnormal, meaning accepted by a small minority.

Being lefthanded is abnormal....but it doesn't harm anyone

Neither does Homosexuality

Agreed. Excellent example. Neither homosexuals nor lefties should be discriminated against by government. And neither is entitled to perks for it either.

 

[Seawytch]

Within our society, it is still considered abnormal, meaning accepted by a small minority.

Being lefthanded is abnormal....but it doesn't harm anyone

Neither does Homosexuality

Agreed. Excellent example. Neither homosexuals nor lefties should be discriminated against by government. And neither is entitled to perks for it either.

Nobody is asking for or receiving "perks" for being gay. We should be equally entitled to them, including for our consenting adult relationships if we choose to have them legally recognized.

 

[bripat9643]

Because an adult female who is married is entitled to those benefits

She's entitled to them only because she's been a wife, a homemaker and mother her entire adult life. What has the fuck buddy of some gay pervert been doing all his life if he hasn't been working?

My partner, and legal spouse, is the stay at home parent in our family. Why isn't she entitled to my survivor benefits?

Your "spouse" shouldn't be legal.

End of story. Artificial insemination of single women also shouldn't be allowed.

 

[bripat9643]

If gay couples are getting tangible government benefits from the government, they are obviously reducing the share available for other purposes.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that if money goes to Richard Roe, then there is less money available to go to Jane Doe.

No, absolutely no. As much as you and the other right wing nuts babble about how letting people keep more of their own money is not an expenditure, you making this kind of argument now will absolutely not be tolerated!

Social Security isn't about keeping your own money. it's a program where the government writes you a check

 

[JakeStarkey]

Says who? The wack, bripat?

She's entitled to them only because she's been a wife, a homemaker and mother her entire adult life. What has the fuck buddy of some gay pervert been doing all his life if he hasn't been working?

My partner, and legal spouse, is the stay at home parent in our family. Why isn't she entitled to my survivor benefits?

Your "spouse" should be legal.

End of story. Artificial insemination of single women also shouldn't be allowed.

 

[WorldWatcher]

She's entitled to them only because she's been a wife, a homemaker and mother her entire adult life. What has the fuck buddy of some gay pervert been doing all his life if he hasn't been working?

My partner, and legal spouse, is the stay at home parent in our family. Why isn't she entitled to my survivor benefits?

Your "spouse" should be legal.

That's true.


>>>>

 

[Cheddarmelon]

My partner, and legal spouse, is the stay at home parent in our family. Why isn't she entitled to my survivor benefits?

Your "spouse" should be legal.

That's true.


>>>>

I also agree. What that has to do with your spouse being the opposite or same sex, is mystifying.

 

[bodecea]

If they are paying into Social Security, they are already entitled to benefits, moron. The only way making gay marriage legal would change anything is if one of them wasn't paying into Social Security. He would still be entitled to survivor benefits. Why should an adult male who never paid a dime into the program be entitled to any benefits?

Because an adult female who is married is entitled to those benefits

She's entitled to them only because she's been a wife, a homemaker and mother her entire adult life. What has the fuck buddy of some gay pervert been doing all his life if he hasn't been working?

So....she's entitled only if she's a homemaker and a mother? What if she has a career and has no children but is still a wife? Too bad for her?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Social Security isn't about keeping your own money. it's a program where the government writes you a check

They've been taking money from my check for 34 years.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Your "spouse" should be legal.

That's true.


>>>>

I also agree. What that has to do with your spouse being the opposite or same sex, is mystifying.

Somehow I think what he typed and what he thought are two different things.




>>>>

 

[Cheddarmelon]

That's true.


>>>>

I also agree. What that has to do with your spouse being the opposite or same sex, is mystifying.

Somehow I think what he typed and what he thought are two different things.




>>>>

I disagree... because you are attributing to him the process of thought.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So....she's entitled only if she's a homemaker and a mother?

Yes, both conditions must be met and only if the child for the mother part was conceived with the husband.

Nothing else qualifies as a family including if she was the mother of adopted children since she would not have been the biological mother.

What if she has a career and has no children but is still a wife?

Nope, she would not meet the requirement of procreation.

Too bad for her?

Yes.



>>>>

 

[Ravi]

So....she's entitled only if she's a homemaker and a mother?

Yes, both conditions must be met and only if the child for the mother part was conceived with the husband.

Nothing else qualifies as a family including if she was the mother of adopted children since she would not have been the biological mother.

What if she has a career and has no children but is still a wife?

Nope, she would not meet the requirement of procreation.

Too bad for her?

Yes.



>>>>

There is no requirement of procreation for getting survival benefits.