Another Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down DOMA

[Seawytch]

>


Come midnight of November 6th, many heads will explode as the first Same-sex Civil marriages are approved at the ballot box.


>>>>

Yup..taking away a favored talking point of those opposed to marriage equality.

 

[WorldWatcher]

There is no requirement of procreation for getting survival benefits.

There should be. Marriage is about procreation and children.

Adopted children do not make a family, a husband and wife are not a family, only biological mothers & fathers with children (ya I know that's redundant) can make a family.


All the benefits currently afforded to married couples should be stopped for those that don't meet the following conditions:

1. A DNA to show parentage of existing children.
2. There must be at least one biological offspring of the mother and father in the home to qualify, adopted children don't count.
3. Within 60 days all Civilly Married couples must provide proof of fertility to remain married.
4. If within 5 years of the Civil Marriage date no biological offspring have been produced then the marriage is automatically annulled on the grounds of biologic incompatibility.​

>>>>

Whoa. I used to think you were a sensible person.

I have two cousins that were adopted. They and their adopted parents are certainly a family. The "biological" parents could be bothered to raise them.


Anyway, your opinion is meaningless. A spouse qualifies for survivor benefits, childless or not.

Poe's Law


>>>>

 

[bripat9643]

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.


>>>>

Type. I meant to say "your spouse shouldn't be legal."

 

[Seawytch]

Your "spouse" should be legal.

That's true.


>>>>

Type. I meant to say "your spouse shouldn't be legal."

More like a Freudian slip..

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It's called procreation, dipshit.

How many times to libturds have to be told that?

 

[Cheddarmelon]

That's true.


>>>>

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

It's called procreation, dipshit.

How many times to libturds have to be told that?

Then women beyond menopause, or the barren, or those who have had a hysterectomy, or a man, who has had testicular cancer necessitating removal of the testes, or an impotent man, or a number of other heterosexual examples, should not be able to marry using the same ruberic.

 

[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?

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?

That's why the benefits were created, dingbat. We have driver's licenses because it means people who drive are safer. That doesn't imply that anyone who has a license drives.

Liberal morons pretend they don't get the point because they haven't got any arguments to counter it.

 

[bripat9643]

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.


>>>>

They spent it the moment they received it. Your money is gone. It was flushed down the toilet.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

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?

That's why the benefits were created, dingbat. We have driver's licenses because it means people who drive are safer. That doesn't imply that anyone who has a license drives.

Liberal morons pretend they don't get the point because they haven't got any arguments to counter it.

Drivers licenses.

I think I've probably said this before... but it bears repeating.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0WvJrEuJTk]Are You Retarded? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bripat9643]

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.

ROFL! The chimp pipes up!

 

[Inthemiddle]

You clearly know nothing about the law at all. The law is literal, it's not based on formulas.

And your ignorance is proven. Who said anything about formulae? I said there are criteria that have to be met. When courts here constitutional challenges to statutes and government actions, they examine whether the statute or action in question meets certain criteria. If you believe any different, than you are simply wrong. It's a well established fact.

Those criteria are dependent upon the kind of constitutional issue that is being raised, and are usually well established through case law. For example, when a person challenges the constitutional validity of a search and/or seizure, the court applies a balancing test to weigh the government's interest being pursued against the public's interest in privacy and freedom of movement. If the government is investigating a series of murders, the balancing test puts more weight on the government's interests than in a case where they are investigating a traffic stop. When an officer conducts a traffic stop, fourth amendment protections require that a traffic violation has actually occurred. An officer's mistaken belief about what a statute says constitutes a violation is insufficient to establish.

There's one exception to the reasonable cause requirement, which is called a "Terry" stop, named so for the case Terry v Ohio in which the court affirmed its validity. This search and/or seizure of limited scope that is based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. A pat down can be an example of a "Terry" stop. In Terry v. Ohio, a plain clothes officer was walking the beat during a holiday weekend that was known historically to see significant increases in crime. When the officer saw two people acting suspiciously. Based on his long experience as a police officer, he suspected they were planning a robbery job on a particular store front, and so he approached them to investigate. After identifying him as a police officer and talking with one of them for a few moments, he developed the suspicion that the person had a concealed hand gun. So, the officer administered a pat down, and discovered an object in the suspect's pocket that felt like a gun. He then reached in the pocket and found the gun. This limited search and detention was found constitutional by the court based on reasonable suspicion, and set out the basic criteria by which detentions and searches can be found to be constitutionally reasonable and valid under the the guise or reasonable suspicion.

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.

Listen, trying to insert your own personal post hoc interpretations of the constitution is simply stupid and indicative of an ignorant and unknowledgeable mind. The Judiciary has the constitutional charge to interpret the laws.

Neither of us can enter into a man-man marriage. That is how the law works, "who you want" is a formula.

And this demonstrates the outright failures of your position. "Who you want" is freedom. But of course, you don't believe that people should have freedom.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Well.......A lot of us think you should not be allowed to breed

Yep, all the people in this forum with brain defects believe that.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

That's why the benefits were created, dingbat. We have driver's licenses because it means people who drive are safer. That doesn't imply that anyone who has a license drives.

Liberal morons pretend they don't get the point because they haven't got any arguments to counter it.

It is only one of the "original" reasons for civil marriage and one that was never required. Your procreation argument has been tried...and lost in court.

 

[g5000]

That's true.


>>>>

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

It's called procreation, dipshit.

How many times to libturds have to be told that?

Apparently you need to be told an infinite number of times THE LAW does not require procreation to file a married tax return.

This is about THE LAW. Not your mistaken and bigoted belief system.

Now. Are you done with listening to the voices in your head toss up this red herring, or do you wish to continue on being willfully stupid?


.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bripat is retarded on this argument, it has been defeated in court, and let's move on.

 

[Inthemiddle]

>


Come midnight of November 6th, many heads will explode as the first Same-sex Civil marriages are approved at the ballot box.


>>>>

And I personally am looking forward to it happening in my state. There are going to be a great many gay couples who are going to rush to get married, and I plan on cashing in on the wedding boom. This is going to be great for our economy.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

That's why the benefits were created, dingbat. We have driver's licenses because it means people who drive are safer. That doesn't imply that anyone who has a license drives.

Liberal morons pretend they don't get the point because they haven't got any arguments to counter it.

It is only one of the "original" reasons for civil marriage and one that was never required. Your procreation argument has been tried...and lost in court.

I doubt that's the case. But even if it is, all it proves is that the judges involved are morons or hosebags or both.

 

[Inthemiddle]

That's why the benefits were created

Untrue, unsubstantiated, and unsupportable with evidence.

 

[Valerie]

bripat is retarded on this argument, it has been defeated in court, and let's move on.

Which can be perfectly understood by this precious little piece of projection...

Liberal morons pretend they don't get the point because they haven't got any arguments to counter it.

 

[Inthemiddle]

bripat is retarded on this argument, it has been defeated in court, and let's move on.

Which can be perfectly understood by this precious little piece of projection...

Liberal morons pretend they don't get the point because they haven't got any arguments to counter it.

The sad thing is that everyone he disagrees with has been presenting scores arguments, based on evidence, case law, and a respect for personal freedoms. All he has is "EWWWW!"