Another Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down DOMA

[Inthemiddle]

Having a driver's license doesn't require you to drive, and having a marriage license doesn't require you to procreate.

Is the purpose of a driver's license to promote the act of driving? No, of course not. So stop trying to say that the purpose of a marriage license is to promote procreation. In both cases, the issuance of the license extends a legal permission. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[g5000]

Poodle?

There's a bombshell about it coming out soon. A 1983 video of Fluke as a toddler saying she loved her poodle and would like to marry it.

But I have it from a highly placed anonymous source that it is even worse than that...

The poodle was a female!

This will sink Obama. Totally destroy him.

Not even a dead illegal Mexican felon will vote for him after this comes out.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sandra, we barely knew ye! Trying to pervert a noble canine race.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

The 14th Amendment mandates that the states afford each citizen equal protection of the law, and equal access to all state laws accordingly. One does not forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his state of residence; and a ‘state can not deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws,’ including marriage law.

The states are free to manage marriage as each sees fit, determining who may or may not marry, provided the criteria for marriage is applied to each citizen equally; because there is no justification, rational basis, or evidence in support of prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying, and because such laws are motivated by animus alone toward same-sex couples, the courts have held these statutes un-Constitutional.

In the case of DOMA, rather than a law being applied inappropriately to a class of persons, here the states are subject to an inconsistent Federal policy, where Congress has singled-out a particular aspect of a state’s marriage law, and subjected it to capricious and unfounded regulation.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

I don't know fingerboy

I think it would damn well be near unanimous. The way I figure is if you had to ask people to vote for your right to procreate.....YOU LOSE

 

[Inthemiddle]

The 14th Amendment mandates that the states afford each citizen equal protection of the law, and equal access to all state laws accordingly. One does not forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his state of residence; and a ‘state can not deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws,’ including marriage law.

The states are free to manage marriage as each sees fit, determining who may or may not marry, provided the criteria for marriage is applied to each citizen equally; because there is no justification, rational basis, or evidence in support of prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying, and because such laws are motivated by animus alone toward same-sex couples, the courts have held these statutes un-Constitutional.

In the case of DOMA, rather than a law being applied inappropriately to a class of persons, here the states are subject to an inconsistent Federal policy, where Congress has singled-out a particular aspect of a state’s marriage law, and subjected it to capricious and unfounded regulation.

Excellent post. What the homophobes are failing to realize here is that the permissibility of gay marriage is determined by the states, but this case is about federal law dictating to the states how to treat its own laws.

 

[Ravi]

I read that one of the people involved in this lawsuit was an 83 year old woman who had to pay over $300K in estate taxes because her spouse was a female. If her spouse had been a male she would have paid nothing.

It is mind-boggling that the Libertarians support this travesty of justice, ESPECIALLY when it includes an unfair tax burden.

What an idiotic post. We oppose the death tax. I've never met a libertarian who supports it and I would seriously doubt anyone who said they support it is a libertarian. What the fuck are you even talking about that we "support" this?

It's actually liberals who support the death tax, that was a travesty of your own making. But seriously, to blame it on us? You're just butt stupid. Either that or this is just yet another of your trolling for dollars posts.

You support married gay couples paying the death tax. Married couples don't have to pay the death tax if they inherit from their spouse. But you want gay people to not enjoy this benefit.

You're a hypocrite, plain and simple.

 

[Ravi]

I read that one of the people involved in this lawsuit was an 83 year old woman who had to pay over $300K in estate taxes because her spouse was a female. If her spouse had been a male she would have paid nothing.

It is mind-boggling that the Libertarians support this travesty of justice, ESPECIALLY when it includes an unfair tax burden.

The official Libertarian position is that the State should not be involved in marraige at all. No cash and prizes for anyone.

Equality doesn't get more tinkerproof than that.

.

I'll believe that when they rabidly start campaigning against marriage. So far, they only get their panties in a twist over gay marriage.

 

[bripat9643]

Or they rule on law and precedent and not on your ick factor.

Wrong. They weren't selected as judges because of their devotion to the law. They got their positions by kissing ass. They are political hacks who rule the way they're told to rule.

And yet, they've accomplished so much more in their education and their lives that you have. You're just a zit on society's ass.

Non sequitur and also a cheap shot.

Hitler accomplished a lot in his life as well.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Hitler accomplished a lot in his life as well.

Godwin's law. You lose. Now stay quiet.

 

[bripat9643]

The procreation red herring is one propounded by those who hate gays.

Not even DOMA requires procreation as a condition of receiving cash and prizes for being married.

Bill Text - 104th Congress (1995-1996) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

.

I've aleady explain the problem with your idiot theory at least 6 times.

Having a driver's license doesn't require you to drive, and having a marriage license doesn't require you to procreate.

Whether you choose to drive or not...


How long do you really think a law barring a group from getting a drivers license based on race (biological), gender (also biological), or religion (choice) will stand up to Constitutional muster.


>>>>

There is a law the prohibits people who can't see from driving. Likewise, there is a law that prohibits people who can't procreate from getting married. Should the laws on licensing discriminate against the blind?

 

[rightwinger]

I've aleady explain the problem with your idiot theory at least 6 times.

Having a driver's license doesn't require you to drive, and having a marriage license doesn't require you to procreate.

Whether you choose to drive or not...


How long do you really think a law barring a group from getting a drivers license based on race (biological), gender (also biological), or religion (choice) will stand up to Constitutional muster.


>>>>

There is a law the prohibits people who can't see from driving. Likewise, there is a law that prohibits people who can't procreate from getting married. Should the laws on licensing discriminate against the blind?

Please...stop embarrassing yourself
It is getting ugly

There is no law that prohibits people who can't procreate from marrying. Infertile couples can marry, Grandma can get remarried, couples who have no desire to have children get married

 

[bripat9643]

Whether you choose to drive or not...


How long do you really think a law barring a group from getting a drivers license based on race (biological), gender (also biological), or religion (choice) will stand up to Constitutional muster.


>>>>

There is a law the prohibits people who can't see from driving. Likewise, there is a law that prohibits people who can't procreate from getting married. Should the laws on licensing discriminate against the blind?

Please...stop embarrassing yourself
It is getting ugly

There is no law that prohibits people who can't procreate from marrying. Infertile couples can marry, Grandma can get remarried, couples who have no desire to have children get married

A 64 year old woman recently had a baby, so, yes, grandma can procreate. Furthermore, grandma has already procreated. People who do not have children can later change their minds.

No matter how hard you try, you can't weasel around the fact that marriage exists because of procreation.

 

[Inthemiddle]

You still talking? Begone!

 

[kaz]

In the case of DOMA, rather than a law being applied inappropriately to a class of persons, here the states are subject to an inconsistent Federal policy, where Congress has singled-out a particular aspect of a state’s marriage law, and subjected it to capricious and unfounded regulation.

Once again you and your circle jerking cluck who are thanking you don't know what you're talking about. All DOMA says is that States don't have to recognize marriages performed in other States. Clearly a power of the Feds based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

The only people as ignorant as you are about the rule of law in this country are lawyers and politicians, are you one of those?

 

[kaz]

I read that one of the people involved in this lawsuit was an 83 year old woman who had to pay over $300K in estate taxes because her spouse was a female. If her spouse had been a male she would have paid nothing.

It is mind-boggling that the Libertarians support this travesty of justice, ESPECIALLY when it includes an unfair tax burden.

What an idiotic post. We oppose the death tax. I've never met a libertarian who supports it and I would seriously doubt anyone who said they support it is a libertarian. What the fuck are you even talking about that we "support" this?

It's actually liberals who support the death tax, that was a travesty of your own making. But seriously, to blame it on us? You're just butt stupid. Either that or this is just yet another of your trolling for dollars posts.

You support married gay couples paying the death tax. Married couples don't have to pay the death tax if they inherit from their spouse. But you want gay people to not enjoy this benefit.

You're a hypocrite, plain and simple.

Actually I oppose married gay couples paying the death tax. Thanks for playing our game, but once again you rate a zero on the intelligence meter.

If you ever want to have a serious discussion about this, I'm there. A serious conversations would BTW be point, counter point, not your endless statements that if I were actually a libertarian then I'd be a liberal because the way to minimize government is to maximize it.

 

[Noomi]

Whether you choose to drive or not...


How long do you really think a law barring a group from getting a drivers license based on race (biological), gender (also biological), or religion (choice) will stand up to Constitutional muster.


>>>>

There is a law the prohibits people who can't see from driving. Likewise, there is a law that prohibits people who can't procreate from getting married. Should the laws on licensing discriminate against the blind?

Please...stop embarrassing yourself
It is getting ugly

There is no law that prohibits people who can't procreate from marrying. Infertile couples can marry, Grandma can get remarried, couples who have no desire to have children get married

But why? One of the common arguments against SSM is that marriage is about having children - yet there is no objection to infertile people being married?

 

[rightwinger]

There is a law the prohibits people who can't see from driving. Likewise, there is a law that prohibits people who can't procreate from getting married. Should the laws on licensing discriminate against the blind?

Please...stop embarrassing yourself
It is getting ugly

There is no law that prohibits people who can't procreate from marrying. Infertile couples can marry, Grandma can get remarried, couples who have no desire to have children get married

A 64 year old woman recently had a baby, so, yes, grandma can procreate. Furthermore, grandma has already procreated. People who do not have children can later change their minds.

No matter how hard you try, you can't weasel around the fact that marriage exists because of procreation.

And where does that show that there is a "law that prohibits people who can't procreate from marrying"

Come on....show us what an idiot you are fingerboy

 

[WorldWatcher]

I've aleady explain the problem with your idiot theory at least 6 times.

Having a driver's license doesn't require you to drive, and having a marriage license doesn't require you to procreate.

Whether you choose to drive or not...


How long do you really think a law barring a group from getting a drivers license based on race (biological), gender (also biological), or religion (choice) will stand up to Constitutional muster.


>>>>

There is a law the prohibits people who can't see from driving.

I don't believe there is a law that prevents people that can't see from driving.

I believe they are free to drive on their own property. There are laws in the interest of public safety that prevent people that can't see from obtaining a Drivers License and the ability to drive on public roads. That's called a compelling government interest and is based on the need to see to be able to operate a multi-ton vehicle at highway speeds.

Likewise, there is a law that prohibits people who can't procreate from getting married.

1. Please show us this law that requires people to be able to procreate to get a drivers license.

2. After that please show us this law that requires people to be able to procreate to get a Civil Marriage License.


*****************************************

However here is a law that requries proof of infertility to be able to obtain a Civil Marriage License:

B. Notwithstanding subsection A, first cousins may marry if both are sixty-five years of age or older or if one or both first cousins are under sixty-five years of age, upon approval of any superior court judge in the state if proof has been presented to the judge that one of the cousins is unable to reproduce.

Format Document

Should the laws on licensing discriminate against the blind?

Drivers License? Yes

Civil Marriage License? No



>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In the case of DOMA, rather than a law being applied inappropriately to a class of persons, here the states are subject to an inconsistent Federal policy, where Congress has singled-out a particular aspect of a state’s marriage law, and subjected it to capricious and unfounded regulation.

Once again you and your circle jerking cluck who are thanking you don't know what you're talking about. All DOMA says is that States don't have to recognize marriages performed in other States. Clearly a power of the Feds based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

The only people as ignorant as you are about the rule of law in this country are lawyers and politicians, are you one of those?

Obviously you’ve not read the ruling.

Because DOMA is an unprecedented breach of longstanding
deference to federalism that singles out same-sex marriage
as the only inconsistency (among many) in state law that
requires a federal rule to achieve uniformity, the
rationale premised on uniformity is not an exceedingly
persuasive justification for DOMA.

DOMA’s classification of same-sex spouses was not
substantially related to an important government interest.
Accordingly, we hold that Section 3 of DOMA violates equal
protection and is therefore unconstitutional.

[L]aw (federal or state) is not concerned with holy matrimony. Government deals with marriage as a civil status--however fundamental--and New York has elected to
extend that status to same-sex couples.

Equal protection doctrine, therefore, applies to the Federal government as it does to state and local governments. True, the states for the last 60 years have been for the most part the entities responsible for acts offensive to the Constitution concerning violating their citizens’ civil liberties, but with DOMA we see Federal legislation inconsistently applied and absent a compelling governmental interest, inappropriately interfering with states’ marriage law.

If the state of New York wishes to extend marriage law to same-sex couples, it’s free to do so independent of Federal involvement.

The issue reviewed had nothing to do with ‘Full Faith and Credit,’ the court examined Congress’ authority to enact legislation designed to be punitive with regard to states’ acknowledgement of same-sex couples’ right to marry.