DOMA ruled unconstitutional

[Polk]

Yep once gays are given the right then brothers and sisters will demand the same rights to marriage.

Ah yes, maybe all 20 people who want to marry their sister in the United States?

I can't think of a topic that is less important or less relevant....

.

No one knows how many brothers and sisters have had sex and love each other beyond brotherly and sisterly love. But once you open the door you will find out.

Doesn't matter, because the legal standard is different.

 

[Ravi]

Yes. The government can restrict the exercise of rights subject to certain constraints.

Government can't deny someone rights without a compelling reason. And there is no compelling reason to deny gay couples marriage.

 

[bodecea]

Talk about having no capacity to fit new information into your tiny little pinhead...

There will have to be a legal basis for creating a federal right for homos like you to marry. such a basis will stand as..... get this..... foundation that will not only apply to you homos. You are not special, any more than us regular folks are. you consider yourself pretty high and mighty, but you are pretty thick about considering the consequences of enacting new, broad legal standards.

Damn those "uppity" gays! Don't they know their place?

They used to before our society began degrading and promoting filth and vulgarity.

Got that evidence yet of me running down police officers?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5370997-post119.html

Like you claimed?

 

[Papageorgio]

In the case of incest, the progeny suffers from lack of genetic diversity. Although one outcome of marriage is the probability of off spring, in cases of incest and the resulting suffering, incestuous marriage should not be permitted.

Some contracts can result in bad outcomes. That's why each and every contract is not protected by law. If you contract me to spray your orchard with DDT, we would enter into a contract which would have bad results for more than both you and I. If, on the other hand, you contract me to spray your orchard with a safe and effective pesticide and I follow all the manufacturer's instructions and all state and federal laws concerning pesticides, our contract would then have the protection of law.

If a contract is beneficial to those parties in the contract and the greater society, there is no problem. What parts of same sex marriage adversely effect the greater society? What parts of same sex marriage adversely effect you personally? What harm is wrought to you?

why limit the exclusion of marriage to only related partners? There are plenty of straight people with predispositions to unhealthy offspring.

The probability of incestuous off spring suffering from genetic problems is far greater than some unknown or yet undiscovered genetic problem between non-related people.

Some states require blood tests to alert couples of potential problems.

Does the state then forbid the marriage if potential problems are found?

 

[Polk]

Yep once gays are given the right then brothers and sisters will demand the same rights to marriage.

Except that the legal rational is different. In a 14th Amendment analysis, restrictions based on sex undergo intermediate scrutiny, while a restriction on family relations would only need to pass a rational basis test.

Either marriage is a right or it's not if it's not a right then gays should not have the right too marry.

It is a right, but the government can restrict the exercise of rights. You can't yell 'Fire!' in a movie theater, for example. That's a limit on free speech.

 

[KevinWestern]

Yep once gays are given the right then brothers and sisters will demand the same rights to marriage.

Ah yes, maybe all 20 people who want to marry their sister in the United States?

I can't think of a topic that is less important or less relevant....

.

No one knows how many brothers and sisters have had sex and love each other beyond brotherly and sisterly love. But once you open the door you will find out.

As for the percentage of the population who actually wants to have sex with their siblings as an adult, I'll tell you right now it's extremely small and insignificant. And for the incestuous siblings who actually want to publicly get married... well that percentage is even smaller...

Same goes for the Polygamists and the Animal-Loving folks...

All just a waste of time to even talk about....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Aids thrives in gay sex.

You sound (cough) just like a well-educated medical doctor.

.

Aids was first found in the gay community when it was first observed in America.

 

[Polk]

why limit the exclusion of marriage to only related partners? There are plenty of straight people with predispositions to unhealthy offspring.

The probability of incestuous off spring suffering from genetic problems is far greater than some unknown or yet undiscovered genetic problem between non-related people.

Some states require blood tests to alert couples of potential problems.

Does the state then forbid the marriage if potential problems are found?

Yes, some states (not sure if all do) refuse to issue a marriage license until the blood test comes back.

 

[Papageorgio]

Ah yes, maybe all 20 people who want to marry their sister in the United States?

I can't think of a topic that is less important or less relevant....

.

No one knows how many brothers and sisters have had sex and love each other beyond brotherly and sisterly love. But once you open the door you will find out.

As for the percentage of the population who actually wants to have sex with their siblings as an adult, I'll tell you right now it's extremely small and insignificant. And for the incestuous siblings who actually want to publicly get married... well that percentage is even smaller...

Same goes for the Polygamists and the Animal-Loving folks...

All just a waste of time to even talk about....

So then it should be allowed?

 

[Pho_King]

that is correct. And if the law regarding those restrictions is altered, it does no good to ignore the foot in the door that the reasoning behind the loosening will open.

It is a trmendous detriment to the pro homo marriage crowds objectives that they stick their heads in the sand about such issues, and merely say "Of all the heretofore excluded relationships, we are the only one that should be admitted into the fold".

Yep once gays are given the right then brothers and sisters will demand the same rights to marriage.

Except that the legal rational is different. In a 14th Amendment analysis, restrictions based on sex undergo intermediate scrutiny, while a restriction on family relations would only need to pass a rational basis test.

Awesome. But it is not sex based restrictions at issue.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ah yes, maybe all 20 people who want to marry their sister in the United States?

I can't think of a topic that is less important or less relevant....

.

No one knows how many brothers and sisters have had sex and love each other beyond brotherly and sisterly love. But once you open the door you will find out.

As a percentage of the population who actually wants to have sex with their siblings as an adult, I'll tell you right now it's extremely small and insignificant. And for the incestuous siblings who actually want to publicly get married... well that percentage is even smaller...

Same goes for the Polygamists and the Animal-Loving folks.

Waste of time....

I don't have a clue but if marriage is a right it's a right for everybody

 

[Mustang]

BOSTON — An appeals court ruled Thursday that a law that denies a host of federal benefits to gay married couples is unconstitutional.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples.

The law was passed in 1996 at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004



Boston court: Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional - BostonHerald.com

i guess the judges forgot to read the bible.

Conservatives should be happy. They hate anything that's unconstitutional.

 

[Ravi]

No one knows how many brothers and sisters have had sex and love each other beyond brotherly and sisterly love. But once you open the door you will find out.

As a percentage of the population who actually wants to have sex with their siblings as an adult, I'll tell you right now it's extremely small and insignificant. And for the incestuous siblings who actually want to publicly get married... well that percentage is even smaller...

Same goes for the Polygamists and the Animal-Loving folks.

Waste of time....

I don't have a clue but if marriage is a right it's a right for everybody

It's obvious that you don't have a clue.

 

[Polk]

Yep once gays are given the right then brothers and sisters will demand the same rights to marriage.

Except that the legal rational is different. In a 14th Amendment analysis, restrictions based on sex undergo intermediate scrutiny, while a restriction on family relations would only need to pass a rational basis test.

Awesome. But it is not sex based restrictions at issue.

Yes, bans on same-sex marriage are restrictions based on sex.

 

[Pho_King]

The probability of incestuous off spring suffering from genetic problems is far greater than some unknown or yet undiscovered genetic problem between non-related people.

Some states require blood tests to alert couples of potential problems.

Does the state then forbid the marriage if potential problems are found?

Yes, some states (not sure if all do) refuse to issue a marriage license until the blood test comes back.

I do not believe any state will refuse a marriage license on the basis of possible genetic issues with offspring. Or disease. The waiting period is strictly informative. not prohibitive.

 

[Polk]

Does the state then forbid the marriage if potential problems are found?

Yes, some states (not sure if all do) refuse to issue a marriage license until the blood test comes back.

I do not believe any state will refuse a marriage license on the basis of possible genetic issues with offspring. Or disease. The waiting period is strictly informative. not prohibitive.

The blood tests aren't to check for genetic issues specifically. It's to make sure the people aren't close relatives or carrying a STI.

 

[mal]

Except that the legal rational is different. In a 14th Amendment analysis, restrictions based on sex undergo intermediate scrutiny, while a restriction on family relations would only need to pass a rational basis test.

Awesome. But it is not sex based restrictions at issue.

Yes, bans on same-sex marriage are restrictions based on sex.

Nope.

Sexual Choices are not the same as Nature's Design and how each of us are Equipped.

You have the Freedom to Defy, but you don't the Right to Burden Society with your Defiance.



peace...

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Damn those "uppity" gays! Don't they know their place?

They used to before our society began degrading and promoting filth and vulgarity.

Ah yes, before our society began degrading... like the good ole days when we used to ship human beings from Africa on slave ships to come work on our plantations for 15 hours a day with no pay. It's estimated about 8-10 million human souls died on those voyages in total.

Upon arrival, entire families would have to stand naked in a market place and be sold off to various white entrepreneurs, all usually going in different directions... never to see one another again.

Imagine being split apart from your wife and kids.. forever.

Oh so sad, how we continue to degrade and fall from that golden age of ethical and moral excellency excellency.....


ah...............the ugliness and oppression of it all............almost feels like victimhood

 

[Pho_King]

Yes, some states (not sure if all do) refuse to issue a marriage license until the blood test comes back.

I do not believe any state will refuse a marriage license on the basis of possible genetic issues with offspring. Or disease. The waiting period is strictly informative. not prohibitive.

The blood tests aren't to check for genetic issues specifically. It's to make sure the people aren't close relatives or carrying a STI.

and in the case of STI? the partners are informed and, if they want it still, a marriage license is issued.

 

[mal]

that is correct. And if the law regarding those restrictions is altered, it does no good to ignore the foot in the door that the reasoning behind the loosening will open.

It is a trmendous detriment to the pro homo marriage crowds objectives that they stick their heads in the sand about such issues, and merely say "Of all the heretofore excluded relationships, we are the only one that should be admitted into the fold".

Yep once gays are given the right then brothers and sisters will demand the same rights to marriage.

Except that the legal rational is different. In a 14th Amendment analysis, restrictions based on sex undergo intermediate scrutiny, while a restriction on family relations would only need to pass a rational basis test.

What the SCOTUS called "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival" is a Right that EVERY American of Consenting Age has...

The Right to Marriage.

Because some Choose to Defy their Natural Design and Equipment is not Society's Burden.

Homosexual Coupling and Heterosexual Coupling are Inherently and Naturally Unequal.

One Produces Life and the other does not yet ALL of us are Equipped and Designed for one of them.



peace...