DOMA ruled unconstitutional

[bodecea]

Even IF the SCOTUS upholds this all it does is allow the 8 States that legalized gay marriage to have those couples get the tax breaks at the Federal Level.

It does nothing to the 32 States that banned Gay Marriage.

8 Currently. How many were there 10 years ago?

Once again this case will do nothing to force the 32 that made it illegal to change their minds. And that leaves 10 undecided.

How many states made gay marriage illegal 10 years ago? What direction is this trending?

 

[mal]

Even IF the SCOTUS upholds this all it does is allow the 8 States that legalized gay marriage to have those couples get the tax breaks at the Federal Level.

It does nothing to the 32 States that banned Gay Marriage.

The courts have struck down California's ban on gay marriage already.

Which Courts?...



peace...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Even IF the SCOTUS upholds this all it does is allow the 8 States that legalized gay marriage to have those couples get the tax breaks at the Federal Level.

It does nothing to the 32 States that banned Gay Marriage.

That's correct.
North Carolina said NO to gay marriage in 2012

They said no to gay marriage and civil unions......for now.

It's a Constitutional amendment North Carolina doesn't amend it's constitution on a whim. This is the bible belt baby I doubt it ever will

 

[mal]

8 Currently. How many were there 10 years ago?

Once again this case will do nothing to force the 32 that made it illegal to change their minds. And that leaves 10 undecided.

How many states made gay marriage illegal 10 years ago? What direction is this trending?

You Neighbors in Liberal California don't Support your Claim to Marriage...

Isn't it nice to have the Despotic Branch on your Side to Force your Agenda on people.



peace...

 

[bodecea]

That's correct.
North Carolina said NO to gay marriage in 2012

They said no to gay marriage and civil unions......for now.

It's a Constitutional amendment North Carolina doesn't amend it's constitution on a whim. This is the bible belt baby I doubt it ever will

And can a federal court override a state constitutional amendment?

 

[Flopper]

So everyone in the last few pages seems ok with civil unions? And these would have the same benefits as marriage, they just wouldn't be using the word "marriage"?


Wow, who knew all the hoopla, claiming it would destroy the institution, cause the downfall of the US, and would cause the spread of AIDs, was all about what we CALL it.

I never thought semantics was the issue.

I can't speak for everyone, but I'd be fine with Civil Unions applying to everyone equally. Strike "Civil Marriage" from the law and replace it with Civil Unions for everyone, then it would be up to the individuals involved (and in many cases their respective religious organization) as whether or not to call it "marriage".



>>>>

That's an interesting idea. The legal contract has nothing to do with the moral contract. A religious marriage bonds two people together for life, governs the couple's relationship and the relationship within the family. A legal marriage's purpose is to give legal status to the couple for purposes such as inheritance, levying taxes, and financial obligations.

 

[nitroz]

I agree, it is a state issue, not a federal issue, just like the Immigration issue in Arizona and the Marijuana issue in California.

Actually, with all of this -----> Marriage Rights and Benefits | Nolo.com They legally cannot decide to ban or allow gay marriage because they would have to deny rights and benefits to straight marriages in order to rule on gay marriages.

So, it's a legal given and infringes on rights if it is denied.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They said no to gay marriage and civil unions......for now.

It's a Constitutional amendment North Carolina doesn't amend it's constitution on a whim. This is the bible belt baby I doubt it ever will

And can a federal court override a state constitutional amendment?

Yes, but THIS case does not address that issue AT ALL. It solely deals with IF gay marriage is legal do the couples get Federal Benefits.

 

[WinterBorn]

All far right homophobes have a tremendous interest in incest and bestiality.

Just watch bigrebnc.

Yeah. It's really, really weird. He's downright abnormal.

Normal is not abnormal,

And not being normal is grounds for denying marriage?

When will you start applying that to straights?

 

[WinterBorn]

Are you as stupid as I think you are?

I shall send out notices to all gay people in the world (we talk to each other, you know)...we shall not FAIL YOU in helping the human race survive! That we swear!

Pull your fucking weight find a man have some children and populate the earth. Go now in peace

Jeez, you are hanging on to this like you hung on to that "Sodomy is illegal" nonsense.

 

[bodecea]

It's a Constitutional amendment North Carolina doesn't amend it's constitution on a whim. This is the bible belt baby I doubt it ever will

And can a federal court override a state constitutional amendment?

Yes, but THIS case does not address that issue AT ALL. It solely deals with IF gay marriage is legal do the couples get Federal Benefits.

This case doesn't...I agree. But a prelude to things to come?

 

[WinterBorn]

Normal is not abnormal,

You bragged about when you started having sex....Five wasn't it? Normal?

I was an early bloomer

Having sex at the age of 5 is certainly abnormal. Sorry, you cannot marry.

 

[WinterBorn]

Even IF the SCOTUS upholds this all it does is allow the 8 States that legalized gay marriage to have those couples get the tax breaks at the Federal Level.

It does nothing to the 32 States that banned Gay Marriage.

And if the SCOTUS rules something to be unconstitutional, that gives ample ground for overturning even state constitutional amendments.

 

[bodecea]

I shall send out notices to all gay people in the world (we talk to each other, you know)...we shall not FAIL YOU in helping the human race survive! That we swear!

Pull your fucking weight find a man have some children and populate the earth. Go now in peace

Jeez, you are hanging on to this like you hung on to that "Sodomy is illegal" nonsense.

You will find that littlereb has "issues"...

 

[g5000]

Only 26 percent of Americans eat the recommended amount of fruits and vegetables every day. Therefore, someone who eats the recommended amount of fruits and vegetables every day is abnormal.

But we have some illiterate people here who think "abnormal" is synomous with "wrong" and/or "harmful".

Now that they have been schooled on their mistake, do you think that will stop them from pressing on this point?

No. Fat fucking chance.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the difference between "ignorance" and "stupidity".

 

[g5000]

So...what has been completely and thoroughly debunked, trashed, destroyed?

"Because incest!"

"Because bestiality".

"Abnormal".

"It's not in the Constitution".

"AIDS!"


Ignorance is a state of being uninformed.

Stupidity is a state of persistence in one's course after being shown one is misinformed.


It is entirely proper to call such people as we see here who use the above arguments over and over...stupid. Not just here in this topic, but everywhere they go, they are stupid. You can't wash it off.

Don't make the mistake of thinking they were born stupid and can't help it. They choose to be stupid.

 

[SillyWabbit]

I know it's not exactly on topic, but I have to throw this in anyway, let's just say HIV is not for the Ghey anymore:

"The new HIV" is insect-borne and spreading. How long before you see a case?

DecisionHealth Daily :: When are we getting Chagas disease?

Damn bugs. Next thing you know they'll be wanting to get married.

 

[WinterBorn]

And can a federal court override a state constitutional amendment?

Yes, but THIS case does not address that issue AT ALL. It solely deals with IF gay marriage is legal do the couples get Federal Benefits.

This case doesn't...I agree. But a prelude to things to come?

I think this sums up why so many of the neocons are so rabid on this issue. They see the trend towards greater and greater acceptance of something they hate.

Luckily, in another 10 or 20 years, I think the bulk of the population will wonder why people fought this so hard. You know, like they have done on other issues.

 

[Dick Tuck]

I'm still trying to figure out why so many "straight" people are so obsessed with gay sex.

Speaking for myself, a straight man, I can say that I see marriage equality as a civil right. I'm an American and, as such, I believe that equality and liberty should extend to 100% of the law abiding American citizens. I further believe that denying someone equality just because you feel that what they think or do or believe is icky smacks of the absolute worst aspects of our history~ when people in the racial majority could lord it over any minority just because of race.

If being a homosexual was in itself a crime then I believe that certain rights should be denied. But, that's not the case, is it?

Brothers and sisters have a right to marry and have inbred children don't they?

No they don't. Which state allows it? None? Where's the issue of equal protection?

 

[JoeB131]

Well done on the part of this court. I'm sorry they only struck down part of it.

DOMA was like a flag burning law. Everyone knew it was an unconstutional farce when it was passed. It was purely "Let's look like we are doing something about an issue people are emotional about".

The Full Faith and Credit Clause is actually pretty explicit. If one state recognizes a contract, all the other states have to honor it as well.

I think everyone knew at the time it was unconstitutional, but passed it anyway, knowing no state was even close to legalizing gay marriage, and it would take years after that for something to worm its way through the courts.