DOMA ruled unconstitutional

[WorldWatcher]

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court is a lower court dumb ass.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5369990-post1.html

The second highest court in the land? lol

So tell us all how DOMA was found unconstitutional in accordance with Massachusetts law?

You're very dishonest
The first circuit court of appeals is a lower court and you're saying it's not. Faggots in the Massachusetts courts will say it's unconstitutional that's all they have to go on.

So let's be clear, you are accusing Judge Tauro (the District Court Judge appointed by a Republican President) and the three Judges of the 1st Circuit Court (2 appointed by Republicans and 1 appointed by a Democratic Presidents) as all being homosexual?






>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Tell us more about the 1st Federal Court Court of Appeals basing decisions on Mass. state law?

First things first you were being dishonest when you said the first circuit court of appeals was not a lower court?

Considering the number of levels of courts, the next highest court is the land is not a lower court, in my opinion.

So now that this is settled, lets talk about what Massachusetts law has to do with the recent ruling by the 1st Federal Court of Appeals.

Dishonest answer when you said the first circuit court of appeals was not a lower court.
I have this feeling you think the second circuit court of appeals is lower than the first. that's just a hunch

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The second highest court in the land? lol

So tell us all how DOMA was found unconstitutional in accordance with Massachusetts law?

You're very dishonest
The first circuit court of appeals is a lower court and you're saying it's not. Faggots in the Massachusetts courts will say it's unconstitutional that's all they have to go on.

So let's be clear, you are accusing Judge Tauro (the District Court Judge appointed by a Republican President) and the three Judges of the 1st Circuit Court (2 appointed by Republicans and 1 appointed by a Democratic Presidents) as all being homosexual?






>>>>

It’s part of the Great Homosexual Judicial Conspiracy to make everyone gay.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You're very dishonest
The first circuit court of appeals is a lower court and you're saying it's not. Faggots in the Massachusetts courts will say it's unconstitutional that's all they have to go on.

So let's be clear, you are accusing Judge Tauro (the District Court Judge appointed by a Republican President) and the three Judges of the 1st Circuit Court (2 appointed by Republicans and 1 appointed by a Democratic Presidents) as all being homosexual?






>>>>

It’s part of the Great Homosexual Judicial Conspiracy to make everyone gay.

Shall we back up to that last fallacy that you posted and have not commented on since?

 

[WinterBorn]

First things first you were being dishonest when you said the first circuit court of appeals was not a lower court?

Considering the number of levels of courts, the next highest court is the land is not a lower court, in my opinion.

So now that this is settled, lets talk about what Massachusetts law has to do with the recent ruling by the 1st Federal Court of Appeals.

Dishonest answer when you said the first circuit court of appeals was not a lower court.
I have this feeling you think the second circuit court of appeals is lower than the first. that's just a hunch

Your hunches are as accurate as your assessment of the ruling.

Now about the court using Massachusetts law?? Are you sticking with that?

 

[WinterBorn]

So let's be clear, you are accusing Judge Tauro (the District Court Judge appointed by a Republican President) and the three Judges of the 1st Circuit Court (2 appointed by Republicans and 1 appointed by a Democratic Presidents) as all being homosexual?






>>>>

It’s part of the Great Homosexual Judicial Conspiracy to make everyone gay.

Shall we back up to that last fallacy that you posted and have not commented on since?

You mean like you not commenting on your claim the 1st Federal Court of Appeals made their ruling based on Massachusetts law?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It’s part of the Great Homosexual Judicial Conspiracy to make everyone gay.

Shall we back up to that last fallacy that you posted and have not commented on since?

You mean like you not commenting on your claim the 1st Federal Court of Appeals made their ruling based on Massachusetts law?

I said you are being dishonest when you said the 1st circuit court of appeal was not a lower court. That's all I have to say too you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Considering the number of levels of courts, the next highest court is the land is not a lower court, in my opinion.

So now that this is settled, lets talk about what Massachusetts law has to do with the recent ruling by the 1st Federal Court of Appeals.

Dishonest answer when you said the first circuit court of appeals was not a lower court.
I have this feeling you think the second circuit court of appeals is lower than the first. that's just a hunch

Your hunches are as accurate as your assessment of the ruling.

Now about the court using Massachusetts law?? Are you sticking with that?

I said you are being dishonest when you said the 1st circuit court of appeal was not a lower court. That's all I have to say too you.

 

[clevergirl]

While it could be argued that two men (or two women) having sexual intercourse with each other and only each other can't harm anyone else, the fact is that homosexuality is not a "monogomous affair." The homosexual lifestyle is by nature promiscuous, as the facts demonstrate.

"In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354." (See more statistics on Promiscuity at Statistics on sexual promiscuity among homosexuals | homosexual partner statistics | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry)

To ignore the facts of incredible sexual promiscuity among homosexuals is the admission that the problem exists, and by ignoring it they hope it goes away. Also, to ignore the facts of such promiscuity is dangerous in itself since policies and arguments are made based on facts. To ignore the facts means the policies and arguments are not sound when used to promote the homosexual lifestyle.

 

[WinterBorn]

Dishonest answer when you said the first circuit court of appeals was not a lower court.
I have this feeling you think the second circuit court of appeals is lower than the first. that's just a hunch

Your hunches are as accurate as your assessment of the ruling.

Now about the court using Massachusetts law?? Are you sticking with that?

I said you are being dishonest when you said the 1st circuit court of appeal was not a lower court. That's all I have to say too you.

If I had said the stuff you said I would want to avoid the subject too.

 

[WinterBorn]

While it could be argued that two men (or two women) having sexual intercourse with each other and only each other can't harm anyone else, the fact is that homosexuality is not a "monogomous affair." The homosexual lifestyle is by nature promiscuous, as the facts demonstrate.

"In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354." (See more statistics on Promiscuity at Statistics on sexual promiscuity among homosexuals | homosexual partner statistics | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry)

To ignore the facts of incredible sexual promiscuity among homosexuals is the admission that the problem exists, and by ignoring it they hope it goes away. Also, to ignore the facts of such promiscuity is dangerous in itself since policies and arguments are made based on facts. To ignore the facts means the policies and arguments are not sound when used to promote the homosexual lifestyle.

Since the discussion is about gays being joined in a committed, mongamous relationship, the study results are irrelevant.

 

[clevergirl]

While it could be argued that two men (or two women) having sexual intercourse with each other and only each other can't harm anyone else, the fact is that homosexuality is not a "monogomous affair." The homosexual lifestyle is by nature promiscuous, as the facts demonstrate.

"In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354." (See more statistics on Promiscuity at Statistics on sexual promiscuity among homosexuals | homosexual partner statistics | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry)

To ignore the facts of incredible sexual promiscuity among homosexuals is the admission that the problem exists, and by ignoring it they hope it goes away. Also, to ignore the facts of such promiscuity is dangerous in itself since policies and arguments are made based on facts. To ignore the facts means the policies and arguments are not sound when used to promote the homosexual lifestyle.

Since the discussion is about gays being joined in a committed, mongamous relationship, the study results are irrelevant.

Hardly, since monogamy, statistically speaking, is rare within the homosexual community.

 

[WinterBorn]

While it could be argued that two men (or two women) having sexual intercourse with each other and only each other can't harm anyone else, the fact is that homosexuality is not a "monogomous affair." The homosexual lifestyle is by nature promiscuous, as the facts demonstrate.

"In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354." (See more statistics on Promiscuity at Statistics on sexual promiscuity among homosexuals | homosexual partner statistics | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry)

To ignore the facts of incredible sexual promiscuity among homosexuals is the admission that the problem exists, and by ignoring it they hope it goes away. Also, to ignore the facts of such promiscuity is dangerous in itself since policies and arguments are made based on facts. To ignore the facts means the policies and arguments are not sound when used to promote the homosexual lifestyle.

Since the discussion is about gays being joined in a committed, mongamous relationship, the study results are irrelevant.

Hardly, since monogamy, statistically speaking, is rare within the homosexual community.

At least within the 2500 or so they interviewed.

When I was single back in the late 70s, I was pretty promiscuous too. Then I found one person and settled down. That is what these people are seeking.

Unless you can show any other group that was banned from marrying because they were promiscuous?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your hunches are as accurate as your assessment of the ruling.

Now about the court using Massachusetts law?? Are you sticking with that?

I said you are being dishonest when you said the 1st circuit court of appeal was not a lower court. That's all I have to say too you.

If I had said the stuff you said I would want to avoid the subject too.

The one who said the 1st circuit court was not a lower court is the one trying to avoid something he said.

 

[WinterBorn]

I said you are being dishonest when you said the 1st circuit court of appeal was not a lower court. That's all I have to say too you.

If I had said the stuff you said I would want to avoid the subject too.

The one who said the 1st circuit court was not a lower court is the one trying to avoid something he said.

It is lower than one court. But ok, it is a lower court and I was wrong. Does that work?

 

[clevergirl]

Since the discussion is about gays being joined in a committed, mongamous relationship, the study results are irrelevant.

Hardly, since monogamy, statistically speaking, is rare within the homosexual community.

At least within the 2500 or so they interviewed.

When I was single back in the late 70s, I was pretty promiscuous too. Then I found one person and settled down. That is what these people are seeking.

Unless you can show any other group that was banned from marrying because they were promiscuous?

Oh, I get it, the statistics didn't matter until they matter in order to dismiss them? Yes, I know you didn't like the response, you thought your last post was clever. Pick a square and land on it. The sample share is bigger then most sample shares, statistically speaking. The fact of the matter is, homosexuals are a very promiscuous group. Monogamy is not the norm.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If I had said the stuff you said I would want to avoid the subject too.

The one who said the 1st circuit court was not a lower court is the one trying to avoid something he said.

It is lower than one court. But ok, it is a lower court and I was wrong. Does that work?

And why would there be any doubt that a lower court in Massachusetts would say that the DOMA is unconstitutional in accordance with Massachusetts state laws.

Good, now that that deflection is cleared up - can we address how the Massachusetts state laws were used to make a federal law unconstitutional under the federal Constitution?



>>>>

 

[Liability]

If I had said the stuff you said I would want to avoid the subject too.

The one who said the 1st circuit court was not a lower court is the one trying to avoid something he said.

It is lower than one court. But ok, it is a lower court and I was wrong. Does that work?

Maybe if I pretend to be all outwaged over a mere mistake, we can all shake hands, have a ceeeegar and a scotch and put this nasty moment behind us.

 

[Liability]

The one who said the 1st circuit court was not a lower court is the one trying to avoid something he said.

It is lower than one court. But ok, it is a lower court and I was wrong. Does that work?

And why would there be any doubt that a lower court in Massachusetts would say that the DOMA is unconstitutional in accordance with Massachusetts state laws.

Good, now that that deflection is cleared up - can we address how the Massachusetts state laws were used to make a federal law unconstitutional under the federal Constitution?



>>>>

I am not sure that's what happened. But a STATE court is allowed to pass judgment on the Constitutionality (under the FEDERAL Constitution) of any law that comes across it's bench.

The STATE Court determination may not enjoy much of a shelf life, but that doesn't mean that they are forbidden from making the ruling.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It is lower than one court. But ok, it is a lower court and I was wrong. Does that work?

And why would there be any doubt that a lower court in Massachusetts would say that the DOMA is unconstitutional in accordance with Massachusetts state laws.

Good, now that that deflection is cleared up - can we address how the Massachusetts state laws were used to make a federal law unconstitutional under the federal Constitution.

>>>>

I am not sure that's what happened. But a STATE court is allowed to pass judgment on the Constitutionality (under the FEDERAL Constitution) of any law that comes across it's bench.

The STATE Court determination may not enjoy much of a shelf life, but that doesn't mean that they are forbidden from making the ruling.

That's not what he said (a state court finding something unconstitutional). He said the court (which in this case was actually a federal court) found the federal law unconstitutional based on the laws of Massachusetts and not because of a defect in the law when compared to the federal Constitution.


(Now you and I know that was probably a mistake on BigReb's part, just like all the Judges ruling on the case are homosexuals, just seeing if he will admit his error.)


>>>>