DOMA ruled unconstitutional

[WinterBorn]

Wrong: Homosexual marriage is, by its nature, a deconstruct of society.

Statistically, homosexuals are NOT a monogamous group. - Successful marriages for the majority of couples, require monogamy. The sheer volume of different partners homosexuals admit having, seriously calls into question their ability to sustain a "commitment" to marriage.

Re-writing law to include a group whose behavior is by and large destructive with much higher suicide rates; disease; addiction and promiscuity is stupid and ignorant; all so people can feel "inclusive".

The homosexual lifestyle will never afford homosexuals a true sense of normalcy. No matter how far they can bend society to accept them, they cannot make their behavior natural.

So promoting monogamy through access to such legal conditions as Civil Marriage would be a good thing then.

>>>>

No, not when it is implemented for a group, whose natural proclivity is anti-monogamous.

The idea that homosexuals are trying to get married shows a desire to be in a monogamous, committed relationship. Just like the rest of us who got married.

 

[clevergirl]

Actually that is not necessarily the standard (IIRC) there are seven states and the District of Columbia that have passed laws allowing men to Civilly Marry men and women to Civilly Marry women.


>>>>

Yes, and there are also challenges to those laws- none of which were passed by voters.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, of two things...

1. None of the states that currently allows Civil Marriages have had those laws repealed by voters,

and

2. Not all laws are voted on by voters.​

The fact is we're likely to see the first voter approved laws this year in the state of Washington or Maine.


>>>>

We may see a voter approved acceptance- but to date we have not. What we have had is 32 states reject it. California voted on an amendment against gay marriage- but a gay activist judge overturned it- no surprise. Eventually this will head to the SC.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Wrong: Homosexual marriage is, by its nature, a deconstruct of society.

Statistically, homosexuals are NOT a monogamous group. - Successful marriages for the majority of couples, require monogamy. The sheer volume of different partners homosexuals admit having, seriously calls into question their ability to sustain a "commitment" to marriage.

Re-writing law to include a group whose behavior is by and large destructive with much higher suicide rates; disease; addiction and promiscuity is stupid and ignorant; all so people can feel "inclusive".

The homosexual lifestyle will never afford homosexuals a true sense of normalcy. No matter how far they can bend society to accept them, they cannot make their behavior natural.

So promoting monogamy through access to such legal conditions as Civil Marriage would be a good thing then.

>>>>

No, not when it is implemented for a group, whose natural proclivity is anti-monogamous.

So, if it's a "natural proclivity" then that means you think that homosexuality is genetic in nature.

Personally I think the high rate of promiscuity in the previous studies is a result of social rejection, demonizing, and discrimination (not to mention criminalization and forced mental hospital incarceration) forcing gays in previous generations to hide who they were resulting in the need to operate in an underground society hidden from the world.

As the morally acceptable nature of consenting adult relationships continues to increase there will be less need to hide, and with Same-sex Civil Marriage becoming available - promiscuity will decrease. Just an opinion of course.



>>>>

 

[clevergirl]

So promoting monogamy through access to such legal conditions as Civil Marriage would be a good thing then.

>>>>

No, not when it is implemented for a group, whose natural proclivity is anti-monogamous.

The idea that homosexuals are trying to get married shows a desire to be in a monogamous, committed relationship. Just like the rest of us who got married.

Bullshit- what we have is homosexual activism. Marriage or the idea of marriage, is a gateway to what they hope will make their unnatural sexual proclivity feel normal. It won't it hasn't. Promiscuity; addiction; suicide are still statistically much higher, despite societal attitudes of acceptance.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, not when it is implemented for a group, whose natural proclivity is anti-monogamous.

The idea that homosexuals are trying to get married shows a desire to be in a monogamous, committed relationship. Just like the rest of us who got married.

Bullshit- what we have is homosexual activism. Marriage or the idea of marriage, is a gateway to what they hope will make their unnatural sexual proclivity feel normal. It won't it hasn't. Promiscuity; addiction; suicide are still statistically much higher, despite societal attitudes of acceptance.

In the last few decades acceptance has gotten better and better.

The idea that gays want to marry for any other reason than to get married is pure speculation.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes, and there are also challenges to those laws- none of which were passed by voters.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, of two things...

1. None of the states that currently allows Civil Marriages have had those laws repealed by voters,

and

2. Not all laws are voted on by voters.​

The fact is we're likely to see the first voter approved laws this year in the state of Washington or Maine.


>>>>

We may see a voter approved acceptance- but to date we have not. What we have had is 32 states reject it. California voted on an amendment against gay marriage- but a gay activist judge overturned it- no surprise. Eventually this will head to the SC.

And that decision was upheld by a straight appeals court. However if you think the SCOTUS is going to settle the issue based on the Prop 8 case, you are probably mistaken. They are likely to uphold the appeals court decision, but tailor it to the very narrow set of circumstances present in the Prop 8 case (a right once granted under the State Constitution, being taken away after that right had been exercised by the people).

But it may surprise you to learn that I disagree with the filing of the initial Prop 8 case to begin with. Prop 8 passed by a very narrow amount, a change of less than 3% would have resulted in a different outcome. IMHO, supporters of Same-sex Civil Marriage would have been much better off holding on a court case and instead implementing a campaign to change the mind of voters and then put it back on the ballot. It would likely have been on the ballot this year and passed. Passage in the largest state of the union by voter initiative would have gained much more momentum for other states then what winning in court is likely to do.



>>>>

 

[clevergirl]

So promoting monogamy through access to such legal conditions as Civil Marriage would be a good thing then.

>>>>

No, not when it is implemented for a group, whose natural proclivity is anti-monogamous.

So, if it's a "natural proclivity" then that means you think that homosexuality is genetic in nature.

Personally I think the high rate of promiscuity in the previous studies is a result of social rejection, demonizing, and discrimination (not to mention criminalization and forced mental hospital incarceration) forcing gays in previous generations to hide who they were resulting in the need to operate in an underground society hidden from the world.

As the morally acceptable nature of consenting adult relationships continues to increase there will be less need to hide, and with Same-sex Civil Marriage becoming available - promiscuity will decrease. Just an opinion of course.



>>>>

All of your well wishing, has not made it so. The stats are the stats. I do not know whether homosexual proclivities are from a defective gene; a defective childhood or a combination of both- It is not relevant to the discussion.

What is relevant is what are healthy social constructs. Why is it important to have societal norms dictate social structures? Because that is at the root of how societies stay healthy.

We should not be creating "special" laws for the benefit of a small percentage of the population, whose sexual proclivities are unnatural.

As previously stated this a deconstruct of the social construct of marriage both historically and traditionally. Marriage has always been about promoting the prodigy of the race- always. Homosexual marriage is at complete odds with this construct.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Statistically, heterosexuals are not a faithful group.

The homosexual lifestyle will never afford homosexuals a true sense of normalcy. I imagine homosexual spouses will say you are silly and to move along.

 

[bodecea]

No, not when it is implemented for a group, whose natural proclivity is anti-monogamous.

The idea that homosexuals are trying to get married shows a desire to be in a monogamous, committed relationship. Just like the rest of us who got married.

Bullshit- what we have is homosexual activism. Marriage or the idea of marriage, is a gateway to what they hope will make their unnatural sexual proclivity feel normal. It won't it hasn't. Promiscuity; addiction; suicide are still statistically much higher, despite societal attitudes of acceptance.

How odd then, to have you complain about gays wanting to commit to one loved partner for life.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

According to wikipedia, the Mass. Supreme Court struck down the sodomy laws in 2002.

But this topic is just a red herring as pertains to the OP.

[SIZE=]Take it up with the pro gay source I used. Are you saying they are drama QUEENS?

bigrebnc is the biggest drama queen on the board with the possible exception of koshergrl.

There that is better

 

[clevergirl]

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, of two things...

1. None of the states that currently allows Civil Marriages have had those laws repealed by voters,

and

2. Not all laws are voted on by voters.​

The fact is we're likely to see the first voter approved laws this year in the state of Washington or Maine.


>>>>

We may see a voter approved acceptance- but to date we have not. What we have had is 32 states reject it. California voted on an amendment against gay marriage- but a gay activist judge overturned it- no surprise. Eventually this will head to the SC.

And that decision was upheld by a straight appeals court. However if you think the SCOTUS is going to settle the issue based on the Prop 8 case, you are probably mistaken. They are likely to uphold the appeals court decision, but tailor it to the very narrow set of circumstances present in the Prop 8 case (a right once granted under the State Constitution, being taken away after that right had been exercised by the people).

But it may surprise you to learn that I disagree with the filing of the initial Prop 8 case to begin with. Prop 8 passed by a very narrow amount, a change of less than 3% would have resulted in a different outcome. IMHO, supporters of Same-sex Civil Marriage would have been much better off holding on a court case and instead implementing a campaign to change the mind of voters and then put it back on the ballot. It would likely have been on the ballot this year and passed. Passage in the largest state of the union by voter initiative would have gained much more momentum for other states then what winning in court is likely to do.



>>>>

That decision was upheld by a 2 to 1 appeals court.

Regardless of your opinion, the FACTS are that the only way homosexual marriage has been passed is by fiat of legislating it from the bench.

32 states have rejected it.

 

[WinterBorn]

[SIZE=]Take it up with the pro gay source I used. Are you saying they are drama QUEENS?

bigrebnc is the biggest drama queen on the board with the possible exception of koshergrl.

There that is better

So now you will explain the "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" line in tiny letters?

 

[JakeStarkey]

That decision was upheld by a 2 to 1 appeals court. Regardless of your opinion, the FACTS are that the only way homosexual marriage has been passed is by fiat of legislating it from the bench. 32 states have rejected it.

That will be reversed in the next 20 years as the 40 and younger crowd begins voting in greater and greater numbers.

 

[clevergirl]

Lengthy, but factual- all of the information is sourced. Homosexuals are not monogamous statistically speaking- The idea of a long term loving relationship is bogus, but used to sell homosexual marriage to the public at large.

Male Homosexual Relationships

The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years.[4] While this "snapshot in time" is not an absolute predictor of the length of homosexual relationships, it does indicate that few homosexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages.

Source: 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census

· In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."[5]

· A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.[6]

· In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."[7]

· In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[8]
MONOGAMY VS. PROMISCUITY: SEXUAL PARTNERS OUTSIDE OF THE RELATIONSHIP

Lest anyone suffer the illusion that any equivalency between the sexual practices of homosexual relationships and traditional marriage exists, the statistics regarding sexual fidelity within marriage are revealing:

Married couples

· A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in the Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.[9]

· A 1997 national survey appearing in The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States found that 75 percent of husbands and 85 percent of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage.[10]

· A telephone survey conducted for Parade magazine of 1,049 adults selected to represent the demographic characteristics of the United States found that 81 percent of married men and 85 percent of married women reported that they had never violated their marriage vows.[11]

Male Homosexuals

Research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:

· The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.[12]

· Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.[13]

· In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the 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 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.[14]

· A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.[15]

"Commitment" in Male Homosexual Couples

Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of "committed" or "monogamous" typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage.

· A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous." According to study author Barry Adam, "Gay culture allows men to explore different...forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals."[16]

· The Handbook of Family Diversity reported a study in which "many self-described 'monogamous' couples reported an average of three to five partners in the past year. Blasband and Peplau (1985) observed a similar pattern."[17]

· In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that, in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years:
Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[18]

As the following chart shows, the extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men dramatically contrasts with the high rate of fidelity among married heterosexuals.

 

[WorldWatcher]

We may see a voter approved acceptance- but to date we have not. What we have had is 32 states reject it. California voted on an amendment against gay marriage- but a gay activist judge overturned it- no surprise. Eventually this will head to the SC.

And that decision was upheld by a straight appeals court. However if you think the SCOTUS is going to settle the issue based on the Prop 8 case, you are probably mistaken. They are likely to uphold the appeals court decision, but tailor it to the very narrow set of circumstances present in the Prop 8 case (a right once granted under the State Constitution, being taken away after that right had been exercised by the people).

But it may surprise you to learn that I disagree with the filing of the initial Prop 8 case to begin with. Prop 8 passed by a very narrow amount, a change of less than 3% would have resulted in a different outcome. IMHO, supporters of Same-sex Civil Marriage would have been much better off holding on a court case and instead implementing a campaign to change the mind of voters and then put it back on the ballot. It would likely have been on the ballot this year and passed. Passage in the largest state of the union by voter initiative would have gained much more momentum for other states then what winning in court is likely to do.



>>>>

Regardless of your opinion, the FACTS are that the only way homosexual marriage has been passed is by fiat of legislating it from the bench.

Your "FACTS" are wrong, the majority of legal entities that have laws allowing Same-sex Civil Marriage have occurred through legislative action (6 of 9), not court action (3 of 9). Even if both referendums fail in the fall, it will still be a majority through legislative action (4 of 7).

• Connecticut = Court Action
• Iowa = Court Action
• Maryland = Legislative Action (Pending referendum in November)
• Massachusetts = Court Action
• New Hampshire = Legislative Action
• New York = Legislative Action
• Vermont = Legislative Action
• Washington, DC = Legislative Action
• Washington State = Legislative Action (Pending referendum in November)

>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And I admitted the mistake.

But what you said, and stuck with, was "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".

Now would you like to admit you were wrong there? Or will you continue to claim the court ruled DOMA was unconstitutional in accordance with Massachusetts state laws?

What I said was a court in Massachusetts ruling that the DOMA is unconstitutional is not surprising.

Now you are lying.

Here dumb ass

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.

Just thought I woulod remind bigrednc of the OP and the topic. The fact that a US Circuit Court ruled on DOMA is what started this. The next step is SCOTUS.

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.
I will add that any state that recognized gay married the doma should not restrict that state . But any state that does not recognize same sex marriages they should not be force to do that.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What I said was a court in Massachusetts ruling that the DOMA is unconstitutional is not surprising.

Now you are lying.

Here dumb ass

Just thought I woulod remind bigrednc of the OP and the topic. The fact that a US Circuit Court ruled on DOMA is what started this. The next step is SCOTUS.

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.
I will add that any state that recognized gay married the doma should not restrict that state . But any state that does not recognize same sex marriages they should not be force to do that.

The lower court (federal district court) didn't say that DOMA was unconstitutional based on Massachusetts laws.



>>>>

 

[francoHFW]

Do dupes/haters enjoy being on the wrong/intolerance side of history? Do they enjoy playing with fire...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.)


>>>>

So saying the first circuit court of appeals is not a lower court and fine with you.

Winterborn admitted he was wrong.

But me saying that a court in Boston ruling that the DOMA is unconstitutional is not a surprise is not ok. Got it.

Not what I posted about. Your being surprised or not is completely up to you.

You said the courts ruling (in this case a federal court) found DOMA unconstitutional under the federal Constitution because of Massachusetts state laws.

What I want to know is how a federal court found a federal law unconstitutional based on a state law.

1. I'd like to know how that works,

and

2. If you read the decision in Massachusetts v. OPM which is the district courts ruling it was based on the Constitution not Massachusetts state law.​

So I'm just wondering if you are man enough to admit when you made a mistake?



>>>>

The point too what I said was based on the knowledge that Massachusetts has same sex marriage protection in their laws That is not shocking to me to see that court would find the DOMA unconstitutional. What would be shocking is if another circuit court that is not gay right leaning would deem the DOMA unconstitutional.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Now you are lying.

Here dumb ass

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.
I will add that any state that recognized gay married the doma should not restrict that state . But any state that does not recognize same sex marriages they should not be force to do that.

The lower court (federal district court) didn't say that DOMA was unconstitutional based on Massachusetts laws.



>>>>

I hope my last post clarified what I meant.