Down goes DOMA!!

[g5000]

I think there should be a function in place where, if you don't agree with something, you shouldn't have to pay taxes towards it. Though I support the right of homosexuals to marry, I shouldn't have to pay taxes for any expenses involving it. People shouldn't have to have pay money for things they don't agree with. This goes for both conservatives and liberals.

Single people and gay people have been paying for the cash and prizes the government gives to straight married people for a long time.

Funny how you are all indignant-like now. Now that gays want the same treatment. My, aren't you special!

You have a lot of nerve bitching about them now being allowed the SAME YOU HAVE BEEN GETTING.

I don't think you should talk about things you don't know, g5000. Making assumptions rarely if ever works out in terms of credibility. Just a friendly reminder.

If homosexuals don't agree with paying taxes towards those things you've mentioned, and they're tax-paying citizens, then they too ought to be given the right to opt ought of paying for those causes.

Come to think of it, I know a lot more than you think.

For instance, after all entitlements are paid, there is no revenue left for Defense, roads, bridges, the war in Afghanistan, Obamaphones, or anything else at all.

We are running in the red. Therefore, if you withheld the money given to fags, you still owe more than you have already been paying. Your tax bill would be exactly the same.

Not only that, what if I decide I don't want to pay for ANYTHING? Imagine the fun times...

 

[Trajan]

Clinton thanks court for striking down law he signed

he already got dispensation from at least 2 members here, I am sure they are thrilled......nothing like throwing over your integrity on a friggin message board to defend a letch...and, the party.

Bill thought that if he just signed the sucker, the issue would go away

Little did he know

hey, all is forgiven though, he got re-elected!!!!!!!

 

[Seawytch]

so, you think that "under God" was added because we were paranoid about communists at the time? Hmmmmmmmmmm

possibly too much SCOTUS celebrating has confused you, wytchey.

I don't "think" it, it's common knowledge.

In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration. Today it reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The Pledge of Allegiance

Apparently the devastating loss has confused you, Fishy.

LOL, you timelines are correct. the reason for the change is wrong.

And yet you've provided no evidence to the contrary. (As usual)

 

[squeeze berry]

It's time to get a bulldozer and pipe in a back door to the treasury from here. They've already torn the American voting people away from their notice. They just don't care about the rest of us sitting here paying taxes for fiascos they rule into this country that were offenses to the founders and the majority of the American people today:

Gay people have been paying into Social Security all their lives, just like you and me.

And yet they have not been allowed to collect their FULL benefits like you and I can.

You have a lot of nerve bitching about them now being allowed the SAME YOU HAVE BEEN GETTING.

link for not collecting full benefits

 

[bodecea]

so, you think that "under God" was added because we were paranoid about communists at the time? Hmmmmmmmmmm

possibly too much SCOTUS celebrating has confused you, wytchey.

I don't "think" it, it's common knowledge.

In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration. Today it reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The Pledge of Allegiance

Apparently the devastating loss has confused you, Fishy.

LOL, you timelines are correct. the reason for the change is wrong.

So...what WAS the reason for the change?

 

[deaddogseye]

Now does this allow the states individually to decide to accept or not accept gay marriage? BC I know NC just banned it last year...

someone may have already answered this for you but there is a separate section of DOMA that says states do not have to recognize the gay marriages of other states that was not challenged and is unaffected by the ruling -- so as an aside when somebody says DOMA was struck down that is untrue. A part of it was.

The unaffected part on the issue you raise may be a bit of a red herring though because there is also a constitutional issue as to whether a state would be required to do this and if that is the case, DOMA as an act of congress couldnt change that. That issue has been left for another day though

 

[squeeze berry]

This is not about "normal". Bigots get really fixated on "normal".

Do you not understand what "equality" means? Look it up. You won't find "normal" anywhere in the definition.

It's amazing how ignorant of simple American legal and Constitutional principles some people are.

biology proves your point indefensible, but go ahead and pretend

Um...squeeze barry? This is about the LAW, not a biology class. Okay?

btw, homos are and have always been equal

Tell that to the gay spouses of federal employees.

Man, you have absolutely no clue what effect DOMA had, do you.

federal employees have had the right to designate beneficiaries or set up an annuity for someone not their spouse.

All they needed to do is pay the price

wrong again asshole

ps it's called a survivor annuity

 

[Katzndogz]

Gay activists are going to use this ruling and bring lawsuits in every state that has banned same sex marriage. They will impose it on the whole country by force. As if that will make them accepted.

 

[Wake]

I know plenty about this subject. This is a ridiculous scheme just to avoid accepting gays as equals.

Come to think of it, I know a lot more than you think.

For instance, after all entitlements are paid, there is no revenue left for Defense, roads, bridges, the war in Afghanistan, Obamaphones, or anything else at all.

We are running in the red. Therefore, if you withheld the money given to fags, you still owe more than you have already been paying. Your tax bill would be exactly the same.

Not only that, what if I decide I don't want to pay for ANYTHING? Imagine the fun times...

You missed the point. You made assumptions about me, when you know virtually nothing about who I am. That is what I mean, g5000. It may be true that you know quite a bit about this issue. That's not what I'm referring to. It's your assumptions as to what my character is that earned you the response you received.

See, you made it personal, g5000 with your comment. I'm willing to talk about this issue with you civilly for the sake of mutual understanding, but don't stand up there and start saying crap about who I am, what I believe in, and what my motives are. It's not your place to talk about things you don't know a thing about.

 

[Seawytch]

It's time to get a bulldozer and pipe in a back door to the treasury from here. They've already torn the American voting people away from their notice. They just don't care about the rest of us sitting here paying taxes for fiascos they rule into this country that were offenses to the founders and the majority of the American people today:

Gay people have been paying into Social Security all their lives, just like you and me.

And yet they have not been allowed to collect their FULL benefits like you and I can.

You have a lot of nerve bitching about them now being allowed the SAME YOU HAVE BEEN GETTING.

link for not collecting full benefits

Here is just one, personal, example. I am legally married in the state of CA. The healthcare costs for me and the kids are taken from pre-tax dollars, but not for my legal spouse...because of DOMA. That's just one of many...I'm also a retiree whose legal spouse could not be my legal dependent...until now.

 

[mudwhistle]

All of this and they still get fighting mad when you say that Al Gore jr, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama are all Gay.

I just don't understand these folks.


Let them get married and go thru a few bad divorces and see how enthusiastic they are about it.

 

[RandallFlagg]

which religions condone gay marriage? catholics? no. protestants? no. Hindus" no. shinto? no. buddist? no. islam? no. Jewish? no. do you think these religions object to homosexuality just to be mean to gays? or to politically incorrect?

Episcopal Church, yes.

Presbyterian Church (USA), yes.

United Church in Christ, yes.

Reconstructionist Jews, yes.

Reform Jews, yes.

Conservative Jews, yes.

Only Orthodox Jews are opposed to same sex marriage.

And there are LGBT-friendly mosques throughout the country.

And more than half of all white Catholics and Protestants polled are okay with gay marriage.


Keep working hard on that confirmation bias which believes all religions oppose gay marriage!

The religions don't accept gay marriage, but these individual sects do. It doesn't change the religion, just interpretation by the religion of an individual sect.

Correct. Each example given are "off shoots" of the religion usually started by disgruntled members of an "unbending" Church and they have decided to slink off and start their own "branch" to include whatever THEY feel that was denied them.

Usually in direct violation of the Bible. Again, if you don't like the rules "to hell with them" we'll just change them to suit OUR needs.

 

[Seawytch]

All of this and they still get fighting mad when you say that Al Gore jr, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama are all Gay.

I just don't understand these folks.


Let them get married and go thru a few bad divorces and see how enthusiastic they are about it.

Oh yes, I'm sure divorce will make us wish we had never fought for equal rights...

 

[deaddogseye]

This ruling, AFAICT, does nothing to restrict States (who traditionally set Marriage requirements and standards)...... Yet.

The ruling on Californication's Prop 8 could seal the deal one way or the other. THAT is the important ruling, IMO

The very broadly worded majority decision strikes down all anti-gay laws under equal protection.

Get a clue.

Thats not really true - the decision almost certainly doesnt go that far and seems to rest in large part on the rights of the states to be the definer (is that a word?) of marriage and that the federal government must accept the determination of that state.

As I said in another post it doesnt say whether , for example, Alabama must recognize as married under Alabama law a couple that got married in New York and in fact the decision doesnt touch the part of DOMA that says they dont -- although there might be a broader constitutional issue there as well.

Also it seems to suggest that a state as the definer of marriage for its purposes could in fact draw the same type of disticnctions that DOMA tried to in the federal level but failed. So lets assume Alabama has a special tax break for "married couples". In defining gay marriage which is the right of Alabama it presumably could say that for purpose of our definition, gay married couples arent considered married for purposes of the tax break. The case almost certainly doesnt say that and the Sup. Ct clearly did not go that far. They may in the future but they did not here and it would be a mistake to assume they will.

They clearly did NOT prohibit discrimination against gay married couples on the level they have with race for example.

 

[Spoonman]

All of this and they still get fighting mad when you say that Al Gore jr, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama are all Gay.

I just don't understand these folks.


Let them get married and go thru a few bad divorces and see how enthusiastic they are about it.

Oh yes, I'm sure divorce will make us wish we had never fought for equal rights...

just have a good prenup if you are the breadwinner lol

 

[Luissa]

Gay activists are going to use this ruling and bring lawsuits in every state that has banned same sex marriage. They will impose it on the whole country by force. As if that will make them accepted.

How exactly are they imposing in on you? If it becomes legal everywhere how is it imposing on you?

 

[Luissa]

The only arguments I have heard in this thread have to do with procreation and religion.
No where is marriage limited to Christian people, or people who plan on procreating. And no where does it state that in the constitution.

 

[squeeze berry]

Gay people have been paying into Social Security all their lives, just like you and me.

And yet they have not been allowed to collect their FULL benefits like you and I can.

You have a lot of nerve bitching about them now being allowed the SAME YOU HAVE BEEN GETTING.

link for not collecting full benefits

Here is just one, personal, example. I am legally married in the state of CA. The healthcare costs for me and the kids are taken from pre-tax dollars, but not for my legal spouse...because of DOMA. That's just one of many...I'm also a retiree whose legal spouse could not be my legal dependent...until now.

sorry, I don't follow

you changed teams?

 

[mudwhistle]

Used to be the left was all into freedom. No piece of paper to tie you down.

Now they wanna get all conservative. A study in contradiction.


Knock yourselves out.

 

[squeeze berry]

The only arguments I have heard in this thread have to do with procreation and religion.
No where is marriage limited to Christian people, or people who plan on procreating. And no where does it state that in the constitution.

no where does it state that being a pervert such as a copropheliac bestows any unalienable rights