Down goes DOMA!!

[squeeze berry]

Now what are you railing about? The GOP defended DOMA (to the tune of 5 million dollars) and lost. You'll get over it.

was that Boehner $ or Koch/Adelson $

The Orange Man

apparently the Hispanics don't like white people

they must be racist for him to act that way, no?

 

[Seawytch]

umm that's kinda the point mas estupido

It wasn't to "protect the wife" as you claim, twatstick.

I'm not sure why the name calling is necessary, but when in Rome...

really, why was there a marriage contract?

for the male?

For property...the wife was included among that property. Yes, it benefitted men.

Just one example...

1873 – In Bradwell v. Illinois the Supreme Court rules that a state has the right to exclude a married woman from practicing law.

 

[Patriot2]

Your moral definitions, my little minions, do not control the country.

I will be your Super Hero. If anybody tries to make you marry someone of your own sex, call me, and I will fly to your rescue.

Sadly, neither does the people voting for what they want. The ultra-liberal state of California spoke loud & proud - they did NOT want gay marriage in their state. But I guess the fringe minority now runs this country (kind of like the Nazi's in Germany)?

 

[Patriot2]

The GOP spent millions defending DOMA. Money well spent, conservatives?

Oh absolutely! I would much rather see millions spent on defending the Constitution (even when it fails because of criminal activity, such as this case) than see millions spent on anything else.

 

[PaulS1950]

When performing a marriage there are some very specific questions that must be answered:

1. are you consensual? (or is your guardian consenting for the handicapped)
2. Are you of legal age?
3. Are you single?

If the answer to any of those questions is "NO" then you cannot be legally married.

Marrying a close relative is and has been defined by the individual states and most often you cannot marry someone who is a sibling or first cousin or more closely related.

Acts of pedophilia are still against the law.
You cannot legally marry another if you are currently married - no polygamy or poly-amoury.
You can only marry another person.

Churches do not have to perform marriages for any couple they deem non-members of their faith. They cannot be forced to perform sacraments for those not following the rules of the church.

Any couples that would like a religious marriage in Washington can contact me and I will gladly talk with you about it.

 

[squeeze berry]

It wasn't to "protect the wife" as you claim, twatstick.

I'm not sure why the name calling is necessary, but when in Rome...

really, why was there a marriage contract?

for the male?

For property...the wife was included among that property. Yes, it benefitted men.

Just one example...

1873 – In Bradwell v. Illinois the Supreme Court rules that a state has the right to exclude a married woman from practicing law.

women sure as hell could inherit property

 

[Seawytch]

Your moral definitions, my little minions, do not control the country.

I will be your Super Hero. If anybody tries to make you marry someone of your own sex, call me, and I will fly to your rescue.

Sadly, neither does the people voting for what they want. The ultra-liberal state of California spoke loud & proud - they did NOT want gay marriage in their state. But I guess the fringe minority now runs this country (kind of like the Nazi's in Germany)?

Right...finding a citizen initiative unconstitutional is exactly like Nazi Germany.

Jeez...do you people hear yourselves?

 

[Seawytch]

really, why was there a marriage contract?

for the male?

For property...the wife was included among that property. Yes, it benefitted men.

Just one example...

1873 – In Bradwell v. Illinois the Supreme Court rules that a state has the right to exclude a married woman from practicing law.

women sure as hell could inherit property

I didn't say they couldn't..but it was not the reason for legal marriage registries.

 

[Patriot2]

It wasn't to "protect the wife" as you claim, twatstick.

I'm not sure why the name calling is necessary, but when in Rome...

really, why was there a marriage contract?

for the male?

For property...the wife was included among that property. Yes, it benefitted men.

Just one example...

1873 – In Bradwell v. Illinois the Supreme Court rules that a state has the right to exclude a married woman from practicing law.

And now the American people have officially been stripped of their voice, their vote, and their rights (and you applaud... how tragic).

Just one example.....

2013 – In US v. Windsor the Supreme Court rules that it doesn't matter what the people vote in a legal election, the fringe nut-jobs will rule this nation until immorality is rampant as far as the eye can see and only government is left.

 

[Patriot2]

Your moral definitions, my little minions, do not control the country.

I will be your Super Hero. If anybody tries to make you marry someone of your own sex, call me, and I will fly to your rescue.

Sadly, neither does the people voting for what they want. The ultra-liberal state of California spoke loud & proud - they did NOT want gay marriage in their state. But I guess the fringe minority now runs this country (kind of like the Nazi's in Germany)?

Right...finding a citizen initiative unconstitutional is exactly like Nazi Germany.

Jeez...do you people hear yourselves?

Do you hear yourself? Applauding the fact that a VOTE by your fellow citizens - completely legal and free from any indication of fraud, has been thrown away by 5 radical people drunk on power? That doesn't bother you in the least? The gay issue is so world-shattering important to you, you're willing to swap democracy for it?

 

[squeeze berry]

For property...the wife was included among that property. Yes, it benefitted men.

Just one example...

1873 – In Bradwell v. Illinois the Supreme Court rules that a state has the right to exclude a married woman from practicing law.

women sure as hell could inherit property

I didn't say they couldn't..but it was not the reason for legal marriage registries.

???

you are damned right it was

 

[Patriot2]

When performing a marriage there are some very specific questions that must be answered:

1. are you consensual? (or is your guardian consenting for the handicapped)
2. Are you of legal age?
3. Are you single?

If the answer to any of those questions is "NO" then you cannot be legally married.

Marrying a close relative is and has been defined by the individual states and most often you cannot marry someone who is a sibling or first cousin or more closely related.

Acts of pedophilia are still against the law.
You cannot legally marry another if you are currently married - no polygamy or poly-amoury.
You can only marry another person.

Churches do not have to perform marriages for any couple they deem non-members of their faith. They cannot be forced to perform sacraments for those not following the rules of the church.

Any couples that would like a religious marriage in Washington can contact me and I will gladly talk with you about it.

So if 6 women and 1 man want to get married (as happens all the time across this country - some muslim men have wives in the double-digits, such as the Bin Laden family), you are now comfortable with that? After all, it fits all of your criteria (adults, consenting, and single)

 

[PaulS1950]

Civil rights are beyond the scope of political attack. You can no more vote down a right that you can vote down the law of gravity.

 

[Seawytch]

really, why was there a marriage contract?

for the male?

For property...the wife was included among that property. Yes, it benefitted men.

Just one example...

1873 – In Bradwell v. Illinois the Supreme Court rules that a state has the right to exclude a married woman from practicing law.

And now the American people have officially been stripped of their voice, their vote, and their rights (and you applaud... how tragic).

Just one example.....

2013 – In US v. Windsor the Supreme Court rules that it doesn't matter what the people vote in a legal election, the fringe nut-jobs will rule this nation until immorality is rampant as far as the eye can see and only government is left.

2013: "Patriot" doesn't know the difference between Prop 8 and DOMA. (Also knows nothing about the tyranny of the majority)

 

[Redfish]

Sadly, neither does the people voting for what they want. The ultra-liberal state of California spoke loud & proud - they did NOT want gay marriage in their state. But I guess the fringe minority now runs this country (kind of like the Nazi's in Germany)?

Right...finding a citizen initiative unconstitutional is exactly like Nazi Germany.

Jeez...do you people hear yourselves?

Do you hear yourself? Applauding the fact that a VOTE by your fellow citizens - completely legal and free from any indication of fraud, has been thrown away by 5 radical people drunk on power? That doesn't bother you in the least? The gay issue is so world-shattering important to you, you're willing to swap democracy for it?

thats exactly the problem, the gay issue trumps everything else for these fools. They are willing to sacrifice freedom and democracy just so they can call their aberant lifestyle a "normal" marriage. Its not and never will be, and they will regret this as more and more of their rights are usurped by an every growing federal beaurocracy.

 

[Redfish]

For property...the wife was included among that property. Yes, it benefitted men.

Just one example...

1873 – In Bradwell v. Illinois the Supreme Court rules that a state has the right to exclude a married woman from practicing law.

And now the American people have officially been stripped of their voice, their vote, and their rights (and you applaud... how tragic).

Just one example.....

2013 – In US v. Windsor the Supreme Court rules that it doesn't matter what the people vote in a legal election, the fringe nut-jobs will rule this nation until immorality is rampant as far as the eye can see and only government is left.

2013: "Patriot" doesn't know the difference between Prop 8 and DOMA. (Also knows nothing about the tyranny of the majority)

did the "tyranny of the majority" elect obama twice? you are full of shit, wytchey.

 

[Patriot2]

For property...the wife was included among that property. Yes, it benefitted men.

Just one example...

1873 – In Bradwell v. Illinois the Supreme Court rules that a state has the right to exclude a married woman from practicing law.

And now the American people have officially been stripped of their voice, their vote, and their rights (and you applaud... how tragic).

Just one example.....

2013 – In US v. Windsor the Supreme Court rules that it doesn't matter what the people vote in a legal election, the fringe nut-jobs will rule this nation until immorality is rampant as far as the eye can see and only government is left.

2013: "Patriot" doesn't know the difference between Prop 8 and DOMA. (Also knows nothing about the tyranny of the majority)

Ah... better to avoid the question than to acknowledge the fatal flaw in applauding the fact that the vote of a large majority was squashed by 5 power hungry frauds on the far fringe of society.

By the way - what is more likely to create a horrific outcome: the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of the few? Do you think more are like Adolf Hitler or fewer?

You'd really rather concentrate power in the hands of the few rather than the hands of the many?

 

[Seawytch]

women sure as hell could inherit property

I didn't say they couldn't..but it was not the reason for legal marriage registries.

???

you are damned right it was

Prove it.

When the U.S. started registering marriages, women were the property. The first court challenges were to the laws that said married women could not own property, but you are mistaken when you insist the registries were started to protect women.

 

[Redfish]

Civil rights are beyond the scope of political attack. You can no more vote down a right that you can vote down the law of gravity.

its amazing how you lefties continue to misuse the term civil rights. There is no civil right to marriage, gay or straight. There is no civil right to eat, breathe, sleep, or fart. There is no civil right to buy a car or a house.

Equal opportunity is a civil right, non-discrimination is a civil right. Gay marriage is NOT. The people of california were prefectly legal in voting down gay marriage--but it doesn't matter what the will of the people is when you live in a socialist dictatorship.

you assholes have no idea what a can of worms this has opened.

 

[Luissa]

Right...finding a citizen initiative unconstitutional is exactly like Nazi Germany.

Jeez...do you people hear yourselves?

Do you hear yourself? Applauding the fact that a VOTE by your fellow citizens - completely legal and free from any indication of fraud, has been thrown away by 5 radical people drunk on power? That doesn't bother you in the least? The gay issue is so world-shattering important to you, you're willing to swap democracy for it?

thats exactly the problem, the gay issue trumps everything else for these fools. They are willing to sacrifice freedom and democracy just so they can call their aberant lifestyle a "normal" marriage. Its not and never will be, and they will regret this as more and more of their rights are usurped by an every growing federal beaurocracy.

Sacrifice freedom? Its called equal rights.
Democracy? We are a democratic republic, our founding fathers didnt even want a complete democracy.