Down goes DOMA!!

[007]

Polygamy and pedophile are differences of kind not circumstances.

No correlation exists.

Oh now just hold on a minute here skippy... who are you to say WHO can marry WHO? Didn't this SCOTUS decision just say that wasn't anyone's business, and no one should be discriminated against?
Are you a pedophobe Jake? Or maybe a polygaphobe? Why do you HATE those people. Why are you being such a hypocrite, saying one sexual perversion is OK but another isn't?

Is that what the Supreme Court decision said? Can you cite the part of their decision(s) that says that, 007?

Can you tell me what part of it DIDN'T? They are CONDONING sexual perversion by ALLOWING BENEFITS to be DERIVED from it.

They have just ADMITTED the court thinks HOMOSEXUALITY IS OK.

 

[Trajan]

And if he hadn't passed DOMA and DADT back then, he wouldn't have had a 2nd term.

I have to bookmark this thread ......so what obama does now, if in 10-15 years its a bomb he gets a pass because it was politically expedient at the time?

I see, do you extend this "flexible" yardstick to republican executives too?

Can you deny the truth of my statement? No, you can't.

there is no applicable truth that is germane, unless your answer to MY question is yes- a president can be forgiven for signing bills based strictly on political expediency of the moment, ergo, my question- want to answer or take another shot at inept mitigation/obfuscation?

 

[bodecea]

Oh now just hold on a minute here skippy... who are you to say WHO can marry WHO? Didn't this SCOTUS decision just say that wasn't anyone's business, and no one should be discriminated against?
Are you a pedophobe Jake? Or maybe a polygaphobe? Why do you HATE those people. Why are you being such a hypocrite, saying one sexual perversion is OK but another isn't?

Is that what the Supreme Court decision said? Can you cite the part of their decision(s) that says that, 007?

Can you tell me what part of it DIDN'T? They are CONDONING sexual perversion by ALLOWING BENEFITS to be DERIVED from it.

They have just ADMITTED the court thinks HOMOSEXUALITY IS OK.

You stated, and I quote: "Didn't this SCOTUS decision JUST SAY that wasn't anyone's business, and no one should be discriminated against?"

Where in the SCOTUS decision does it say that, 007? You made the claim. Where does it say that?

 

[Spoonman]

VERY BIG DECISION -- all federal rights have just been granted to same-sex couples.

The wording of this decision puts all anti-gay laws into jeopardy.

nice to see a conservative judge swung the decision.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Oh now just hold on a minute here skippy... who are you to say WHO can marry WHO? Didn't this SCOTUS decision just say that wasn't anyone's business, and no one should be discriminated against?

No it didn't.
It said the federal government cannot use sexual orientation as the basis for denying recognition or benefits.

Since pedophilia doesn't involve consenting adults, it cannot be a legal contract. That's a non-issue.

Poligamy may be a closer call, but since poligamy would involved extending the contractual relationship (and benefits) to an unlimited number of parties, I believe a legitimate distinction exists.

 

[bodecea]

I have to bookmark this thread ......so what obama does now, if in 10-15 years its a bomb he gets a pass because it was politically expedient at the time?

I see, do you extend this "flexible" yardstick to republican executives too?

Can you deny the truth of my statement? No, you can't.

there is no applicable truth that is germane, unless your answer to MY question is yes- a president can be forgiven for signing bills based strictly on political expediency of the moment, ergo, my question- want to answer or take another shot at inept mitigation/obfuscation?

Yes, I don't deny that. I have no problem with that now. And I certainly didn't have a problem with it back then.

 

[Trajan]

Avatar is correct. Polygamy should now be defensible under the law and permitted. How that will shake things up here in the beehive state will be interesting.

I don't think so. One can point to negative effects upon young women AND young men, which justify state police power. Historically, same sex marriage was disfavored because we thought it somehow harmful to children, yet that was proven untrue.

and that was proven where?

 

[Avatar4321]

Avatar is correct. Polygamy should now be defensible under the law and permitted. How that will shake things up here in the beehive state will be interesting.

I don't think so. One can point to negative effects upon young women AND young men, which justify state police power. Historically, same sex marriage was disfavored because we thought it somehow harmful to children, yet that was proven untrue.

And one cant point to negative effects from homosexual relationships? Heck, one could probably point to negative effects from hetrosexual relationships. People are involved. There are going to be negative effects.

There are negative effects to eating fast food. Does that mean we should empower the state to take away that choice?

And no harm to children hasnt been proven untrue. Quite frankly there isnt enough evidence to make a determination. The problem is getting that evidence could possibly destroy families for generations to come.

 

[TemplarKormac]

We may as well strike the 10th Amendment from the Constitution. It is no longer relevant in today's America.

 

[Spoonman]

We'll have to bookmark this one for the next time a state decides to ignore one of the left's pet laws and regulations.

Who is ignoring anything? Due process was done.

If the people of CA passed a handgun ban, would you have wanted it challenged?

I certainly would. The majority cannot trample on the rights of the minority.

does that apply to all rights? including gun rights?

 

[Avatar4321]

We may as well strike the 10th Amendment from the Constitution. It is no longer relevant in today's America.

Unfortunately the 10th amendment has never been taken seriously by the Federal Courts.

 

[Trajan]

VERY BIG DECISION -- all federal rights have just been granted to same-sex couples.

The wording of this decision puts all anti-gay laws into jeopardy.

nice to see a conservative judge swung the decision.

but just yesterday they were goats

 

[007]

Is that what the Supreme Court decision said? Can you cite the part of their decision(s) that says that, 007?

Can you tell me what part of it DIDN'T? They are CONDONING sexual perversion by ALLOWING BENEFITS to be DERIVED from it.

They have just ADMITTED the court thinks HOMOSEXUALITY IS OK.

You stated, and I quote: "Didn't this SCOTUS decision JUST SAY that wasn't anyone's business, and no one should be discriminated against?"

Where in the SCOTUS decision does it say that, 007? You made the claim. Where does it say that?

This is no time for games... the court just decided that HOMOS are to get FULL MARRIAGE BENEFITS in the states that ALLOW HOMO marriage... they just STRUCK DOWN the DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT. So don't act cute and play games here.

THEY STRUCK DOWN THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT.

What fucking part of that do YOU want to DENY?

That opens the door for every other fucking PERVERT ON THE PLANET that wants to MARRY.

 

[mack20]

All the pearl clutching and hand wringing and frothing at the mouth of conservatives won't change the fact that this is a beautiful day for love and equality.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The minority should be made subject to the will of the majority at some point or another. So what I get here is that the will of the majority no longer matters.

 

[Hyrcanus]

We may as well strike the 10th Amendment from the Constitution. It is no longer relevant in today's America.

Unfortunately the 10th amendment has never been taken seriously by the Federal Courts.

Its a stupid law that doesn't work well with a modernizing and evolving society.

 

[bodecea]

The minority should be made subject to the will of the majority at some point or another. So what I get here is that the will of the majority no longer matters.

The will of the majority does not get to stomp willy nilly on the civil rights of the minority. At least not in this country, it doesn't.

 

[Trajan]

Not arguing that, but by not hearing the case and since it was already ruled unconstitutional...it's over. Prop 8 is DONE.

We'll have to bookmark this one for the next time a state decides to ignore one of the left's pet laws and regulations.

bingo. from heros ( obamacare) to goats (section 4 voters rights act) to heroes again ( gay rights per se) .........


.....the hypocrisy meter is pinned

 

[bodecea]

Can you tell me what part of it DIDN'T? They are CONDONING sexual perversion by ALLOWING BENEFITS to be DERIVED from it.

They have just ADMITTED the court thinks HOMOSEXUALITY IS OK.

You stated, and I quote: "Didn't this SCOTUS decision JUST SAY that wasn't anyone's business, and no one should be discriminated against?"

Where in the SCOTUS decision does it say that, 007? You made the claim. Where does it say that?

This is no time for games... the court just decided that HOMOS are to get FULL MARRIAGE BENEFITS in the states that ALLOW HOMO marriage... they just STRUCK DOWN the DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT. So don't act cute and play games here.

THEY STRUCK DOWN THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT.

What fucking part of that do YOU want to DENY?

That opens the door for every other fucking PERVERT ON THE PLANET that wants to MARRY.

Actually, I believe they struck down PART of DOMA. And that is a wonderful day for equal rights for law-abiding, tax-paying citizens in this country.


(Odd that you could not prove your assertion about what the Supreme Court said.)

 

[RandallFlagg]

Can you tell me what part of it DIDN'T? They are CONDONING sexual perversion by ALLOWING BENEFITS to be DERIVED from it.

They have just ADMITTED the court thinks HOMOSEXUALITY IS OK.

You stated, and I quote: "Didn't this SCOTUS decision JUST SAY that wasn't anyone's business, and no one should be discriminated against?"

Where in the SCOTUS decision does it say that, 007? You made the claim. Where does it say that?

This is no time for games... the court just decided that HOMOS are to get FULL MARRIAGE BENEFITS in the states that ALLOW HOMO marriage... they just STRUCK DOWN the DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT. So don't act cute and play games here.

THEY STRUCK DOWN THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT.

What fucking part of that do YOU want to DENY?

That opens the door for every other fucking PERVERT ON THE PLANET that wants to MARRY.

Wasn't that what all this was about from the very beginning?