What rights are the gays missing?

[Setarcos]

You don't get it, do you?
The argument you are trying to use specifically identified people based upon an identifiable and obvious characteristic (black skin). Those outdated (and now non-existent) laws specifically said "black". Where is a law that specifically says "homosexual"?

Let me google that for you

Any more stupid questions?

And where does any of that specifically state "homosexuals" as the reason for law?

Any more stupid answers?

Only if you keep posting them

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.[3]

When I asked if you had any more stupid questions, it was rhetorical. You weren't supposed to ask another one

 

[manu1959]

i would still like to know.....

what rights do gays not currently have that they would suddenly get if they gat to call their union a marriage.....

and

why do all the straights get the definition of their union taken from them.....

They get equal legal rights and the benefits of marriage at the federal level


and if your union is defined by whether your neighbor gets fucked in the ass by her husband, what does that say about your relationship?

and which federal rights would those be......

don't really care what your neighbors think about how you man treats you.....

 

[alan1]

If they are homosexual, then you should be fighting- unless, that is, you are a liar.

Their sexuality isn't the point, laws based specifically upon sexuality are.
So far, you haven't proved any exist.

 

[Setarcos]

and which federal rights would those be......

Read the thread, dude

 

[Setarcos]

If they are homosexual, then you should be fighting- unless, that is, you are a liar.

Their sexuality isn't the point, laws based specifically upon sexuality are.
So far, you haven't proved any exist.

'
Are you blind, stupid, or just a liar?

defense of marriage act - Google Search

 

[Qball]

The gov't can either recognize or deny a marriage. Loving V. Virginia established that they can't pick and choose whose they recognize w/out violation the 9th and 14th amendments.

No, sorry. Loving only established that laws that criminalized marriage between Whites and other races (since interracial marriage wasn't so much illegal in the case of couples in which neither person was white) were unconstitutional. Neither the 9th nor the 14th Amendment have anything to do with it.

Try again.

Actually, in LvV, SCOTUS cited the 14th amendment

Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:
“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State

You fail. Care to try again?

The exact same arguments that were cited by the anti-miscegenation crowd are used by the anti-gay marriage crowd, and the same refutations apply.

I don't have to try again. Read the bolded parts. Due Process and Equal Protection both involve citizens rights in the context of their lives, freedom, or property being infringed upon. Because anti-miscegenation statutes were, in fact, criminal in nature, both those amendments applied. The Defense of Marriage Act and the state marriage amendments expressly define marriage in a way that it always has been regarded; yes, even back in 1967. They do not impose criminal sanctions on marriage, which is what anti-miscegenation laws did. If you want to get fancy about it, you could say it would be unconstitutional to impose laws that specifically intend to punish same-sex couples who legally marry in another state, but live in a state that doesn't recognize them.

There's nothing that requires an acknowledgment of "a civil contract with an adult" or whatever over-specified, made up claim you made and put "right" at the front of. And don't give me that crap like you were around back then and had your ear to the pulse of the "anti-miscegenation crowd".

 

[paperview]

LOL, there is no right to marry your love, my friend. More importantly, we're discussing the law; well, we were up until you saw that you weren't making any sense so you decided to turn the argument into an issue of emotions. Supporters of gay marriage do it all the time.

right....


Seeing as I'm the only one in this thread to cite a decision by SCOTUS, it's evident that you're merely trying to to attack me instead of addressing the points made.

What difference does it make if you cite a SCOTUS case if you know nothing about it?

Considering you just made a fool of yourself by saying in Loving the 14th Amendment didn't have anything to do with it, I'm not so sure you're on the best footing...

 

[manu1959]

If they are homosexual, then you should be fighting- unless, that is, you are a liar.

Their sexuality isn't the point, laws based specifically upon sexuality are.
So far, you haven't proved any exist.

'
Are you blind, stupid, or just a liar?

defense of marriage act - Google Search

here is the text from your link.....his question was where is the word homosexual use....

The following excerpts are the main provisions of the Act:

Powers reserved to the states:
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse':
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.[3]

funny it was signed in to law by the liberals boy toy....

 

[paperview]

Loving stated clearly Marriage was a RIGHT.

 

[Setarcos]

The Defense of Marriage Act and the state marriage amendments expressly define marriage in a way that it always has been regarded; yes, even back in 1967. They do not impose criminal sanctions on marriage, which is what anti-miscegenation laws did.

In refusing to recognize legal contracts based on the sex of the parties involved, it violates the same equal-protection clause.

There's nothing that requires an acknowledgment of "a civil contract with an adult" or whatever over-specified, made up claim you made and put "right" at the front of

1) 9th amendment
2) the State already recognizes such a right.


Everything we hear against gay marriage we already heard before

 

[manu1959]

and which federal rights would those be......

Read the thread, dude

homour me.....

list the fedreral rights that are denied.....

i live in california....list the rights in california that are denied.....

 

[Qball]

right....


Seeing as I'm the only one in this thread to cite a decision by SCOTUS, it's evident that you're merely trying to to attack me instead of addressing the points made.

What difference does it make if you cite a SCOTUS case if you know nothing about it?

Considering you just made a fool of yourself by saying in Loving the 14th Amendment didn't have anything to do with it, I'm not so sure you're on the best footing...

The 14th Amendment didn't have anything to do with the way she parsed the issue.

 

[alan1]

Let me google that for you

Any more stupid questions?

And where does any of that specifically state "homosexuals" as the reason for law?

Any more stupid answers?

Only if you keep posting them

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.[3]

When I asked if you had any more stupid questions, it was rhetorical. You weren't supposed to ask another one

Well, golly gee, that says "persons of the same sex", not "homosexual persons". Maybe I'm just a dumb hick, but it appears that that law would be the same regardless of ones sexual orientation.

When I said 'stupid answers', it was rhetorical, you weren't supposed to prove that you could get even more stupid.
Now, about them thar missing rights I asked about in the OP, got any?

 

[manu1959]

And where does any of that specifically state "homosexuals" as the reason for law?

Any more stupid answers?

Only if you keep posting them

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.[3]

When I asked if you had any more stupid questions, it was rhetorical. You weren't supposed to ask another one

Well, golly gee, that says "persons of the same sex", not "homosexual persons". Maybe I'm just a dumb hick, but it appears that that law would be the same regardless of ones sexual orientation.

When I said 'stupid answers', it was rhetorical, you weren't supposed to prove that you could get even more stupid.
Now, about them thar missing rights I asked about in the OP, got any?

they can't file a joint tax return with the person they love.....

 

[Setarcos]

So you're saying that heterosexuals have relations with persons of the same sex?


Your spin was tried back in the days of Loving

 

[Qball]

The Defense of Marriage Act and the state marriage amendments expressly define marriage in a way that it always has been regarded; yes, even back in 1967. They do not impose criminal sanctions on marriage, which is what anti-miscegenation laws did.

In refusing to recognize legal contracts based on the sex of the parties involved, it violates the same equal-protection clause.

There's nothing that requires an acknowledgment of "a civil contract with an adult" or whatever over-specified, made up claim you made and put "right" at the front of

1) 9th amendment
2) the State already recognizes such a right.


Everything we hear against gay marriage we already heard before

Oh please. I see this all the time when people try to make up constitutional precepts that don't exist: they just mention the 9th Amendment and never explain how it works, either in general or related to their argument.

The ninth amendment doesn't permit you to make up rights and then say they're protected rights. There is no fundamental right to a civil contract with an adult (as weird as that phrase is), and there especially isn't a right to a "civil contract" in anticipation of receiving government benefits. The state has defined that right to not include certain unions, which it has every right to do, within reason (given relevant caselaw, there are some premises on which the State cannot limit marriage, but gender has never been found by the SCOTUS to be one of them).

 

[paperview]

What difference does it make if you cite a SCOTUS case if you know nothing about it?

Considering you just made a fool of yourself by saying in Loving the 14th Amendment didn't have anything to do with it, I'm not so sure you're on the best footing...

The 14th Amendment didn't have anything to do with the way she parsed the issue.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1603884-post370.html

 

[Qball]

they can't file a joint tax return with the person they love.....

That's not a right.

 

[Qball]

Considering you just made a fool of yourself by saying in Loving the 14th Amendment didn't have anything to do with it, I'm not so sure you're on the best footing...

The 14th Amendment didn't have anything to do with the way she parsed the issue.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1603884-post370.html

That wasn't the post I'd responded to when I said the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with it and you know it.

 

[Setarcos]

The state has defined that right to not include certain unions, which it has every right to do

The Constitution grants the fed no rights


Do you ever know what you're talking about?