Federal Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

[CID1990]

I think the homos should be able to marry just like anybody else.

I just think that people who will vote for a candidate solely because he supports or does not support gay marriage/abortion/ring necked cockatoos/free rubbers/Israel or any other single issue is a fvcktard cockmonkey just looking out for theirs, and the rest of the country be damned.

And you know what? The sh!t works, because otherwise we wouldn't still be talking about binders. If for nothing else, I hope Romney wins in a landslide simply because the left has dragged political discussion down to this level this time around. I'm not saying that the right hasn't done it too, but right now you have fvcking Big Bird, vaginas and fvcking binders on the left and not a single fvcking word about what the fvcking PLAN is. Romney might be vague on that account as well, but at least he's focused on the macro more than the micro.

I hope the next time a political party considers dragging us all down into a special interests squabble they look back at this election and think, "remember how the Dems got skull fvcked in 2012? Don't do it!" That goes for the GOP too.

[Chizzang]

I think the homos should be able to marry just like anybody else.

I just think that people who will vote for a candidate solely because he supports or does not support gay marriage/abortion/ring necked cockatoos/free rubbers/Israel or any other single issue is a fvcktard cockmonkey just looking out for theirs, and the rest of the country be damned.

And you know what? The sh!t works, because otherwise we wouldn't still be talking about binders. If for nothing else, I hope Romney wins in a landslide simply because the left has dragged political discussion down to this level this time around. I'm not saying that the right hasn't done it too, but right now you have fvcking Big Bird, vaginas and fvcking binders on the left and not a single fvcking word about what the fvcking PLAN is. Romney might be vague on that account as well, but at least he's focused on the macro more than the micro.

I hope the next time a political party considers dragging us all down into a special interests squabble they look back at this election and think, "remember how the Dems got skull fvcked in 2012? Don't do it!" That goes for the GOP too.

Pure Gold

Now that is how you RANT ^ right there
We used to get masterpieces like this from AZGF but he's gone bizarre on us lately


Bravo

[YoUDeeMan]

Agree ^
But John is still pretending not to be a fundamentalist Christian - disguised as a scientist

Does he get to wear a long white robe as part of the disguise?

[Chizzang]

You guys have to admit - this thread has been EXCELLENT...
By any standard of measurement


Cluck U and CID1990 have been on fire

[Ibanez]

It is a right. Marriage is not just a regonition. It is a legal binding of two people that our country, because of bigots like you, deny because they don't love like you do.

You are the problem with 'Merica.

You don't know what a "right" is. You trivialize it; as does everyone who who parrots the line that this is a "human rights" issue.

Ok, Einstein. There is a group of Americans who can legally join themselves and enjoy certain benefits. There are a group of Americans who cannot because some people do not agree with their lifestyle. That is wrong. Call it what you want, but for YOU to deny happiness and the benefits you enjoy to a gay couple is prejudicial. You have no RIGHT to deny benefits you enjoy to someone else.

[Ibanez]

You don't know what a "right" is. You trivialize it; as does everyone who who parrots the line that this is a "human rights" issue.

JSO...I don't care if they call it marriage or not. That isn't the point.

The point is that if you love someone and they die, there are currently laws that allow certain individuals to receive financial benefits that are different than another person who has a loved one die. Furthermore, our tax laws benefit some couples more than others...and those difference have nothing to do with income or productivity. It is currently based upon some folks' definition of what is a "proper" relationship.

That is bullshvt.

Of course, one could always fall back on the fact that marriage tax breaks were a way to encourage families to produce more workers for the future...but what if the straight couple were infertile...do you take away their tax break?

Bottom line...there should be no difference to the government as to what two people decide to live together and commit to a relationship. Black, white, gay, fat, idiot...it doesn't matter...people should be treated the same in the eyes of the government.

On the other hand, if Christians people don't want the idea of "marriage" to be tarnished by the unwashed masses, they should attempt to copyright the name...think of the word "Champagne". Only a man and a woman can get "married", while others can be only be joined in an "unholy union" at a small non-denominational drive through UU maker in Las Vegas...but they get to keep the tax and legal benefits of being "united" as a couple.

But..what about the CHILDREN?!

Great post, btw.

[danefan]

You don't know what a "right" is. You trivialize it; as does everyone who who parrots the line that this is a "human rights" issue.

JSO...I don't care if they call it marriage or not. That isn't the point.

The point is that if you love someone and they die, there are currently laws that allow certain individuals to receive financial benefits that are different than another person who has a loved one die. Furthermore, our tax laws benefit some couples more than others...and those difference have nothing to do with income or productivity. It is currently based upon some folks' definition of what is a "proper" relationship.

That is bullshvt.

Of course, one could always fall back on the fact that marriage tax breaks were a way to encourage families to produce more workers for the future...but what if the straight couple were infertile...do you take away their tax break?

Bottom line...there should be no difference to the government as to what two people decide to live together and commit to a relationship. Black, white, gay, fat, idiot...it doesn't matter...people should be treated the same in the eyes of the government.

On the other hand, if Christians people don't want the idea of "marriage" to be tarnished by the unwashed masses, they should attempt to copyright the name...think of the word "Champagne". Only a man and a woman can get "married", while others can be only be joined in an "unholy union" at a small non-denominational drive through UU maker in Las Vegas...but they get to keep the tax and legal benefits of being "united" as a couple.

Bang!

As Judge Jacobs says in the opinion

But law (federal or state) is not concerned with holy matrimony. Government deals with marriage as a civil status--however fundamental--and New York has elected to extend that status to same-sex couples. A state may enforce and dissolve a couple’s marriage, but it cannot sanctify or bless it. For that, the pair must go next door.

[JoltinJoe]

Bang!

As Judge Jacobs says in the opinion

But law (federal or state) is not concerned with holy matrimony. Government deals with marriage as a civil status--however fundamental--and New York has elected to extend that status to same-sex couples. A state may enforce and dissolve a couple’s marriage, but it cannot sanctify or bless it. For that, the pair must go next door.

I haven't read this opinion yet, but this is what I posted in discussion about Prop 8 about two years ago. on August 4, 2010:

I've read a good deal of the decision. I think the decision contributes to the fundamental misframing of this issue -- which is attributable to both sides.

If we were truly being honest about this issue, it could be easily resolved.

It's a simple rights issue. No lesbian or gay who undertakes a union with a same-sex partner should be denied the same rights or privileges accorded to persons who are married under the law. Period. They are entitled to the same rights and privileges as married persons as a matter of equal protection under the US Constitution.

The battle is over a word -- what we're going to call a civil union between same sex partners. From what I can see, there is no fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution, or otherwise evident in our tradition to have a civil union between same sex persons designated as a "marriage.'

Now in truth, at civil law, marriage is defined as a civil union between spouses, so there is no difference at civil law between a "marriage" and a"civil union." A marriage is a civil union. So in this light, in the civil context, it is silly to fight over whether gay partnership is called "marriage" or a "civil union" because the words mean the same thing (again, in the civil law context).

The problem is that marriage, in a different context -- a religious context -- means something else that a civil union. It is defined as a union before God, and in many religious traditions, marriage is considered a sacrament and affirmation of love, fidelity, and support to which one attests before the church and before God. Used in this sense, marriage means a sacramental union. It is not civil union. It is not civil marriage. It is sacramental marriage, often called Holy Matrimony.

Marriage, in a sense, is an ambiguous term, because when a person tells you that he or she is married, you don't really know if that person is speaking of being married in the civil sense, or in the sacramental sense, or both.

Marriage, though, is just a word. So this whole issue would go away if proponents of gay marriage recognized that term "civil union" means "civil marriage" or if opponents of gay marriage just recognized that "civil marriage" is not "sacramental marriage."

All of this obscures, I think, that it is a rights issue. The government has created in favor of parties to a civil marriage certain rights and privileges and that is really the issue -- rights and privileges available to some are not available to others.

Kindly note that my marriage is both a civil marriage and a sacramental marriage -- but I get no extra rights and privileges at law because I am a party to a sacramental marriage.

[danefan]

I haven't read this opinion yet, but this is what I posted in discussion about Prop 8 about two years ago. on August 4, 2010:

All of this obscures, I think, that it is a rights issue. The government has created in favor of parties to a civil marriage certain rights and privileges and that is really the issue -- rights and privileges available to some are not available to others.

Exactly the reason why I think this opinion is well-written and well-reasoned. He doesn't even have to go down the path of the "history of marriage", etc... He is clear and concise and gets exactly to the point you make above. Legal marriage/union is clearly an issue for the state's to decide how to handle. New York state has decided to recognize same-sex marriage for legal purposes and the federal government cannot provide unequal benefits to people who chose to follow NY state law.

DOMA does exactly that. It picks and chooses which marriages recognized under New York State Law are to be recognized for Federal purposes. A clear violation of Equal Protection clause under the Intermediate Scrutiny test, IMO.

[YoUDeeMan]

Bang!

As Judge Jacobs says in the opinion



I haven't read this opinion yet, but this is what I posted in discussion about Prop 8 about two years ago. on August 4, 2010:

See that Joe...two people, who seem to exist on different planes, can be brought together by a simple knot. We both like tying knots and we both have the same ideas about unraveling the tangled definition of tying of the knot.

Proof that the String theory is correct, perhaps?

Your God sure works in strange and mysterious ways.

[JohnStOnge]

Ok, Einstein. There is a group of Americans who can legally join themselves and enjoy certain benefits. There are a group of Americans who cannot because some people do not agree with their lifestyle. That is wrong. Call it what you want, but for YOU to deny happiness and the benefits you enjoy to a gay couple is prejudicial. You have no RIGHT to deny benefits you enjoy to someone else.

Sure I do, if I can develop the political support to do so. While it's cliche it's nevertheless true: After marriage between homosexuals is established as routine, we will still be denying those benefits to people who want to be in marriages involving more than two people. And most states will be denying them to people of opposite sexes who are closely related (which begs the question: will closely related homosexuals get a pass on that one since they can't reproduce?).

As far as the question of a "right" goes: Suppose at some point the society decides to eliminate marriage as a civil institution. Is it denying rights? I hope you can see that it is not. Having the society opt not to provide for giving you some recognition, a license, and access to certain benefits is not something you innately have that no one should be able to take from you.

I'll admit that our culture calls things "rights" that are not really rights. The whole concept of "Civil Rights" is an example. We say someone has a "right" to be hired by someone else, for instance, without having the other person factor race into the decision. Most people think that's great. But it's wrong. What it's doing is denying someone else's right to choose who they will associate with. It's not a "right." It's a denial of rights. It's having the government facilitate you forcing yourself on someone else.

[JoltinJoe]

See that Joe...two people, who seem to exist on different planes, can be brought together by a simple knot. We both like tying knots and we both have the same ideas about unraveling the tangled definition of tying of the knot.

Proof that the String theory is correct, perhaps?

Your God sure works in strange and mysterious ways.

In order to celebrate this ocassion, we should go out and tie one on.

[kalm]

I think the homos should be able to marry just like anybody else.

I just think that people who will vote for a candidate solely because he supports or does not support gay marriage/abortion/ring necked cockatoos/free rubbers/Israel or any other single issue is a fvcktard cockmonkey just looking out for theirs, and the rest of the country be damned.

Does this include personal and/or business finances single issue voters? You just identified at least 80% of the electorate.

[Ivytalk]

See that Joe...two people, who seem to exist on different planes, can be brought together by a simple knot. We both like tying knots and we both have the same ideas about unraveling the tangled definition of tying of the knot.

Proof that the String theory is correct, perhaps?

Your God sure works in strange and mysterious ways.

In order to celebrate this ocassion, we should go out and tie one on.

Especially now that the Yankees got swept!

[∞∞∞]

OT, but I just saw this vid and thought it was awesome. Gotta watch the whole thing though:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u4Z3n2Fnyc[/youtube]

[kalm]

OT, but I just saw this vid and thought it was awesome. Gotta watch the whole thing though:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u4Z3n2Fnyc[/youtube]

Wow. Well played.

[danefan]

That's phenomenal.

[BlueHen86]

OT, but I just saw this vid and thought it was awesome. Gotta watch the whole thing though:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u4Z3n2Fnyc[/youtube]

That's great.

[Ibanez]

Ok, Einstein. There is a group of Americans who can legally join themselves and enjoy certain benefits. There are a group of Americans who cannot because some people do not agree with their lifestyle. That is wrong. Call it what you want, but for YOU to deny happiness and the benefits you enjoy to a gay couple is prejudicial. You have no RIGHT to deny benefits you enjoy to someone else.

Sure I do, if I can develop the political support to do so. While it's cliche it's nevertheless true: After marriage between homosexuals is established as routine, we will still be denying those benefits to people who want to be in marriages involving more than two people. And most states will be denying them to people of opposite sexes who are closely related (which begs the question: will closely related homosexuals get a pass on that one since they can't reproduce?).

As far as the question of a "right" goes: Suppose at some point the society decides to eliminate marriage as a civil institution. Is it denying rights? I hope you can see that it is not. Having the society opt not to provide for giving you some recognition, a license, and access to certain benefits is not something you innately have that no one should be able to take from you.

I'll admit that our culture calls things "rights" that are not really rights. The whole concept of "Civil Rights" is an example. We say someone has a "right" to be hired by someone else, for instance, without having the other person factor race into the decision. Most people think that's great. But it's wrong. What it's doing is denying someone else's right to choose who they will associate with. It's not a "right." It's a denial of rights. It's having the government facilitate you forcing yourself on someone else.

Lets bring it down to a base level since you obviously don't understand. It is prejudicial for you to deny something purely because you don't agree/approve/understand/partake/enjoy etc... For you to say, I can be in a union with someone but Jon can't because he loves men, is prejudicial. You enjoy special benefits because you are heterosexual yet you deny those benefits to homosexual. It isn't right. This isn't a religious discussion, either. The gov't shouldn't be involved in marriage, but since they are they shouldn't exclude anyone as long as both are consenting adults. Homosexual marriages will not destroy this country. Heterosexual marriages have done more to destroy the sanctity of marriage then a few homos will do. Let two dudes/chicks marry. Let them marry and THEN let us discuss the real issues in this country like jobs, energy independence, tax reform, entitlement reform, bringing industrys back to the United States, immigration reform, etc..

I'm fucking tired of the political discussion sounding like this.

Reporter: Senator, what do you say to your critics about the poor job reports?
Senator: Our economy is in the tank because President Obama wants the queers to marry. It's the HOMOSEXUALS that are ruining this country because they wanted to be treated like equals.

Oy vey!

[BlueHen86]

I think the homos should be able to marry just like anybody else.

I just think that people who will vote for a candidate solely because he supports or does not support gay marriage/abortion/ring necked cockatoos/free rubbers/Israel or any other single issue is a fvcktard cockmonkey just looking out for theirs, and the rest of the country be damned.

And you know what? The sh!t works, because otherwise we wouldn't still be talking about binders. If for nothing else, I hope Romney wins in a landslide simply because the left has dragged political discussion down to this level this time around. I'm not saying that the right hasn't done it too, but right now you have fvcking Big Bird, vaginas and fvcking binders on the left and not a single fvcking word about what the fvcking PLAN is. Romney might be vague on that account as well, but at least he's focused on the macro more than the micro.

I hope the next time a political party considers dragging us all down into a special interests squabble they look back at this election and think, "remember how the Dems got skull fvcked in 2012? Don't do it!" That goes for the GOP too.

Let's not act as if the GOP has seized the intellectual high ground this election. While it's true that the Dems have given us 'Big Bird' and 'Binders', the GOP has given us three and a half years of birth certificates, Romney himself mentioned them a few weeks ago while in Michigan. The star of the GOP convention was an empty chair. When Obama lost the first Presidential debate the Dems admitted it was because he didn't do a good job. When Ryan lost his debate and Romney lost the second Presidential debate the GOP blamed it on Biden and Obama for being rude. I'm supposed to vote for Romney because Biden interrupted Ryan? or because Biden laughed too much?

As far as plans for fixing the economy are concerned; neither guy has one. If Obama had a plan he would have fixed things already. When Obama ran in 2008 he ran on 'Hope and Change'. 'Hope and Change' isn't a plan, it's a catchy slogan that sounds better than 'Cross Your Fingers' or 'I'm Black and a Democrat'. If Romney had a plan he would spell it out. The only reason that Romney isn't running on 'Hope and Change' is because it's already taken.

Vote for whoever you want, but the idea that the Dems brought us to new lows is silly. Neither side can lower the bar so low that the other side can't get beneath it.

[CID1990]

I think the homos should be able to marry just like anybody else.

I just think that people who will vote for a candidate solely because he supports or does not support gay marriage/abortion/ring necked cockatoos/free rubbers/Israel or any other single issue is a fvcktard cockmonkey just looking out for theirs, and the rest of the country be damned.

Does this include personal and/or business finances single issue voters? You just identified at least 80% of the electorate.

Sometimes it is better to remain silent and thought a fool, Kalm.

[BlueHen86]

Does this include personal and/or business finances single issue voters? You just identified at least 80% of the electorate.

Sometimes it is better to remain silent and thought a fool, Kalm.

This place would be pretty boring if we all followed that advice.

[kalm]

Does this include personal and/or business finances single issue voters? You just identified at least 80% of the electorate.

Sometimes it is better to remain silent and thought a fool, Kalm.

Nice dodge to a serious question.

[Chizzang]

Let's not act as if the GOP has seized the intellectual high ground this election. While it's true that the Dems have given us 'Big Bird' and 'Binders', the GOP has given us three and a half years of birth certificates, Romney himself mentioned them a few weeks ago while in Michigan. The star of the GOP convention was an empty chair. When Obama lost the first Presidential debate the Dems admitted it was because he didn't do a good job. When Ryan lost his debate and Romney lost the second Presidential debate the GOP blamed it on Biden and Obama for being rude. I'm supposed to vote for Romney because Biden interrupted Ryan? or because Biden laughed too much?

As far as plans for fixing the economy are concerned; neither guy has one. If Obama had a plan he would have fixed things already. When Obama ran in 2008 he ran on 'Hope and Change'. 'Hope and Change' isn't a plan, it's a catchy slogan that sounds better than 'Cross Your Fingers' or 'I'm Black and a Democrat'. If Romney had a plan he would spell it out. The only reason that Romney isn't running on 'Hope and Change' is because it's already taken.

Vote for whoever you want, but the idea that the Dems brought us to new lows is silly. Neither side can lower the bar so low that the other side can't get beneath it.

Strong post...
Regardless of who you're voting for

[kalm]

Let's not act as if the GOP has seized the intellectual high ground this election. While it's true that the Dems have given us 'Big Bird' and 'Binders', the GOP has given us three and a half years of birth certificates, Romney himself mentioned them a few weeks ago while in Michigan. The star of the GOP convention was an empty chair. When Obama lost the first Presidential debate the Dems admitted it was because he didn't do a good job. When Ryan lost his debate and Romney lost the second Presidential debate the GOP blamed it on Biden and Obama for being rude. I'm supposed to vote for Romney because Biden interrupted Ryan? or because Biden laughed too much?

As far as plans for fixing the economy are concerned; neither guy has one. If Obama had a plan he would have fixed things already. When Obama ran in 2008 he ran on 'Hope and Change'. 'Hope and Change' isn't a plan, it's a catchy slogan that sounds better than 'Cross Your Fingers' or 'I'm Black and a Democrat'. If Romney had a plan he would spell it out. The only reason that Romney isn't running on 'Hope and Change' is because it's already taken.

Vote for whoever you want, but the idea that the Dems brought us to new lows is silly. Neither side can lower the bar so low that the other side can't get beneath it.

Strong post...
Regardless of who you're voting for

And if I'm not mistaken, 86 leans conservative.