FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Federal Judge: DOMA unconstitutional (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Federal Judge: DOMA unconstitutional
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post 
At least the part about the Federal Government not recognizing gay marriages.

Ruling announced today comes from case brought by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aeolusdallas
Member
Member # 11455

 - posted      Profile for aeolusdallas   Email aeolusdallas         Edit/Delete Post 
This will lead to the rather ironic situation of far right conservatives supporting the Obama administration in arguing against state's rights at the supreme court. Interesting bedfellows indeed.

[ July 08, 2010, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: aeolusdallas ]

Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah, Democrats have the prospect of some fun highlighting states rights in AZ vs. federal rights in MA.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by aeolusdallas:
far right conservatives supporting the Obama administration in arguing against state's rights at the supreme court. Interesting bedfellows indeed.

Indeed.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
I imagine it will go to SCOTUS, and I hope they agree to hear the case.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aeolusdallas
Member
Member # 11455

 - posted      Profile for aeolusdallas   Email aeolusdallas         Edit/Delete Post 
There are actually two separate cases. Either of which could go to the Supreme Court.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by aeolusdallas:
This will lead to the rather ironic situation of far right conservatives supporting the Obama administration in arguing against state's rights at the supreme court. Interesting bedfellows indeed.

it's not ironic so much as it is an exposure of their real standard.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aeolusdallas
Member
Member # 11455

 - posted      Profile for aeolusdallas   Email aeolusdallas         Edit/Delete Post 
It's hypocritical in that they like to claim to support States Rights but not in in this instance. It's ironic that they will end up siding with the Obama administration in the case when it hit's the Supreme Court.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by aeolusdallas:
This will lead to the rather ironic situation of far right conservatives supporting the Obama administration in arguing against state's rights at the supreme court. Interesting bedfellows indeed.

Just what I wanted to say. I really wish I could have heard Glenn Beck this morning.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
Assuming, of course, Obama appeals.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
Hmmm, according to the original article, both of the plaintiffs expect an appeal from the Obama administration. I have no reason to doubt this, but explanations?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
If Obama appeals and wins, DOMA is constitutional, and he's on record as viewing it as not. If Obama appeals and loses, same sex marriage is on much more legitimate grounds, and again, Obama opposes SSM. If he does nothing, DOMA is only overturned in Massachusetts.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
If Obama appeals and wins, DOMA is constitutional, and he's on record as viewing it as not. If Obama appeals and loses, same sex marriage is on much more legitimate grounds, and again, Obama opposes SSM. If he does nothing, DOMA is only overturned in Massachusetts.

Looking at it that way, his administration is in a pickle.

Though if they do not appeal, there will be a huge uproar about Obama not defending current federal law, whether or not he personally supports it. This would be worse than appealing. I strongly suspect they are going to appeal.

In the unlikely event Obama's administration does not appeal, other parties will be given authority to appeal on DOMA's behalf in the same fashion that Prop 8 was defended in CA when Schwarzenegger refused to defend it.

Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
...DOMA is only overturned in Massachusetts.

and the other states where same sex marriages are recognized: Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa and DC.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
I like that the judge is a Republican appointed judge who is old enough to remember interracial marriage cases (he was a lawyer when those were an issue, so could actually remember them as an adult). I wonder if Obama will try to have someone else appeal it and claim, well, I don't need to defend because X is- though it looks like Obama did send in a brief supporting DOMA- which the judge dismissed with the claim that people said allowing interracial marriage would be hard on society, but congress didn't get involved then and it all worked out (but stated more judgely).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
just_me
Member
Member # 3302

 - posted      Profile for just_me           Edit/Delete Post 
Why does everyone keep saying Obama this and Obama that?

Obama is on record against the DOMA.

The justice department is fighting the case, not Obama. They have an obligation to defend any current statute if they feel they have a chance of winning. It doesn't matter if they like it or not, or if the current administration likes it or not. Obama can't tell them to stop fighting the case - even if he wanted to. As the head executive he can't say "don't defend the law".

Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by just_me:
... As the head executive he can't say "don't defend the law".

Can you elaborate on this? It touches on my previous question. In Canada, thats precisely what happened, like so:
quote:
Prime Minister Chrétien and his cabinet decided in June not to appeal a decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal to allow same-sex marriages in Ontario, Canada's most populous province.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/10/world/canada-s-push-to-legalize-gay-marriages-draws-bishops-ire.html

Obviously, the US is a different system, so I guess I'm asking, what mechanism in the US takes away the choice not to appeal from the executive?

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, the justice department (under Kagan still, I believe) is defending the law. But as Obama is the head of the Executive branch, of course he takes the blame and/or the credit.

Defending current statutes is vital for a consistent, working federal government. It would be anarchy if each subsequent administration only upheld laws they agreed with.

We do have a rare example of an Executive branch abdicating its responsibility to defend not only a statute but a state constitutional amendment when Schwarzenegger and his attorney general refused to defend Prop 8.

Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post 
Mucus, I don't believe there is any REQUIREMENT that the Justice Department appeals this decision. At this point they have only stated that they are currently "reviewing the decision" (without an immediate appeal). But there will be huge political and philosophical pressure to do so.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
Does the DOJ appeal EVERY decision it loses? If not, then there's no philosophical pressure to do so.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EricJamesStone
Member
Member # 5938

 - posted      Profile for EricJamesStone           Edit/Delete Post 
These cases (the judge issued two opinions in two related cases) are not about a state's right to define marriage for the purposes of its own laws. They are about whether a state can force the federal government to accept the state's definition for the purposes of federal law.
Posts: 99 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
These cases (the judge issued two opinions in two related cases) are not about a state's right to define marriage for the purposes of its own laws. They are about whether a state can force the federal government to accept the state's definition for the purposes of federal law.
Well, that's one flexible way of looking at it. Though I don't think other states, when they define marriage in differing (maybe even unique, in some cases) are 'forcing' the federal government to recognize them when it does so.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
malanthrop
Member
Member # 11992

 - posted      Profile for malanthrop           Edit/Delete Post 
I've begun to reconsider my position on legally sanctioned marriage. The separation of church and state folks should be screaming that a religious union gets tax breaks and government benefits.

Now that we're going down the gay marriage road, I'm increasingly realizing that marriage is a religious institution, not a legal one. The state should have nothing to do with marriage and offer no legal benefit to married couples. Under the law, people are people and couples are couples, despite the composition.

The government should sanction a contract between individuals and marriage should be left to the church. We have a freedom of religion, create your gay church. Marriage is a union under God. The state should have nothing to do with it. The government shouldn't legalize gay marriage, they should eliminate the government benefits of heterosexual marriage.

I've realized that government benefits according to marital status violates the establishment clause. "Marriage" isn't a legal term.

If you're married by a judge, you have a "civil union" and the law should ignore marriage in a church. One is a simple contract and the other a religious institution.

Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The separation of church and state folks should be screaming that a religious union gets tax breaks and government benefits.
And they would if it was strictly a religious union. But it's not. I can walk into a judge's chambers and get married without ever saying or hearing a word about religion. Marriage, as recognize the the state, is entirely a civil matter. That your church may recognize that civil ceremony for religious purposes as well is irrelevant.

It's like belonging to a church that considers double parking a sin. Sure, getting a parking ticket from the city might cause my parish to shun me, but that doesn't make the parking ticket a religious instrument which should be abolished to maintain a separation between church and state.

Now if the word "marriage" is all you're concerned about, more power to you. Once you can get the leading voices of the "protect marriage" movement behind a move to change all government marriages to civil unions you might have a shot at that. In the end everyone is still going to call themselves married except for the shrinking minority who will be insisting on seeing their neighbor's paperwork before they're willing to grant that courtesy.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

Now that we're going down the gay marriage road, I'm increasingly realizing that marriage is a religious institution, not a legal one. The state should have nothing to do with marriage and offer no legal benefit to married couples. Under the law, people are people and couples are couples, despite the composition.

Of course you're realizing that now! What would your diverse Jamaican neighbors say, malanthrop?

'Separation of church and state folks' are 'screaming' about it. They want this crazy thing called a civil union.

quote:

The government should sanction a contract between individuals and marriage should be left to the church. We have a freedom of religion, create your gay church. Marriage is a union under God. The state should have nothing to do with it. The government shouldn't legalize gay marriage, they should eliminate the government benefits of heterosexual marriage.

You think it's a union under God. So do I, incidentally. But it is not absolutely that for everyone - tricky thing God gave us called 'free will', means people get to disagree with you, and they don't have to use your definitions for things - and it's not absolutely that as far as human societies are concerned. Particularly secular ones like ours.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
malanthrop
Member
Member # 11992

 - posted      Profile for malanthrop           Edit/Delete Post 
When you get married in a church, the pastor still has to submit the paperwork to city hall to make it count on tax day.

The hang up here is semantics. "Marriage" is and always has been the union of a man and a woman. I'm a Christian right wing fellow and I don't have a problem with a legal contract between individuals who decide to share their lives together. My father in-law conducted my marriage to his daughter. A day after we were "married" he noticed a discrepancy in the state paperwork and I had to resign. I was still "married" to his daughter but if the paperwork wasn't corrected, we wouldn't get the tax benefits of the "civil union"

Under the law, marriage is treated as a contract between individuals. "Marriage" predates alimony laws. Let individuals form civil unions. It makes great sense. Many heterosexual men have other heterosexual men for room mates in a rental apartment. Let two heterosexual men form a civil union to get tax breaks and protect the assets they both contribute to. There will never be gay "marriage" but there might be gay corporate partnerships. Legalize gay marriage and two male heterosexual womanizers will get married for the tax breaks and legal protection for their assets (roommates).

Better yet,

allow contracts and give no benefits to either. Unfortunately, the divorce industry makes a lot of money and contracts are more binding than marriages. There are far more divorce lawyers than "contract breaking" lawyers.

[ July 11, 2010, 01:35 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]

Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
"Marriage" is and always has been the union of a man and a woman.

No, it has not.

It was originally a contract between two men over the exchange of property...some of that property being the daughter of one of the men.

It has also been the union of a man and many women.

Then, over time, it changed. And it's changing now.

Deal with it, buddy.

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

The hang up here is semantics. "Marriage" is and always has been the union of a man and a woman.

Malanthrop, I don't know if you've ever said something that was so plainly, and so easily, provably wrong. You're wrong again, malanthrop, can we please skip to the part where you pretend this part of the conversation never happened, never addressing it again?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
malanthrop
Member
Member # 11992

 - posted      Profile for malanthrop           Edit/Delete Post 
I stand corrected...there are cultures where marriage was between a woman and many men.

Counter balance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry

If I didn't re-sign the document my marriage wouldn't be legally binding due to a typo. If the county clerk lost the paperwork my pastor submitted, would I still be married? This is the distinction between religion and law. Two opposite sex people show up at a court house and sign a contract in front of a judge, they aren't married, they have a contract. Gays should be able to do the same thing. I'm believe gays should be able to sign a legal contract but we are wrapped around the axle about semantics.

Having legal equality isn't enough. Maybe next they'll demand a dip in urine be recognized as "baptism", despite the fact their free to swim in urine.

Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Having legal equality isn't enough. Maybe next they'll demand a dip in urine be recognized as "baptism", despite the fact their free to swim in urine.
oh, those wacky gays, what will they hypothetically demand next
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
There are far more divorce lawyers than "contract breaking" lawyers.
No, there are not. Divorce law is a niche field. Contract law, on the other hand, touches a huge swath of the legal profession - everything from real estate to IP.

Perhaps you meant there are more advertisements for divorce lawyers. I assume that's the basis for your claim.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
malanthrop
Member
Member # 11992

 - posted      Profile for malanthrop           Edit/Delete Post 
I don't know. Powers of attorney are more powerful than marriage. I know...the Navy cautions against giving unlimited powers of attorney to their wives during deployment. A gay can give limited power of attorney to be equal or even exceed the rights of marriage by giving unlimited powers of attorney.

Gays already have the legal equality. I've been arguing for them to get "joined" by a judge. They don't demand equal rights, they demand equal acceptance. They want to be called "married" while there are legal mechanism that make them equal to heterosexual couples. They have the legal mechanisms to be equal, they want the word.

Strict Catholics don't acknowledge court house marriages and the courts won't accept a marriage without the proper paperwork.

"Marriage" is religious. Two men can and should be able to sign whatever legal contract they want.....still not marriage.

Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Having legal equality isn't enough. Maybe next they'll demand a dip in urine be recognized as "baptism", despite the fact their free to swim in urine.

You really think we gays should swim in pee? Your imagery demonstrates the degree to which you believe gay marriage desecrates the holy institution. Point taken. I don't know any gay person, myself included, with such heinous intent as pissing on marriage. At least your analogy provides a glimpse into an aspect of how you respect the humanity of gay people.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
Can I just say that "far right" conservatives aren't necessarily the same as "religious right" conservatives? I'm pretty far to the right on many issues, but I'm an atheist, and I fully support same sex marriage. I'm also a firm believer in state's rights. So, yeah. No cognitive dissonance for me on this issue. [Smile]

(Generally speaking, my favored solution to the same-sex marriage issue is allowing civil unions for everyone and removing all instances of governmentally sanctioned "marriage")

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aeolusdallas
Member
Member # 11455

 - posted      Profile for aeolusdallas   Email aeolusdallas         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by just_me:
Why does everyone keep saying Obama this and Obama that?

Obama is on record against the DOMA.

The justice department is fighting the case, not Obama. They have an obligation to defend any current statute if they feel they have a chance of winning. It doesn't matter if they like it or not, or if the current administration likes it or not. Obama can't tell them to stop fighting the case - even if he wanted to. As the head executive he can't say "don't defend the law".

We know. We are just amused by the irony of his administration having to defend it and therefore being aligned with far right. It is an almost classic example of strange bedfellows
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aeolusdallas
Member
Member # 11455

 - posted      Profile for aeolusdallas   Email aeolusdallas         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
I've begun to reconsider my position on legally sanctioned marriage. The separation of church and state folks should be screaming that a religious union gets tax breaks and government benefits.

Now that we're going down the gay marriage road, I'm increasingly realizing that marriage is a religious institution, not a legal one. The state should have nothing to do with marriage and offer no legal benefit to married couples. Under the law, people are people and couples are couples, despite the composition.

The government should sanction a contract between individuals and marriage should be left to the church. We have a freedom of religion, create your gay church. Marriage is a union under God. The state should have nothing to do with it. The government shouldn't legalize gay marriage, they should eliminate the government benefits of heterosexual marriage.

I've realized that government benefits according to marital status violates the establishment clause. "Marriage" isn't a legal term.

If you're married by a judge, you have a "civil union" and the law should ignore marriage in a church. One is a simple contract and the other a religious institution.

That would be the logical solution. In the long run I am pretty confidant that that is how it will work out.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Black Fox
Member
Member # 1986

 - posted      Profile for Black Fox   Email Black Fox         Edit/Delete Post 
In Germany, which is where i will be getting married in a week, marriage is exclusively conducted by the state. You cannot be legally married by a priest in a church etc.

There are fairly good reasons why you want to incentivize marriage, between any mishmash of the sexes. It gives people a reason to share resources and space, which is noramlly good for society in general. Not to mention is creates a legal situation that can protect the 'weaker' members of a couple, note that when I say weaker it has nothing to do with physical strength. In general it creates a stronger more stable society. I believe that any cultural group that does not have some form of 'legal' protection for partnership would face serious issues.

The best place to fix these things is not in the SCOTUS, but in legislative bodies. I realize that people rarely have the patience to deal with society's less rational ideas, but there is a consequence to solving our social problems in the least democratic of our governmental institutions. Not to mention it takes a burden of leadership away from those individuals that sohuld be doing their fair share to make sure that America is a good place to live.

Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bokonon
Member
Member # 480

 - posted      Profile for Bokonon           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:

Having legal equality isn't enough. Maybe next they'll demand a dip in urine be recognized as "baptism", despite the fact their free to swim in urine.

Or maybe some folks will demand only baptism of believers (adult), when we all know the right way (the way our country's founders practiced it) is clearly infant baptism.. I personally believe we should baptize in utero. Lets get some holy water pumped into those holy rollers!

P'Shaw!

Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
Power of attorney has been ignored by hospitals and the state for gay couples. It also costs thousands of dollars to attempt to legally get all the stuff that marriage for around $50 gives you.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
malanthrop
Member
Member # 11992

 - posted      Profile for malanthrop           Edit/Delete Post 
All these contentious arguments are about semantics. Illegal aliens are "undocumented workers", janitors are "sanitation engineers" and midgets are "little people". We don't have secretaries anymore, they are "executive assistants" and it's inappropriate to call the lady serving you a drink on the plane a "stewardess".

We have left the realm of reality and entered the one of PC talk. Gays can enter a court house and form a legal partnership more binding than any marriage. They don't want legal equality they want universal acceptance.

Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
malanthrop
Member
Member # 11992

 - posted      Profile for malanthrop           Edit/Delete Post 
Midgets are people too and a janitor is an engineer.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Gays can enter a court house and form a legal partnership more binding than any marriage.

I'm currently juggling my options. I mean, you're wrong, but is it worth it to try to show otherwise?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
malanthrop
Member
Member # 11992

 - posted      Profile for malanthrop           Edit/Delete Post 
Two men can form a business...a partnership.

If the tax advantages of hetero marriage were bestowed upon any couple and I were a hetero man with a hetero roommate, I would take advantage of the situation. There are "life partners" that have nothing to do with sexuality. Many people support one another and have sex with others. Who's going to make sure the homosexual marriage isn't a farce? Get rid of the tax benefits of marriage. "Married" should be left to the church.

Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I stand corrected...there are cultures where marriage was between a woman and many men.

Counter balance:
" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry[/quote]

Malanthrop, you said 'marriage has always been between one man and one woman'. You were completely, flat-out wrong about that. Your 'counter-balance' doesn't counter anything. You were quite simply wrong.

It's pretty feeble of you to so consistently display an inability to admit you were wrong when it's proven to you in plain language. Though I suppose if you did, you wouldn't say much else.

Now can we get to the part where you pretend the blip never happened? Without a 'counter balance', I mean.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Midgets are people too and a janitor is an engineer.
Do you see that terminology as a problem?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Well this was an interesting subject
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post 
If anyone would like to check out the official rulings, they are worth a read:

Gill & LeTourneau Vs. U.S. Office Of Personnel Management

Massachusetts Vs. U.S. Department Of Health & Human Services

Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post 
Wow! Argentina's legislature just passed gay marriage! and their President says he will sign the bill into law.

If only our Congress would have the same moxie to axe DOMA, then none of these lawsuits would be needed. In Argentina likely as many as 200,000 people demonstrated outside the senate protesting gay marriage, and even in the face of that lawmakers still passed it.

Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Gays can enter a court house and form a legal partnership more binding than any marriage.
To repeat since you missed it earlier.
quote:
Power of attorney has been ignored by hospitals and the state for gay couples. It also costs thousands of dollars to attempt to legally get all the stuff that marriage for around $50 gives you.
Same sex couples cannot form a legal partnership equal to a marriage between a man and a woman.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Two men can form a business...a partnership.

If the tax advantages of hetero marriage were bestowed upon any couple and I were a hetero man with a hetero roommate, I would take advantage of the situation. There are "life partners" that have nothing to do with sexuality. Many people support one another and have sex with others. Who's going to make sure the homosexual marriage isn't a farce? Get rid of the tax benefits of marriage. "Married" should be left to the church.

How remarkably spiteful.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2