Supreme Court.......STRIKES DOWN...Defence of Marriage Act !

[KCFlyer]

If we really wanted to defend marriage, they should have passed laws making it tougher for heterosexual couples to get DIVORCED. With a divorce rate over 50%, seems to me that there was little for the act to defend.

 

[delldude]

If we really wanted to defend marriage, they should have passed laws making it tougher for heterosexual couples to get DIVORCED. With a divorce rate over 50%, seems to me that there was little for the act to defend.

Additional money maker for ambulance chasing lobby.

 

[xUT]

It also circumvents voters preference.
Prop 8 was voted in by the majority and overturned by the fed.
What does that tell us?
Actually many things.
One being 'your vote don't mean Chit!'
Precedent setting in many areas.

Here is a good read:

Prop 8 ruling takes power from voters, gives it to state officials

In its 5-4 decision, the high court ruled that the private group behind the citizen-initiated measure on the November 2008 ballot had no standing to defend Proposition 8 in federal court, even after California Gov. Jerry Brown and state officials refused to do so.
The ruling on standing, while seemingly technical, has alarmed critics on both ends of the political spectrum, who worry that the decision effectively gives state officials the unchecked power to nullify ballot initiatives they dislike by refusing to enforce them or defend them in court.

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)] B) xUT[/background]​

 

[Ms Tree]

If we really wanted to defend marriage, they should have passed laws making it tougher for heterosexual couples to get DIVORCED. With a divorce rate over 50%, seems to me that there was little for the act to defend.

I do not think they were defending marriage as much as they are defending 'procreation'. Less children means smaller flock, smaller flock means less money. Given the divorce rate, it is obvious as you stated that they do not give a rats ass about the institution of marriage.

 

[Ms Tree]

It also circumvents voters preference.
Prop 8 was voted in by the majority and overturned by the fed.
What does that tell us?
Actually many things.
One being 'your vote don't mean Chit!'
Precedent setting in many areas.

Here is a good read:

Prop 8 ruling takes power from voters, gives it to state officials

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)] B) xUT[/background]​

We do not live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional republic. The people can vote on what ever they wish to vote on. A law can be passed by 100% of the vote. If the law violates the COTUS it will be struck down. This safeguard prevents the tyranny of the majority. Individual rights are not something that should be put up for a vote. Would you be so generous if your rights were put up for a vote? The majority of people in this country at one time supported segregation, slavery, no inter-racial marriages, no suffrage for women .... shall we go back to those days if the votes are there?

 

[xUT]

We do not live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional republic. The people can vote on what ever they wish to vote on. A law can be passed by 100% of the vote. If the law violates the COTUS it will be struck down. This safeguard prevents the tyranny of the majority. Individual rights are not something that should be put up for a vote. Would you be so generous if your rights were put up for a vote? The majority of people in this country at one time supported segregation, slavery, no inter-racial marriages, no suffrage for women .... shall we go back to those days if the votes are there?

If that were true, then it would be federally mandated, which it isn't.
See past your elation of over ruling prop 8 and look at the larger picture.
I know it's hard for you but the impact of this ruling does not overturn the DOMA but leaves it to the states.
Funny since prop 8 was won by popular vote in commiefornia...

B) xUT

 

[Ms Tree]

What would be federally mandated?

I know that the decision killing DOMA leaves the question of marriage equality up to the states (for now). Prop 8 was killed based on standing not on merit. If you look at the majority decision on DOMA it does not take a crystal ball to figure out that once a case come before the court that it allows it to rule on the merit, the court will rules in favor of marriage equality for all.

DOMA is a federal law that requires the Fed to honor all marriages based on the laws of the state. DOMA never affected the states, only the Fed. The striking of DOMA means the Fed can no longer discriminate. States can until the court gets a case which will allow it to strike down any laws prohibiting marriage equality.

 

[KCFlyer]

Why is it that the US Congress is more concerned about Tom marrying Steve than they are about Bill, who is married to Sue, screwing Amanda, Barbara, Cheryl, Diane, Esther, Faith, Georgia, Hannah, Irene, Jane, Kelly, Linda, Mary, Nancy, Octavia, Paula, Queenie, Rhonda, Sara, Tisha, Ursula, Victoria, Wanda, Xaviera, Yolanda and Zelda on the side?

If we are "defending marriage", can anyone cite the statistics of failed marriages caused by a gay couple getting married?

 

[delldude]

Why is it that the US Congress is more concerned about Tom marrying Steve than they are about Bill, who is married to Sue, screwing Amanda, Barbara, Cheryl, Diane, Esther, Faith, Georgia, Hannah, Irene, Jane, Kelly, Linda, Mary, Nancy, Octavia, Paula, Queenie, Rhonda, Sara, Tisha, Ursula, Victoria, Wanda, Xaviera, Yolanda and Zelda on the side?

If we are "defending marriage", can anyone cite the statistics of failed marriages caused by a gay couple getting married?

All 'real' marriages seem to produce gay babies......can you source a consummated gay marriage that produced one child?

 

[Ms Tree]

Why is it that the US Congress is more concerned about Tom marrying Steve than they are about Bill, who is married to Sue, screwing Amanda, Barbara, Cheryl, Diane, Esther, Faith, Georgia, Hannah, Irene, Jane, Kelly, Linda, Mary, Nancy, Octavia, Paula, Queenie, Rhonda, Sara, Tisha, Ursula, Victoria, Wanda, Xaviera, Yolanda and Zelda on the side?

If we are "defending marriage", can anyone cite the statistics of failed marriages caused by a gay couple getting married?

Bill gets around and he better have a good lawyer or Sue is going to get a whole bunch of his stuff.

I do not know of any stats but I would suspect a whole bunch. I mean listening to Robertson, Limbaugh and the like, gays are going to lead to the down fall of the world.

 

[delldude]

Bill gets around and he better have a good lawyer or Sue is going to get a whole bunch of his stuff.

I do not know of any stats but I would suspect a whole bunch. I mean listening to Robertson, Limbaugh and the like, gays are going to lead to the down fall of the world.

Good point...........Allah Akbar

 

[KCFlyer]

All 'real' marriages seem to produce gay babies......can you source a consummated gay marriage that produced one child?

Is that the definition of 'real marriage'.....the production of children? What about the hetero couples that either couldn't have or didn't want children? Are those sham marriages?

 

[delldude]

Is that the definition of 'real marriage'.....the production of children? What about the hetero couples that either couldn't have or didn't want children? Are those sham marriages?

They were equipped to produce.

 

[Ms Tree]

Is that the definition of 'real marriage'.....the production of children? What about the hetero couples that either couldn't have or didn't want children? Are those sham marriages?

Not to mention all the people who have had kids who are not married. Then there is the fact that there is nothing in the marriage license (I just looked at mine) that says anything about kids. We got married late in life and had no desire for any children.

 

[xUT]

They were equipped to produce.

The equipment has manifested in to a turkey baster... 😛 😛