DOMA defeat 5-31-2012

usnews.msnbc.msn.com...

Appeals court: Denying federal benefits to same-sex couples is unconstitutional

A federal appeals court has ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that denies a host of federal benefits to same-sex married couples, is unconstitutional.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled Thursday that the act known as DoMA, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples.

Another nail has been driven in the coffin of this horrendous discrimination. Once this is taken care of by the SCOTUS, they will be able to strike down all those discriminatory and unconstitutional laws passed by states such as North Caroline saying Gay couples can't get married.
One more step toward equality for our homosexual brothers and sisters in America, one more nail in the coffin of the homophobic bigots.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
usnews.msnbc.msn.com...

Appeals court: Denying federal benefits to same-sex couples is unconstitutional

A federal appeals court has ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that denies a host of federal benefits to same-sex married couples, is unconstitutional.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled Thursday that the act known as DoMA, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples.

Another nail has been driven in the coffin of this horrendous discrimination. Once this is taken care of by the SCOTUS, they will be able to strike down all those discriminatory and unconstitutional laws passed by states such as North Caroline saying Gay couples can't get married.
One more step toward equality for our homosexual brothers and sisters in America, one more nail in the coffin of the homophobic bigots.

I love how everyone with a difference of opinion is a homophobic bigot. Here's something I've learned, those who say other people are not open minded tend to be the most close minded people I know.

Marriage is a word with a set definition. There is no reason why non heterosexual relationships can't enjoy the same benefits. No rights are being denied as they have the opportunity to marry, and choose another path. I'm glad to see you are for activist justices, don't bitch and moan when the tables are turned and activist judges force things on you that you dont like. The door always swings the other way eventually.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Marriage is a word with a set definition. There is no reason why non heterosexual relationships can't enjoy the same benefits.

ummmm no... it's not ...
ezinearticles.com...

The concept of marriage varied from culture to culture in ancient times. In the Egyptian culture, marriage was viewed as a special relationship between two people. There were laws protecting the establishment. Although some laws existed protecting the marriage, the same culture allowed for people to marry their brother or sister. The intermarriage of family members allowed for wealth to remain concentrated within a few families. Those few families maintained positions of prominence within ancient Egypt by using this practice.

The concept of marriage varied from culture to culture in ancient times. In the Egyptian culture, marriage was viewed as a special relationship between two people. There were laws protecting the establishment. Although some laws existed protecting the marriage, the same culture allowed for people to marry their brother or sister. The intermarriage of family members allowed for wealth to remain concentrated within a few families. Those few families maintained positions of prominence within ancient Egypt by using this practice.

In the Hebrew culture, laws existed that specified who could not be married with regards to closeness of relationships

In Babylonia, marriage was an arrangement agreed to by legal contract.

In Greek culture, there were laws set up for marriage. Much of the power behind such laws was decided by the parents. The parents made decisions regarding who was to marry who. The wife became part of her husband's family. The marriage relationship was a serious matter, given that Greek culture allowed for justifiable homicide of adulterous lovers. So if a wife had a lover, the husband could and was often expected to publicly kill the lover

In northern Europe (Germany, Celts, Scandinavians, and Scots) marriage took place either by purchase or by capture

The idea of marriage by capture was also utilized in the early days of Rome

By the time that Charlemagne became king, marriage was viewed as a special relationship that required a public ceremony performed by a member of the church

Over the centuries, there was a legal shift as couples began shying away from church based law in favor of court based law

the examples go on and on, but you get the picture (hopefully)
There is no "set definition" for marriage. Now YOU may have a definition set in your head, but that doesn't make it absolute in any way, shape or form. Marriage is pretty much "in the eye of the beholder" so to speak and those eyes are changing every day.

reply to post by PurpleChiten


Of all he external texts that you provided none of them addresses the definition of marriage, only laws governing marriage. Laws do not define anything but instead regulate.

Trying to imply that laws regulating something actually provide a set definition is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Nucleardiver
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

Of all he external texts that you provided none of them addresses the definition of marriage, only laws governing marriage. Laws do not define anything but instead regulate.

Trying to imply that laws regulating something actually provide a set definition is ridiculous.

But that is all that marriage is... a law, it's not a biological function or something set since the dawn of time, it's a social convention governed by laws

Although the court based its decision on discrimination, another argument would be the Full Faith & Credit provision of the Constitution (Art. IV, sec. 1): SOME States were legally performing same-sex marriages, yet these were not being recognized by other states. A decision invalidating DOMA under that argument would not require every state to issue licenses and perform same-sex marriages, but they would have to recognize as valid and legal the same-sex marriages where the wedding had taken place in a state that legally allowed such weddings.

As soon as one of the gay couples figure out they can stop paying taxes due to no taxation without representation and share it with all the others, they'll fix the problem really quick.

reply to post by PurpleChiten


You do realize all you proved is that marriage DOES have a set definition. This definition may vary from culture to culture, and in our culture the definition is one man one woman. Last I checked we are not debating whether Egypt or any other place should allow same sex marriage.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

You do realize all you proved is that marriage DOES have a set definition. This definition may vary from culture to culture, and in our culture the definition is one man one woman. Last I checked we are not debating whether Egypt or any other place should allow same sex marriage.

If a definition varies, then it isn't set. That's pretty much excluded from the definition of what 'set' is.
So, no, that's not at all what was shown and i'm surprised that you would suggest such a thing.

Are you aware of the difference in a living language and a dead language (such as Latin)??