obama declares section 3 of the defense of marriage act unconstitutional

Originally posted by shagreen heart


wildness, right?
it's pretty much black and white unconstitutional though, let's be honest.

Please, cite, specifically HOW it is uncostitutional.

Not just your opinion, based on nohting.

Thanks.

reply to post by Annee


Yeah, bigotry and dogmas still restrict some of the rights people have. At least he's doing the right thing.

Originally posted by Phantom28804
You almost always have one guy that is femanine and one guy that is overly masculine. The same thing with females. You have women that try and grow facial hair and then you have the girly girl. So in effect are you not creating a guise of a hetero-sexual relationship while being two of the same sex? That is something that has always confused me.

I've seen many gay relationships in which your stereotypes don't apply.

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Phantom28804
You almost always have one guy that is femanine and one guy that is overly masculine. The same thing with females. You have women that try and grow facial hair and then you have the girly girl. So in effect are you not creating a guise of a hetero-sexual relationship while being two of the same sex? That is something that has always confused me.

I've seen many gay relationships in which your stereotypes don't apply.

I agree 100% with you Kailassa. And yes that is a very stereotype perception.

I've actually seen more "same type" gays with "same type" gays.

Its the same as heteros - - - often opposites do attract - - but also people with similar likes are attracted to same.

People into fitness are often attracted to people into fitness.
People into music are often attracted to people into music.

The gays I worked with in a business setting told me: "I am a man - I am attracted to a man" - which means one who dresses and presents himself as a man - - ANY man - - just a man (not a gay man or straight man). He happened to prefer the business look of suit and tie.

O’Donnell Rewrites Beck and Gingrich Over DOMA

By Advocate.com Editors

Lawrence O’Donnell has taken Newt Gingrich and Glenn Beck to task over their attacks of President Obama’s declination to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

In response to Gingrich and Beck’s claims that the president is refusing to enforce DOMA, O'Donnell explained the difference between enforcing the law and defending its constitutionality. Says O’Donnell:

“Beck and Gingrich say the president isn’t going to enforce the law. Not gonna enforce it. Now, these two constitutional scholars, who forgot to go to law school, are very, very wrong. The Obama administration has said very specifically that they will continue to enforce the law.

"The announcement from the Justice Department is very clear on speaking only to the part of the law at issue here, section 3, stating ‘…the department will not defend the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act as applied to same-sex married couples… Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act will continue to remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down, and… the executive branch will continue to enforce the law.’

www.advocate.com...

I hope they tack on to the law a polygamy provision because I have often loved more than one woman at a time. I can't help it. I was born this way.

Originally posted by BeenieWeenie
I hope they tack on to the law a polygamy provision because I have often loved more than one woman at a time. I can't help it. I was born this way.

A law allowing the option of polygamy wouldn't help you.
Girls would still have freedom of choice and would still run a mile when they saw you coming.

Originally posted by BeenieWeenie
I hope they tack on to the law a polygamy provision because I have often loved more than one woman at a time. I can't help it. I was born this way.

I have no problem with polygamy (or other type group marriage) - - - but that is a whole different kettle of fish.

Legal Marriage - tax breaks - and all special privileges associated with legal marriage is designed for 2 people. It makes no difference if they are same gender.

Originally posted by inkyminds

Originally posted by shagreen heart


wildness, right?
it's pretty much black and white unconstitutional though, let's be honest.

Please, cite, specifically HOW it is uncostitutional.

Not just your opinion, based on nohting.

Thanks.

are you just trolling? how is not letting women vote constitutional at one point in time? how is not letting black people vote at one time constitutional? how is marriage (which isn't defined by religions) only legal when it's a man and a woman? how can you define it by sex? how stupid are you? sex is a non issue in this world, it doesn't mean anything. any sex can engender whatever gender they wish and still contribute to society as much as you, or more.

can you tell me how only man and woman marrying is ok, and how it should be unanimously illegal, unblinkingly unconstitutional should a man and man, or woman and woman who love eachother decide to get married?

the act says in black and white, it's only between a man and woman. you don't see a problem with that?

and my opinion is not based on nothing, read the article smartass, they quote it exactly. if you don't think there's something wrong with the section, then that's your handicap.