DOMA is no more!!

Gay are no denied the right or privilege to marry. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. They can get married to anyone of the opposite sex they want. Marriage is defined by federal law as the union of a man and a woman.

 

excuse me.... did you happen to miss the OP that pointed out the ruling from the 1st Circuit that stated that the law in question was unconstitutional?

Everyone is well aware of what the law IS... what this discussion was supposed to be about was what was happening to that very law.

 

That is only true for some religions.

Our federal Constitution was intelligently designed to be both gender and race neutral, from inception.

 

What about our First Amendment guarantee to freedom of association, regardless of religious morality? How does your argument work for civil persons of our republic; where is there any authority to deny or disparage any privileges and immunities via the coercive use of force and central planning of an all mighty State?

 

actually, at it's inception, slaves only counted as 3/5ths of a person.

 

if marriage has to be altered to make it fair ok not like it has never been changed before since people started doing it

 

is there any mention of race or gender in our original Constitution and Bill of Rights?

 

no one is altering anything; persons of alleged morals are more interested in denying and disparaging individual liberty in the most repugnant of manners (to our own supreme law of the land and that of the several States in their severalty), than in securing the Blessings of individual Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

 

I'm neither religious nor a homophobe. I couldn't care less what a person's PRIVATE sexual desires are. Gays offend my space and peace by shouting their perversions from every rooftop. I don't state my sexual activities, I don't need to know theirs. Should I start demanding some extra rights for any queer ideas I have? They want to bugger each others behinds, that's their business. They should KEEP it their business instead of shouting their business to me and all the public.

I have a right to ignore freaks. They violate my right by constantly screaming their queerness.

 

Basically, the old Christian DOMA has been kicked under the bus so that any human in the US will soon be able to pair bond with any other human in the US.

Meh, I still prefer split tailed beavers, but if some guy wants trouser snake or some gal likes dining on clams, that's their business and government shouldn't regulate that.

Less Governance!

 

um where can i find gay people shouting about sex from every roof top? Are you offended by heterosexuals mentioning heterosexuality in public in the same way?

 

Anyway, it does cost me about a thousand a year to NOT be married to my long term shack bunny, but since I was married once, I've learned not to be burned again by that crazy money game. It's a lot cheaper just to live in sin.

 

exactly. listen to popular music which shouts about hetero sex constantly. I wonder if that offends him, or maybe just makes him sprout wood?

 

WHERE? EVERY TV station, every newspaper in the country. Freaks keep shouting about their queerness like it was a wonderful thing instead of abnormal behavior.

And about the only hetros talking about sex are guys relating their fantasies like they actually happened. Everybody knows they're lying and they are easily ignored. And they're just bragging in fantasy-land, not demanding RIGHTS they don't deserve.

 

Shacking up and living in sin means you don't have to pay for her insurance, medical and dental expenses and this saves me about $500 a month.

She can't take my house or anything if I dump her since her name is not on the titles. We don't have alimony or maintenance in Illinois, so I wouldn't owe her that, anyway.

Yep, that $1000 a year loss is made up for by the major gains.

 

Really? Who cares? Are they costing you money or raping puppies in front of your kids???

I don't care if two 40 year old fat guys bugger each other until they have to wear diapers as long as they don't do it in front of me.

 

I am not sure what you mean; we have In God We Trust on our money and we won the Cold War on platform of getting what we pay for and calling it Capitalism.

 

I would have much more confidence in your sincerity, if you felt the same about practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy.

 

stop watching and reading and discriminating or bugger off

 

My opinion: Anyone should be able to have whatever kind of ceremony they choose, with the exception that I also fully support the right of religious entities to choose which couples they will or won't marry.

As for laws, I do not agree that opposite-sex couples should have a separate law from same-sex couples. I can think of no good reason to do such a thing. Running parallel institutions that differ in name only is inefficient, and I do not agree that one group should get special treatment which the other is denied.

 

Government should be out of marriage all together.

 

It doesn't seem that you've gathered all the details of my suggestion. It was that the existing marriage structure became open to all, the legal ramifications and the ceremonies, regardless of orientation. That satisfies the pressure for ' equality ' coming from homosexuals. It certainly should do. However, I suggested that heterosexuals who wanted to preserve the traditions associated with old-school marriage and ceremony could avail themselves of ceremony to that purpose. You can't sensibly object to that.

 

Well, in that case we can do it with superglue and no vows.

 

It could be considered a natural right; there is no authority to deny or disparage the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States.

 

Because marriage obligates fathers who are married to the mothers of their children to a long list of rights and obligations regarding the child while marriage between two people of the same sex does not.