DOMA is no more!!

Where did our elected representatives to our federal Congress derive any authority to deny or disparage the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States?

 

They didn't. States can make any laws they want as long as they don't supersede Federal laws. However, those laws aren't recognized by individual States. For example, Illinois requires people to have an FOID card if they wish to purchase guns and ammo. No other State requires it.

If the Fed recognized gay marriages, then the gay marriages of Masschusettes folks would be recognized in Texas, for example. Until recognized Federally, those marriages won't be recognized in Texas.

 

There is another possibility. A repeal of DOMA's Section 3 potentially creates a scenario where same-sex couples from Massachusetts could enjoy federal recognition of their marriages without Texas having to recognize them.

 

I have rephrased the question to be more inclusive for ease of understanding.

Where did our elected representatives to government derive any authority to deny or disparage the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States?

It can no longer be considered a States' right since the ratification of our federal Constitution and specifically proscribed for even our elected representatives to our federal Congress.

 

Still has to be decided by the USSC. So it's not "over."
Wonder why Bill Clinton would have signed something unconstitutional and why so many Dems signed on?

 

How does the desire to engage in perverted sex acts give anyone extra "rights?"

 

Which "extra" rights are you referring to?

 

I am curious. do you think blow jobs are "perverted"? Did you ever go down on your wife? Was THAT perverted?

 

Not if you use gravy.

 

actually... I would tend to think that the addition of gravy might be something that made it a bit perverted!

 

They do have a right to get married. Yet you still found it necessary to post this rubbish;

 

Thanks for the clarification. I believe recognition is universal in Australia and other countries and I support that recognition. However- as has been my point all along- those heterosexuals who do not agree, or who have other concerns with regard to the exclusivity of heterosexual marriage should be able to have their own unions universally recognized by way of an exclusively heterosexual ceremony and set of laws, for the reasons I stated earlier.

 

Hysterical output? Ha ha I report the facts and comment on them, I know if someone supports such things its difficult to see it exposed eh? And most of my post was solidly on topic when I was explaining why I supported or did not support Gay marriage. Religious folk can not separate their religion from their actions thoughts and how they understand reality (their paradigm), they are one in the same. Lastly if every post that had a slightly off topic comment deleted well this forum would be no more!

Also why did you not whine about this guy; post number seven (dissing or not the Christian religion in an offhanded barb yep he be dribbling sectarian drivel all over the place, even before I came in! ie Christianity) Or other friends such as post # 11? Religious talk all over the place…or what about…ahhh’ forget it, I saw several other questionable remarks (ie off topic and flammable). However I will apologize to you because it was a low blow, the reason I included it was because I though I thought you were taking potshots at Christianity. Still, two wrongs do not make a right, I should not have resorted to tactics that I personally don’t like. Hows that? See I admit it when I am wrong eh?

reva

 

You also cloak your admissions in triumphalism- so I'm actually less interested in your apologies than I was in your originating errors.

 

we have never been a Christian nation, we are a nation of religious freedom no matter what one believes or doesn't believe

 

Right. We have a Secular Government that is gradually moving away from Christian based laws and Christian religious displays on public property.

 

So you agree gays should be able to be married like heterosexuals? Same word and all?

 

you can have whatever ceromony you like i dont thinck those are a legal matter but the only difrance between all 1 and 2 gender marrages is having 1 or 2 genders in the couple

 

The only real difference is that the same sex contract is not recognized by most States since marriage is a contract WITH the State in effect until you die. It governs the legal aspects of marriage, divorce, and ability to sue for support. That is why you can go down to the court house and get hitched. You can also have a traditional church marriage if you so wish.

The Federal Government recognizes special tax breaks for married couples and that is all.

 

I don't know what the ' words ' are. However, I support their right in principal, yes, as it's about love and permanent partnership. Again, any heterosexuals having a problem with that should be permitted their own - exclusively heterosexual- ceremony.

 

Where did the several States obtain any authority to deny and disparage the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States?

 

You being an ex sailor, I understand that you would be confused about what is and is not perverted. Sex between a man and a woman is normal.. Sex between 2 men is abnormal[see: perverted].

Make a note of this, It is not the ACT, is is the participants in the act that makes it queer.

 

o its not as common is all you mean we know but that being morally neutral we dont bother to mention it

 

to many Christians, sodomy is a sin regardless of who the participants are. It would seem that there is not unanimity amongst the homophobes.

 

Marriage is not about love and pemanent partnership. It is about the joining of a man and a woman.