Defense of Marriage Act UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Posted in the Somerset Forum

First Prev
of 8
Next Last
Runner

London, KY

#1 Jun 26, 2013
Equality prevails again in our nation. God bless the USA!
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#3 Jul 6, 2013
Runner wrote:
Equality prevails again in our nation. God bless the USA!
well, a little bit of it, only. this applies only to federal benefits to same sex couples who were married in states where it was legal. The good part is that the opinion cited a principle of equal rights, rather than merely states' rights, which can just as often be used to stifle equality of individual rights.

however, the Court decision in overturning the voting rights act of 1965, as renewed, was a terrible defeat for equality and democracy. so was the citizens united case. Together they pave the way to government purchased by big money - with contributors hidden behind goody-goody labels, instead of revealing the greedy special interests that are really donating the money - and to votes of only a minority - white relatively affluent persons and white highly motivated rightwing extremists who support the rightwing GOPO candidates in primaries. Put together with the court's indifference to gerrymandering in various states, the House and the state legislatures will continue to be dominated by an unrepresentative group of anti-women, anti-youth, anti-minorities, anti-individual rights GOP right-wing extremists.

It is absolutely necessary for people who do not want a neo-fascist government to vote for Democratic Senators, or else a GOP dominated Senate would also block any Obama nomination for the Supreme court, in an attempt to get a rightwing Justice on the Court to make it a permanent rightwing majority of at least 5-4 on the USSCt. Justice Kennedy is completely unrealiable and wishy washy, even sometimes on similar issues.
Paul Revere

Somerset, KY

#4 Jul 6, 2013
More evidence that Conservative Senators and Representatives in the House are what we actually need. Lets also not forget that it the POTUS who appoints Justices to the Supreme Court.
DOMA is Federal Law yet, the current administration REFUSED to defend a Federal Law (signed by Bill Clinton I might add).
Since when do our elected representatives get to pick and choose which laws they defend?
The American people continue to vote down gay rights initiatives when they are placed on the ballot. This decision by the Court takes power and consent away from the populace and virtually relegates States Rights to an after-thought.
We are seeing the results of radical liberalism in all facets of our society. Moral decay, irresponsible financial policy, dependence on govt. are actually part of the agenda being pushed by the far-left in this country. The result will be decline into third-world status.
2014 will be a pivotal election and we MUST elect representatives that reflect our values and interests. Conservatism is the solution to liberalism run amok!
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#5 Jul 6, 2013
Paul Revere wrote:
More evidence that Conservative Senators and Representatives in the House are what we actually need. Lets also not forget that it the POTUS who appoints Justices to the Supreme Court.
DOMA is Federal Law yet, the current administration REFUSED to defend a Federal Law (signed by Bill Clinton I might add).
Since when do our elected representatives get to pick and choose which laws they defend?
The American people continue to vote down gay rights initiatives when they are placed on the ballot. This decision by the Court takes power and consent away from the populace and virtually relegates States Rights to an after-thought.
We are seeing the results of radical liberalism in all facets of our society. Moral decay, irresponsible financial policy, dependence on govt. are actually part of the agenda being pushed by the far-left in this country. The result will be decline into third-world status.
2014 will be a pivotal election and we MUST elect representatives that reflect our values and interests. Conservatism is the solution to liberalism run amok!
Well, Paul, if you got on any sensible horse to spread that nonsense, the horse would buck you off. preferably into a nice big mudhole with all the other horrid people who hold your views and promote your lies.

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

#6 Jul 6, 2013
Paul Revere wrote:
More evidence that Conservative Senators and Representatives in the House are what we actually need. Lets also not forget that it the POTUS who appoints Justices to the Supreme Court.
DOMA is Federal Law yet, the current administration REFUSED to defend a Federal Law (signed by Bill Clinton I might add).
Since when do our elected representatives get to pick and choose which laws they defend?
The American people continue to vote down gay rights initiatives when they are placed on the ballot. This decision by the Court takes power and consent away from the populace and virtually relegates States Rights to an after-thought.
We are seeing the results of radical liberalism in all facets of our society. Moral decay, irresponsible financial policy, dependence on govt. are actually part of the agenda being pushed by the far-left in this country. The result will be decline into third-world status.
2014 will be a pivotal election and we MUST elect representatives that reflect our values and interests. Conservatism is the solution to liberalism run amok!
amend that to your values , not all voters agree with you
citizen

United States

#7 Jul 6, 2013
The United States chose to use the Biblical definition of marriage. It should stay that way. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Runner

London, KY

#8 Jul 6, 2013
citizen wrote:
The United States chose to use the Biblical definition of marriage. It should stay that way. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Oh Lord, marriage in the Bible is bizarre beyond reason. Stealing wives, trading for goats, polygamy, etc.

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

#9 Jul 6, 2013
citizen wrote:
The United States chose to use the Biblical definition of marriage. It should stay that way. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
no it doesn't ...the couple that get married want a religious wedding , marriage is a civil matter and performed by an officer of the BANC

Marriage license issued by a governing body

“Welcome to the Winds of Change”

Level 5

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#10 Jul 6, 2013
I am all for people having the right to believe what they want concerning marriage. If you want to believe that marriage is between a man and women I support your right to believe that. What I do not support if you imposing your religious beliefs/moral standard to other tax paying citizens. You are entitled to believe that marriage has religious tones, however in this country a marriage contract is a civil contract controlled by the state. If the state wants to prevent someone from entering into said contract it has to have a valid state vested reason to do so. I have yet to see anyone bring up that reason. So please continue to believe what you wish on what a marriage is to YOU, but remember that is not what it may mean to me or the state which controls said civil contract.
Paul Revere

Somerset, KY

#11 Jul 6, 2013
Allanon80 wrote:
I am all for people having the right to believe what they want concerning marriage. If you want to believe that marriage is between a man and women I support your right to believe that. What I do not support if you imposing your religious beliefs/moral standard to other tax paying citizens. You are entitled to believe that marriage has religious tones, however in this country a marriage contract is a civil contract controlled by the state. If the state wants to prevent someone from entering into said contract it has to have a valid state vested reason to do so. I have yet to see anyone bring up that reason. So please continue to believe what you wish on what a marriage is to YOU, but remember that is not what it may mean to me or the state which controls said civil contract.
Here's a good reason...the people of every state that voted to not recognize, sanction or otherwise condone gay marriage would like for the laws THEY enacted to be upheld or at least defended. Again, DOMA was signed into law by none other than Bill Clinton. Now, the Clintons have come down on the pro-gay marriage side. Hypocrisy or political opportunists? You decide.
On a subject raised in this thread; why should my tax dollars go as Federal benefits to couples of the same sex? DOMA was (and most of it still is) law. KY has passed a law forbidding same sex marriages. If KY says it's illegal, is that law meaningless or what? Do states rights still exist or don't they?
Basically, the will of the people is being usurped by a Supreme Court that long ago began meddling too deep in the legislation of societal values. Why must every single hot button issue be decided by the Supreme Court.
Somewhere recently I re-read a line pertaining to the establishment of a government of, by and for the people.
Runner

London, KY

#12 Jul 7, 2013
Paul Revere wrote:
<quoted text> Do states rights still exist or don't they?
Oh geez, I guess some states should still ban interracial marriage. Maybe South Carolina should still have slaves? Ridiculous.

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

#13 Jul 7, 2013
rather an asinine post isn't it

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. It was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, by the House on January 31, 1865, and adopted on December 6, 1865. On December 18, 1865

Level 5

Since: Sep 08

Neon City Oh.

#14 Jul 7, 2013
DOMA
Passed the House with one republican voting against it.
Passed the Senate with no republicans voting against it.
Signed into law by Bill Clinton.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#15 Jul 7, 2013
Paul Revere wrote:
DOMA is Federal Law yet, the current administration REFUSED to defend a Federal Law (signed by Bill Clinton I might add).
Since when do our elected representatives get to pick and choose which laws they defend?
When those laws are obviously based on bigotry no one should defend them. And that's what happened here.

This is a win for liberty.

“Everyone deserves a chance”

Level 3

Since: Nov 10

Bring God back N2 your life!

#17 Jul 7, 2013
Any one eles having issues with the share thing to give you credit?
Paul Revere

London, KY

#18 Jul 7, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
When those laws are obviously based on bigotry no one should defend them. And that's what happened here.
This is a win for liberty.
In dissenting from the Court's ruling on DOMA, Justice Antonin Scalia makes a pretty strong case for "letting the people decide." He also points out opposing gay marriage does NOT make one a bigot. The simple act of supporting what has been and continues to be the traditional world-wide accepted arrangement of marriage, that of one man and one woman.
Where is the "win for liberty" when the debate is shutoff and opponents silenced?
I guess your idea of Liberty differs from mine.

Read Justice Scalia's dissent detailed here...

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2...

“Welcome to the Winds of Change”

Level 5

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#19 Jul 7, 2013
Paul Revere wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a good reason...the people of every state that voted to not recognize, sanction or otherwise condone gay marriage would like for the laws THEY enacted to be upheld or at least defended. Again, DOMA was signed into law by none other than Bill Clinton. Now, the Clintons have come down on the pro-gay marriage side. Hypocrisy or political opportunists? You decide.
On a subject raised in this thread; why should my tax dollars go as Federal benefits to couples of the same sex? DOMA was (and most of it still is) law. KY has passed a law forbidding same sex marriages. If KY says it's illegal, is that law meaningless or what? Do states rights still exist or don't they?
Basically, the will of the people is being usurped by a Supreme Court that long ago began meddling too deep in the legislation of societal values. Why must every single hot button issue be decided by the Supreme Court.
Somewhere recently I re-read a line pertaining to the establishment of a government of, by and for the people.
The majority should never vote on the minorities right's. When this happens then the courts should step in and say no you can't do that. This happened in Loving v Virginia. When a state had a law to prevent inter-racial marriage. I am not saying you can't believe what you want concerning marriage, once again what I am saying is that your beliefs do not trump my rights. You should not be able to enforce your beliefs via vote on a minority. Once again the state has to have a valid reason to prevent someone from entering into a civil contract and just because the majority voted for it does not make it a valid reason to strip away someones right when there still is not a valid reason to do so.

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

#20 Jul 7, 2013
Paul Revere wrote:
<quoted text>
In dissenting from the Court's ruling on DOMA, Justice Antonin Scalia makes a pretty strong case for "letting the people decide." He also points out opposing gay marriage does NOT make one a bigot. The simple act of supporting what has been and continues to be the traditional world-wide accepted arrangement of marriage, that of one man and one woman.
Where is the "win for liberty" when the debate is shutoff and opponents silenced?
I guess your idea of Liberty differs from mine.
Read Justice Scalia's dissent detailed here...
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2...
rather an asinine reference isn't it ..

that is just simple one person's opinion , a blog. his site
not gospel that is quoted a fact , you have to learn to distinguish the difference
Paul Revere

London, KY

#21 Jul 7, 2013
tallyho wrote:
<quoted text>
rather an asinine reference isn't it ..
that is just simple one person's opinion , a blog. his site
not gospel that is quoted a fact , you have to learn to distinguish the difference
???
You're commenting in a thread about the Supreme Court's recent ruling re: DOMA and you don' know who Justice Antonin Scalia is?
Talk about asinine.
Dunno

Somerset, KY

#22 Jul 7, 2013
Paul Revere wrote:
<quoted text>
???
You're commenting in a thread about the Supreme Court's recent ruling re: DOMA and you don' know who Justice Antonin Scalia is?
Talk about asinine.
He's a conservative hack who (once again) was on the wrong side of history (and the prevailing verdict).

What's your point?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 8
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Somerset Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 8 min HistoricallySpeaking 133,396
Byran Cook 9 min Ex-Democrat for M... 1
Hey Hatti. (Jan '12) 1 hr -badboy- 23,672
Right To Work Legislation in Pulaski 2 hr the other ones 34
Word Association (Feb '09) 4 hr Red_Forman 11,918
No bond with surrogate baby 5 hr ugh 10
Mattress plus in somerset sold me a USED MATTRE... 5 hr ugh 4
new judge steve kelly Thu Knowitall9 44
Somerset Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Somerset People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:54 am PST

NBC Sports 8:54AM
Andy Dalton replaces Aaron Rodgers on Pro Bowl roster
Yahoo! Sports 9:39 AM
Dalton to replace Rodgers for Pro Bowl
NFL10:12 AM
Andy Dalton added to Pro Bowl roster
NBC Sports12:57 PM
Bengals quarterback Andy Dalton headed to his 2nd Pro Bowl
NBC Sports 3:15 AM
Marvin Lewis on Andy Dalton: We don't have time to waste on QB competition