Supreme Court Will Review DOMA, Prop ...

Supreme Court Will Review DOMA, Prop 8 Challenges

There are 1477 comments on the EDGE story from Dec 20, 2012, titled Supreme Court Will Review DOMA, Prop 8 Challenges. In it, EDGE reports that:

On December 7, marriage equality proponents heard the news they'd been waiting to hear: that the Supreme Court will review whether the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8 violate the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

heartandmind

Moline, IL

#324 Jan 10, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
...just for immigration status or insurance coverage for example...
we would call them SHAM marriages...
say, would the clerk issue them a license?
Why yes they would...
actually, they'd be called a fraud.
marrying for immigration purposes only is considered illegal and you can be charged, put on trial and eventually put into jail for entering such a marriage. this is well documented and has been for a long time.
if you enter into a marriage for strictly insurance purposes (and no other relationship exists), this, too, is considered a fraud perpetrated upon the insurance company. they can pursue the case, report it as a fraud committed against them - and the individuals involved at the very least would be involved in a civil case between them and the insurance company, quite possibly they could also be charged with fraud against the insurance company.

http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2012_sp...

http://www.hreonline.com/HRE/view/story.jhtml...

thirdly, if a couple marries strictly for financial benefit (as in pension plans or social security), that can also be considered a fraud.

http://oig.ssa.gov/audits-and-investigations/...
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#325 Jan 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU may consider it a defect, but in no way do you speak for all straight people.
I don't know of any straight people who consider being gay or lesbian a "defect". I'm sure there are some, but they are certainly a minority. Just as there are some racists, but they are a minority of the population as well- though they are more prevalent in the confederacy.
I have never found a straight person that felt homosexuality is normal. I have found many who don't care one way or the other. It's called indifference. There is no confederacy. Race and homosexuality are separate issues.
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#326 Jan 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Just as seniors are 100 percent negating the rule.
Just as infertile couples are 100 percent negating the rule.
Just as couples who simply choose not to have kids are 100 percent negating the rule.
We get it, you want to make exceptions for the couples you approve of, but not the couples you don't approve of. Even though the net result of allowing ANY of those exceptions- including same-sex couples- is that the overwhelming majority of marriages will STILL be opposite-sex couples with kids.
Yep, sounds like animus to me.
Yep.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#327 Jan 10, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never found a straight person that felt homosexuality is normal. I have found many who don't care one way or the other. It's called indifference. There is no confederacy. Race and homosexuality are separate issues.
You just got done claiming 300+ million view homosexuality as a defect, now you claim many don't care one way or the other. You can't seem to make up your mind.

Either way, it doesn't matter what you think it is, because more legislatures are passing marriage equality, more states are voting for marriage equality, and more judges are ruling in favor of marriage equality.

It's only a matter of time before the entire country has marriage equality.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#328 Jan 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You just got done claiming 300+ million view homosexuality as a defect, now you claim many don't care one way or the other. You can't seem to make up your mind.
2. It's only a matter of time before the entire country has marriage equality.
1. They don't care one way or the other but they recgnize the defect. It's blatantly obvious.
2. Since gay couples and straight couples are intrinsically unequal you will never have 'marriage equality.' It's that simple.
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#329 Jan 11, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. They don't care one way or the other but they recgnize the defect. It's blatantly obvious.
2. Since gay couples and straight couples are intrinsically unequal you will never have 'marriage equality.' It's that simple.
How's that working in Massachusetts?

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#330 Jan 11, 2013
Wondering wrote:
I have never found a straight person that felt homosexuality is normal.
Then stop looking in the mirror and get out and meet people.

And just because you haven't 'met' that many straight people, I'm sure you know of many straights that take issue with your pronouncements.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#331 Jan 11, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
How's that working in Massachusetts?
Very well, thank you.

Massachusetts still has the lowest divorce rate in the country.(Do you know which states have the highest?)

No religion has been compelled by the state to perform any same-sex marriage against their beliefs. The catholic church has performed zero (0) same-sex marriages.

We're just waiting for the overturning of DOMA so equality can be recognized by our federal government.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#333 Jan 11, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. They don't care one way or the other but they recgnize the defect. It's blatantly obvious.
2. Since gay couples and straight couples are intrinsically unequal you will never have 'marriage equality.' It's that simple.
So you've surveyed all 300+ million you claim recognize homosexuality as a "defect"?

The term "marriage equality" refers to marriages being treated equally under law. So when my marriage is treated the same under state & federal law as every other marriage, then I will have marriage equality.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#334 Jan 11, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. They don't care one way or the other but they recgnize the defect. It's blatantly obvious.
2. Since gay couples and straight couples are intrinsically unequal you will never have 'marriage equality.' It's that simple.
Why do YOU care?

Why do you think it is your business what people do with their junk, or who they marry, and how?

You are of course as entitled to your opinions as anyone else, but what motivates someone to argue against gays getting married, when the practice does not, cannot and will not affect your rights at all?

Is there a reason other than simple hate and bigotry - a real reason, not this bullshit I've seen you post.

What motivates you to oppose gay marriage?
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#335 Jan 11, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never found a straight person that felt homosexuality is normal. I have found many who don't care one way or the other. It's called indifference. There is no confederacy. Race and homosexuality are separate issues.
You are meeting one right now.

I consider it a variation, not a "defect." "Defect" carries with it a lot of subjective feeling that evidences your real motivations.

To whatever extent you believe or don't believe in the role of genetics in homosexuality, one thing is certain: that however it arises, it is a naturally occurring phenomenon.

In the words of the great Dorothy Parker "Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common."
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#336 Jan 11, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Very well, thank you.
Massachusetts still has the lowest divorce rate in the country.(Do you know which states have the highest?)
No religion has been compelled by the state to perform any same-sex marriage against their beliefs. The catholic church has performed zero (0) same-sex marriages.
We're just waiting for the overturning of DOMA so equality can be recognized by our federal government.
Very good. I'm curious about how Wondering feels about it.
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#337 Jan 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I notice you can't come up with a reason not to enourage same-sex couples to marry either.
I notice you play stupid tactics and refuse to take the very answers you requested. Here, I'll number them for you:
1. you cannot subsidize EVERYONE, if we encouraged gays, who are we encouraging them OVER and WHY would we do that given there is a less a benefit to society than dealing with BREEDERS...
2. Do we need to give a reason not to encourage non students for a student loan program, you just aren't the folks we are looking for go away!

I noticed you never said why you think you are similarly situated to 90% of current marriages...
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#338 Jan 11, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
actually, they'd be called a fraud.
marrying for immigration purposes only is considered illegal and you can be charged, put on trial and eventually put into jail for entering such a marriage. this is well documented and has been for a long time.
if you enter into a marriage for strictly insurance purposes (and no other relationship exists), this, too, is considered a fraud perpetrated upon the insurance company. they can pursue the case, report it as a fraud committed against them - and the individuals involved at the very least would be involved in a civil case between them and the insurance company, quite possibly they could also be charged with fraud against the insurance company.
http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2012_sp...
http://www.hreonline.com/HRE/view/story.jhtml...
thirdly, if a couple marries strictly for financial benefit (as in pension plans or social security), that can also be considered a fraud.
http://oig.ssa.gov/audits-and-investigations/...
does the clerk issue them a licrense?

why yes they do...

is love required of a marriage?
nope...
can you explain how this can be?
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#339 Jan 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, well then secretely cheating on your spouse must be even MORE stabilizing, because as long as it's not found out the couple won't split up.
So let's encourage divorce & cheating for their "stabilizing" effects on marriage!!!
dragnet...
your way of not admitting you were being pig headed...

and orderly dissolution is a stabilizing factor in any association.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#340 Jan 11, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
Talk more about my rationalizations you dumbass....
Why don't you talk more about a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would allow your argument to satisfy the lowest level of judicial scrutiny, Jane?
straight shooter wrote:
because every rule has an exception which does not negate the rule.
Jane, why would such an exception be solely applicable to heterosexuals?

It appears that your rationalizations are wearing thin. Then again, they weren't ever terribly strong to begin with. Do you know why?

"Rationalize (verb)
: to bring into accord with reason or cause something to SEEM reasonable: as
a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth>
b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother>"
Or, my personal facvorite
"; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>"
straight shooter wrote:
I notice you play stupid tactics and refuse to take the very answers you requested. Here, I'll number them for you:
Dear liar Jane (the fact that you change your avatar in an attempt to make it appear as though more people support your inept opinion speaks for itself),
I can't wait for you to prove your own ineptitude.
straight shooter wrote:
1. you cannot subsidize EVERYONE, if we encouraged gays, who are we encouraging them OVER and WHY would we do that given there is a less a benefit to society than dealing with BREEDERS...
Marriage is not about subsidy or encouragement. We cannot encourage one group of citizens to marry over another set.. Why, you ineptly ask? Because the US Constitution mandates that states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.
straight shooter wrote:
2. Do we need to give a reason not to encourage non students for a student loan program, you just aren't the folks we are looking for go away!
Once again, it isn't about encouraging any one set of Americans to participate in the student loan program, nor is anyone specifically prohibited. Making an argument using student loans as it's basis to argue against same sex marriage is hopelessly inept.
straight shooter wrote:
I noticed you never said why you think you are similarly situated to 90% of current marriages...
Because they don't need to be "similarly situated" to anything. They merely need to be a person within a state's jurisdiction, at which point they are entitled to equal protection of the laws.

You may notice an over use of the word inept here. That is because the arguments you have advanced are utterly inept on every level.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#341 Jan 11, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
dragnet...
your way of not admitting you were being pig headed...
and orderly dissolution is a stabilizing factor in any association.
You aren't terribly creative, are you?

You're also not terribly intelligent.

Feel free to indicate a legitimate state interest served by denying equal protection of the law for same sex couples to marry, which would indicate to the contrary.
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#342 Jan 11, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
dragnet...
your way of not admitting you were being pig headed...
and orderly dissolution is a stabilizing factor in any association.
hahahahahah
\ahahahhahaha
ahahahhahaha

dissolution is a stabilizing factor!

hahaahhahaha
ahahahhahaha
ahhahahahahah

Yeah, it "stabilizes" the association right out of existence.
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#343 Jan 11, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
I notice you play stupid tactics and refuse to take the very answers you requested. Here, I'll number them for you:
1. you cannot subsidize EVERYONE, if we encouraged gays, who are we encouraging them OVER and WHY would we do that given there is a less a benefit to society than dealing with BREEDERS...
2. Do we need to give a reason not to encourage non students for a student loan program, you just aren't the folks we are looking for go away!
I noticed you never said why you think you are similarly situated to 90% of current marriages...
1. How does forbidding a gay couple from marriage encourage straight marriage? It doesn't.

2. Student loans for non students? You are hilarious. Is that like chemo for non-cancer patients?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#344 Jan 11, 2013
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do YOU care?
Are you familiar with the David Parker case, the Alameda Lesson 9 case, Deerfield, IL high school, etc.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn...
It would be nice if the lived their lives and let other people live theirs.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 18 min PROUD EX LESBIAN 57,901
News Roy Moore accuser says she was not paid to tell... 28 min Rubic Pubes 39
Why? 1 hr Jose 2
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 1 hr opportunity knocks 26,564
News Aboriginal drag queen bringing gay pride to reg... 1 hr Francisco 28
News Ten Commandments judge faces runoff in Alabama ... 1 hr Red Crosse 209
News Getting used to gay unions 3 hr Frankie Rizzo 26
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 3 hr Rose_NoHo 14,009
Roy Moore.....Just Another Hypocrite 4 hr Francisco 113
News This Thanksgiving, I'm thankful for being born gay 5 hr youll shoot your ... 76
More from around the web