Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Section 3 of DOMA does no such thing. If section 3 bans states from recognizing homosexual marriages, then how is it that Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Maine, Washington, and Maryland all recognize homosexual marriages and confer unto them a collection of state-level rights and benefits?
Section 3 says that the Federal Government can only consider heterosexual couples as married. It says that only married heterosexual couples qualify for the Federal benefits of marriage - it bans gay couples from those Federal benefits, even if the gay couple is legally married in and legally recognized by their home state. It says nothing about what a state can or can't do when it comes to gay marriage (or a marriage of any kind) or state marriage rights and benefits.
Why does California have a medical marijuana law that contradicts federal law, and still 17 years after I voted for it, is attacked in the form of cities denying medical marijuana collectives CUP's, and federal raids of collectives, the existance of, is valid under state law?
Because state and federal law often conflict.
That is why we have a federal court system - to adjudicate such differences.
I notice that you failed to mention California, which has twice upheld marriage as a union of a man and a woman, and now finds the will of its citizens being challenged in federal court.
So be it. I am an advocate of the law being the arbiter of such disagreements - and will accept the high court ruling.
Oh please i'm one of the few posters on here who actually provide credible data. Not making an assumption that 1700 people in a high school are all straight and I know each of their sexual proclivities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stargazzer
You just refuse all data no matter what. No...not the bible belt. None of the guys were gay....nothing. Ive met gay guys in life and can spot it. All guys in the school were very interested in girls . There were no exceptions....nothing unusual in any way, ever.
Why does California have a medical marijuana law that contradicts federal law, and still 17 years after I voted for it, is attacked in the form of cities denying medical marijuana collectives CUP's, and federal raids of collectives, the existance of, is valid under state law?
Because state and federal law often conflict.
That is why we have a federal court system - to adjudicate such differences.
I notice that you failed to mention California, which has twice upheld marriage as a union of a man and a woman, and now finds the will of its citizens being challenged in federal court.
So be it. I am an advocate of the law being the arbiter of such disagreements - and will accept the high court ruling.
I hope that you will, as well.
I don't have a problem with this opinion.
It's just my belief that civil rights is not a high school popularity contest. The majority should never have the right to take away the rights of a minority. At one point in time same-sex couple in California could get legally married, correct? When it comes to civil rights, I do not believe in "the tyranny of the majority." Civil marriage is a civil right.
Oh please i'm one of the few posters on here who actually provide credible data. Not making an assumption that 1700 people in a high school are all straight and I know each of their sexual proclivities.
The figures from gay sites are out to lunch. One percent I think is high based on experience. I went to a private all male high school with about 800 enrollment with a new grade entering, and a senior grade leaving each year....so thats about 1700 guys and no one was gay. Not one guy. There was zero even talk about the junk or anything I ever saw that suggested, in a major city. So this is all a bunch of bunk. Girls walk by outside or a dance was the deal. As I was mentioning in another thread, because of the mess in education, and society....I would immediately go to separating gender from 13-17 to get some focus and educating going, no doubt abut it. Its outta control with all the junk.
You remind me of the guy who posted a couple of months ago the opinion that Romney was going to win in a "landslide" because he saw zero Obama campaign signs or bumper stickers in his town.
Seriously, Dude ...
As if you know everything about the secret sex lives and fantasies of everyone of your classmates!
Why does California have a medical marijuana law that contradicts federal law, and still 17 years after I voted for it, is attacked in the form of cities denying medical marijuana collectives CUP's, and federal raids of collectives that are valid under state law?
Because state and federal law often conflict.
That is why we have a federal court system - to adjudicate such differences.
I notice that you failed to mention California, which has twice upheld marriage as a union of a man and a woman, and now finds the will of its citizens being challenged in federal court.
So be it. I am an advocate of the law being the arbiter of such disagreements - and will accept the high court ruling.
I hope that you will, as well.
Why are you bringing up completely unrelated issues? I agree with you about pot. Colorado voters recently legalized recreational pot use. I voted for it. I don't believe the Feds have the authority to step in and supersede that. And DOMA has nothing to do with California and its vote to ban gay marriage. That's a 14th Amendment issue. I do agree with the court's ruling in the Perry case. I find it a violation of the 14th Amendment for any state to write a marriage law that allows heterosexual couples to marry but bans homosexuals couples from doing so.
Now back to the issue at hand. It's a fact that DOMA in no way dictates to states anything about marriage. You're just plain wrong in claiming that it does. If you still think you're right, then please, for the love of God, explain to me how it does that. Quote to me the specific language of DOMA that "prohibits states from recognizing homosexual marriages." That shouldn't be hard for you to do. DOMA is only 2 sentences long. (well it actually should be hard - impossible in fact - since it doesn't)
(and you were voting 17 yeas ago? I was under the impression you were a teenager or early 20s college student)
There is Marriage with a definition and then there is a second context of marriage by definition, which includes same sex partners...but the definition includes and explains that this marriage is only "like" that of the 1st meaning in the word.
Therefore there is no civil right for two of the same sex to be included in the marriage privilege unless, the agreement is properly itemized and includes the proper definition Gay Marriage, which is only like the known civil marriage, and therefore requires additional legislation in order to call attention to the agreement which is only like a Marriage, but not the same. The laws were specifically formed for Marriage in its full meaning. If the laws were formed to include SSM they would have said so and included agreements that were also like the known Marriage, but they don't.
Last edited by stargazzer; 01-06-2013 at 01:10 AM..
I was wondering ... this is about HIV/AIDS which has nothing to do with legalized same-sex marriage, and technically off-topic ... whatever happened to that Magic Johnson guy? What was he ... a basketball player I think?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
