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.
And again, why the silence on our DOMA conversation? Have you conceded that it in fact does deny gay people equal rights and equal treatment under the law and does not infringe upon state's rights?
Both means that I would do each simultaneously.
I already discussed DOMA. You know my position. It is an unconsitutional act that I oppose - becuase it infringes on state's rights.
I already discussed DOMA. You know my position. It is an unconsitutional act that I oppose.
Don't you agree?
If so - then why are you harping on it so much?
I'm harping on it because you won't address DOMA other than to give some unfounded nonsense about state's rights while ignoring what DOMA is actually is - discrimination against and the denial of equal rights to gay people. I'll re-post my post that you are avoiding responding to like the plague. It'd be interesting to see you try and respond:
I very much disagree with section 3 of DOMA (the main part of the law). It codifies within the law the denial of equal federal rights to legally married gay people. It's disgusting, it's invidious discrimination, and it's unconstitutional.
I don't disagree with section 2 of DOMA. It protects state's rights and state's sovereignty.
Frankly, I don't see why you're against the law at all. Section 2 protects states rights, and section 3 instructs the federal government to discriminate against gay people - those are two things you seem very supportive of.
As to your contention, how does DOMA impose on state rights? I explained to you why it doesn't with an analysis of the law. Can you not counter my arguments? Can you not give your own analysis of DOMA that shows what you claim?
I'm harping on it because you won't address DOMA other than to give some unfounded nonsense about state's rights while ignoring what DOMA is actually is - discrimination against and the denial of equal rights to gay people. I'll re-post my post that you are avoiding responding to like the plague. It'd be interesting to see you try and respond:
I very much disagree with section 3 of DOMA (the main part of the law). It codifies within the law the denial of equal federal rights to legally married gay people. It's disgusting, it's invidious discrimination, and it's unconstitutional.
I don't disagree with section 2 of DOMA. It protects state's rights and state's sovereignty.
Frankly, I don't see why you're against the law at all. Section 2 protects states rights, and section 3 instructs the federal government to discriminate against gay people - those are two things you seem very supportive of.
As to your contention, how does DOMA impose on state rights? I explained to you why it doesn't with an analysis of the law. Can you not counter my arguments? Can you not give your own analysis of DOMA that shows what you claim?
You have no argument in support of DOMA. It is insiduous and an egregious approach on states right's.
It violates the Tenth Amendment.
I thought that you opposed anything that dd not allow gays to marry?
You have no argument in support of DOMA. It is insiduous and an egregious approach on states right's.
It violates the Tenth Amendment.
HOW??????????????? How is DOMA an egregious "approach" on state's rights? How does DOMA violate the 10th Amendment? Why won't you answer my questions about DOMA and legal rights (benefits as you call them) and gay people?
Why can't you answer the simplest of questions?
Your inability to defend your positions is becoming truly comical.
I thought that you opposed anything that dd not allow gays to marry?
Why do you seem to support DOMA when I do not?
Did you not read where I said that I completely disagree with section 3 of DOMA? Here, I'll quote it:
"I very much disagree with section 3 of DOMA (the main part of the law). It codifies within the law the denial of equal federal rights to legally married gay people. It's disgusting, it's invidious discrimination, and it's unconstitutional."
HOW??????????????? How is DOMA an egregious "approach" on state's rights? How does DOMA violate the 10th Amendment. Why won't you answer my questions about DOMA and legal rights (benefits as you call them) and gay people?
Why can't you answer the simplest of questions?
Your inability to defend your positions is becoming truly comical.
I have already cited the 10th Amendment.
Your inability to acknowledge it as valid only refects negatively on you.
Do you not understand the principle of federalism which binds our republic together?
1. Willful murder.
2. The sin of Sodom.
3. Oppressing the poor.
4. Defrauding working men of their just wages.
All of these are sadly prevalent in the United States, but only one of these is threatening to become institutionalized today: the sin of Sodom, in the form of same-sex "marriage".
Same-sex "marriage" is not a mere trifle. If institutionalized it will turn our civilization inside-out. Although abortion (i.e., "willful murder") is arguably a greater evil, most citizens can at least avoid complicity. Not so with same-sex "marriage". Everyone from county clerks to school teachers, from insurance salesmen to commercial printers, from caterers to photographers, from journalists to secretaries, from social workers to health care professionals, etc. etc. ad infinitum, will be forced - on pain of legal sanctions, loss of employment, or social marginalization - to confess that unmarried people are married, that lies are truth, that unreality is reality; and to cooperate with and facilitate the whole damnable charade. This is the textbook definition of tyranny. Men and women of conscience, who refuse to lie or pretend for anyone, will eventually be deprived of their livelihoods.
"How Same-Sex 'Marriage' Suffocates Freedom" by Bryce Christensen outlines the process:
"For those trying to enshrine the notion of same-sex 'marriage' in law are not primarily trying to enlarge the freedom of homosexuals; they are primarily striving to diminish the freedom of skeptics who would deny that the union of homosexuals is—or can ever be—a legitimate marriage. The aim of those trying to inscribe the novelty of homosexual marriage in law is actually that of making an outlaw out of anyone who would question the moral substance of this new social construct and the sexual behaviors it legitimates."
Do you love your country? If you do, you will do everything in your power to oppose the insidious totalitarian trojan horse (no pun intended) of same-sex "marriage". And by that I mean insisting that government acknowledge the metaphysical reality of marriage as it actually exists - the union of one man and one woman established for the procreation of children, the mutual help of spouses, and the prevention of concupiscence.
Stop wasting everyone's time. It really sounds like you would be happier in Iran. From the last election results, it seems like people like you are a dying breed. We have real problems to worry about, like the financial crisis in this country. It's time for everyone to get a life, move on and let people live their lives.
Your inability to acknowledge it as valid only relects negatively on you.
Do you not understand the principle of federalism which binds our republic together?
Apparently, not.
Oh My God. Why can't you defend your positions???????? Simply saying over and over that "DOMA violates state's rights and violates the 10th Amendment" doesn't make it true. You have show or explain how it does. You haven't even attempted to do so.
Here is DOMA in it's entirety. Please read it and then EXPLAIN to me how it violates states rights as well as the 10th Amendment. How does it "enforce federal opinion of marriage on sovereign states" as you have claimed?
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE:
This Act may be cited as the `Defense of Marriage Act'.
SECTION 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES:
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'.
SECTION 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Oh My God. Why can't you defend your positions???????? Simply saying over and over that "DOMA violates state's rights and violates the 10th Amendment" doesn't make it true. You have show or explain how it does. You haven't even attempted to do so.
Here is DOMA in it's entirety. Please read it and then EXPLAIN to me how it violates states rights as well as the 10th Amendment. How does it "enforce federal opinion of marriage on sovereign states" as you have claimed?
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE:
This Act may be cited as the `Defense of Marriage Act'.
SECTION 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES:
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'.
SECTION 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Section 3 violates state's rights. It prohibits states from leglislating their on policy concerning marriage.
Is that too difficult for you to understand?
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.
