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.
I agree, that at least article 3 of DOMA will be struck down. However this could create confusion. For example if a gay couple marries in a state where it is legal and becomes recognized by the FEDS, what would happen if that couple eventually moves to a state where their marriage is not recognized or banned? My guess is that issue could come into play in the courts decision.
Section 1 is the Title, Section 2 allows states to refuse to recognize any laws that refer to spouses of the same gender. Section 3 offer a definition of marriage.
Looks to me like you either keep the whole law ot throw the whole thing out.
This is mostly a rant post. I'm personally sick of the gay talk, sick of the gay agenda being crammed down my throat...
Hold it there fella. "Gay agenda"? What do you call the proliferation of anti-gay threads here on this forum just this week? There must be a dozen just on Page 1 alone. More like a "Homophobic Agenda" if you ask me.
Section 1 is the Title, Section 2 allows states to refuse to recognize any laws that refer to spouses of the same gender. Section 3 offer a definition of marriage.
Looks to me like you either keep the whole law ot throw the whole thing out.
Can Justice Roberts just reword it like he did with ObamaCare, and make it a tax? Ahh, but then we'd have to apply for our marriage license thru the IRS. Hmmmmm...
Wrong...dead on wrong. Equal civil rights should not be brught to a vote EVER! Was ending slavery brought to a vote? Was women's rights brought to a vote? Was ending child labor brought to a vote? The abomination lies with the people that actually have the audacity to think that you or I or anyone, determines who or which law abiding group/citizen is worthy of equal rights.
Gay marriage, being endorsed by the government, is not a civil right.
Gay marriage, being endorsed by the government, is not a civil right.
I guess that is dependent upon which group says that it is or isn't...and we certainly know which groups wants the civil rights that come with marriage but do not see fit for anyone whose lifestyle they don't agree with to have them.
Quote:
May 19, 2012 ... The NAACP passed a resolution Saturday endorsing same-sex marriage as a civil right.
"Civil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civil law. The NAACP's support for marriage equality is deeply rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and equal protection of all people" said NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous, a strong backer of gay rights.
Marriage does not exclusively belong to people who are holier than thou. Enough already. We all know where many on CD stand, but the wheels of progress and the tide is turning. Deal with it...or don't.
The whole idea that the Judeo-Christian "heritage" is the law of the land is what's perverse in this. Religions are not the law of our country, though political evangelical churches have been chomping at the bit to make it that.
The whole idea that the Judeo-Christian "heritage" is the law of the land is what's perverse in this. Religions are not the law of our country, though political evangelical churches have been chomping at the bit to make it that.
The whole idea that the Judeo-Christian "heritage" is the law of the land is what's perverse in this. Religions are not the law of our country, though political evangelical churches have been chomping at the bit to make it that.
Precisely.
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.