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.
Judge rules Ore. same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional
Quote:
SALEM -- A federal appellate judge has ruled that the judiciary must grant health care benefits to the same-sex spouse of a federal public defender.
Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Harry Pregerson says in a ruling filed Wednesday that the court's administrative office discriminated against Alison "Tex" Clark when it refused to add her spouse to Clark's benefit plan. The office cited the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
The judge ruled that Oregon's same-sex marriage ban and the federal Defense of Marriage Act are both unconstitutional. Lawyers say the ruling applies only to Clark because it's an internal administrative decision about a court employee.
They cannot gain the benefits of marriage by 'marrying the person they love' - because they have no need for sex.
Just because a person chooses not to have sex does not mean they can not get married. Asexual men can marry women just as asexual women can marry men. There are plenty of marriages that don't revolve around sex, sorry to burst your bubble.
Quote:
And sex is needed for real love and childbearing, let's be honest.
In terms of producing children, yes you'd be right...to a degree; however, "real love" isn't dictated by sex and there are plenty of other ways to produce children other than sex. Close, but no cigar.
Quote:
Now you could say that an asexual man could just marry a woman anyway, but that would defeat the lame argument that the SSM group puts forward about a man not wanting to marry a woman, as he would not love her.
Nice straw man, but it won't work. Read my above statement in regards to this.
No, Harrier, you cannot marry your cat. We've explained to you time and time and time and time again why that's not possible, so why do you STILL insist on bringing this up?
What does marrying animals have to do with two people of the same sex marrying one another?
Nothing at all, that's what. You're just attempting to use your Harrier Deflection Technique and of course, you'll fail because you always do.
Stop being ignorant and acting bigoted "Mr. Future Lawyer". For someone who wants to pursue law, you have ZERO understanding on how it works.
No, Harrier, you cannot marry your cat. We've explained to you time and time and time and time again why that's not possible, so why do you STILL insist on bringing this up?
What does marrying animals have to do with two people of the same sex marrying one another?
Nothing at all, that's what. You're just attempting to use your Harrier Deflection Technique and of course, you'll fail because you always do.
Stop being ignorant and acting bigoted "Mr. Future Lawyer". For someone who wants to pursue law, you have ZERO understanding on how it works.
That's an interesting point. I figured any law student would be trying examine the legal issues surrounding DOMA and present any argument in a legal fashion. I listened to the SCOTUS DOMA audio file and thought they did an excellent job on the oral arguments. Yet, Harrier objects because he can't marry his cat.
Here's a long quote I found on Tumblr that really sums up this Old Testament Leviticus quoting BS rather well:
Quote:
The laws in the Old Testament were set forth by god as the rules the Hebrews needed to follow in order to be righteous, to atone for the sin of Adam and Eve and to be able to get into Heaven. That is also why they were required to make sacrifices, because it was part of the appeasement for Original Sin.
According to Christian theology, when Jesus came from Heaven, it was for the express purpose of sacrificing himself on the cross so that our sins may be forgiven. His sacrifice was supposed to be the ultimate act that would free us from the former laws and regulations and allow us to enter Heaven by acting in his image. That is why he said “it is finished” when he died on the cross. That is why Christians don’t have to circumcise their sons (god’s covenant with Jacob), that is why they don’t have to perform animal sacrifice, or grow out their forelocks, or follow any of the other laws of Leviticus.
When you quote Leviticus as god’s law and say they are rules we must follow because they are what god or Jesus wants us to do, what you are really saying, as a Christian, is that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was invalid. He died in vain because you believe we are still beholden to the old laws. That is what you, a self-professed good Christian, are saying to your god and his son, that their plan for your salvation wasn’t good enough for you.
So maybe actually read the thing before you start quoting it, because the implications of your actions go a lot deeper than you think.
/An atheist who understands Christian theology better than Bible-thumpers do.
Learn your sh*t, those of you who love to quote Leviticus. That is all.
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.
Another win for marriage equality!
