So, it's okay to single out people too young to drink, even though they're of age for entering a legal contract? It's okay to single out those people who choose to have more than one spouse? Then, it should be okay to single out those people who want to have same sex partners? After all, it applies uniformly to both sexes.
Not "due process of law" etc. The law covers it. It's not a discrimination
So, it's okay to single out people too young to drink, even though they're of age for entering a legal contract? It's okay to single out those people who choose to have more than one spouse? Then, it should be okay to single out those people who want to have same sex partners? After all, it applies uniformly to both sexes.
It makes as much sense!
What law covers it? And aren't gays being deprived the liberty to marry without due process? As Justice Warren put it, "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
No, I cannot. I cannot marry a man. I cannot marry a relative. I cannot marry two women......
The law that prescribes a mariage license be issued to one man and one woman, and only one man and one woman. Should a person desire to leave their goods to a non-spouse, they write a will. To have someone make medical decisions, legal decisions, etc., for them, they have a power of attorney and include the information in a living will. Etc., etc. No one is being denied any "right" in favor of anyone else.
But you see they are. Heterosexuals have a right that is not being extended to homosexuals, that being to form a recognized societal bond, which to me is no different then when states declared interracial marriages as being illegal which was ruled unconstitutional. Declaring that marriage can be only between a man and a woman deprives same-sex couples of the liberty to determine whom it is that they can have as a spouse.
because it doesn't fit Bushie's facist agenda.
But, it's not discriminatorily only homosexuals that may not marry someone of the same sex. No one can. Once again, until this became a topic of "progressive" discussion, there was no lack of understanding what the term "marriage" meant. The California law in question was in regards ONLY to the term, not the "rights" of marriage. Why is that? What is it about the TERM marriage that is so important? I cannot declare myself a certain age and just have everyone go with it - there's a definition to how one ages. There is a definition to what a marriage is. It's being modified to fit things it never fit before, solely for the social acceptance of a condition some people find fault with. I see no reason to change the definition of a word for a select minute population's social acceptence mandate. The ability exists for all of the "rights" of a marriage, just with different names. This is not "separate but equal" stuff when discussing civil unions; it's calling a spade a spade and a hoe a hoe (no puns intended at all). How is it discriminatory to provide ALL of the same rights/priviledges/responsibilities to a situation as another situation, while identifying they are not the SAME situation?
I am now, and would always have been, against slavery.
Your logic is absurd, who would marry anyone of the same-sex except a homosexual, well okay maybe a bi-sexual. Thus your preventing everyone from doing something that impacts only the group that wants to do it, just as the interracial prohibitions of some of the states did with their unconstitutional laws.
But the law does not do that. The contention as I see it is that the DOMA states
As such a “union” declared valid in California might not be valid in any other state. That violates the 14th Amendment provision of “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”. Take the common-law marriage, as it applies to Maryland you can not establish one but one established in a state where they are allowed is recognized by Maryland. Or you could look at allowable ages for getting married in the many states, there is no standard, yet once married if the couple moves to another state with differing age requirements they are still considered married. What Congress did with the DOMA was strip the recognition of a state right given to the people from being recognized and honored by other states.
Who would marry three women except a bigamist? Who would drink under 21 but someone who wants to? What does who wants to do it have to do with the law? I mean, maybe my buddy whose best friend can't get life insurance would marry someone to get insurance benefits. Maybe the old woman about to pass away would marry someone to give them soc sec benefits. Maybe I would marry a second wife so she can become a legal citizen, and never see her again. There are lots of reasons to do illegal things.
I admit ignorance to what a DOMA state is. However, the law does do that. It allows for someone to have virtually all of the "priveleges", it's just harder and more time consuming to obtain. The "rights" are not denied, just harder to come by. And, that's not fair. Go with a civil union, gain the rights, and don't change the definition of a word for no apparent reason.
Again, I will admit my ignorance of DOMA.
You don't get it the DOMA allows other states to ignore the unions/marriage/whatever you want to call them. It isn't about the word.
The DOMA in it's text is contrary to that specific aspect of the Constitution as well as the 14th Amendment.
Wow, you guys are stupider than I originally gave you credit for.
ALL CITIZENS ARE GUARANTEED EQUAL RIGHTS. If this isn't common sense to you, and you can't figure it out on your own, me holding your hand reading the Constitution aloud to you isn't going to help.
Congratulations bob and Bann, you have managed to make yourselves look dumberthan Bruzilla, Kerad and forestal.
Effing psychos.
I see you got yourself a new MPD after Vrai banned your other two.
You aren't even slick about it Beetlejuice/LesterGreen.
