A Sea Of Red

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ ... ional?lite

A federal appeals court has ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that denies a host of federal benefits to same-sex married couples, is unconstitutional...In 2010, a federal judge in Massachusetts declared the heart of the law unconstitutional in two separate lawsuits. The judge found that the law interferes with the right of a state to define marriage.

Seems like the court system is the only thing defending the Constitution nowadays. To bad both sides of this "marriage" debate are wrong but I completely agree with this ruling.

Let homosexuals enter civil unions. Give them all the federal benefits. Allow churches to define "marriage" as they choose and make it strictly a religious term and process. Stop trying to make laws governing private morality.

Here's a crazy idea... let's leave these sorts of issues to the states!

Sorry, there goes that radical libertarian in me again...

You notice how liberals (and liberaltarians) always federalize every issue?

jbock13 wrote:Here's a crazy idea... let's leave these sorts of issues to the states!

Sorry, there goes that radical libertarian in me again...

You notice how liberals (and liberaltarians) always federalize every issue?

Slow down there. This is America we wont allow that crazy "leave things up to the states" fly around here

JK37 wrote:Let homosexuals enter civil unions. Give them all the federal benefits. Allow churches to define "marriage" as they choose and make it strictly a religious term and process. Stop trying to make laws governing private morality.

+1

JK37 wrote:Let homosexuals enter civil unions. Give them all the federal benefits. Allow churches to define "marriage" as they choose and make it strictly a religious term and process. Stop trying to make laws governing private morality.

This.

This ruling is going to go before the Supreme Court...It has no effect on the law itself because the U.S. Supreme Court has final say on whether a law is unconstitutional or not

Thus my one political commentary for the month

BJWilliams wrote:This ruling is going to go before the Supreme Court...It has no effect on the law itself because the U.S. Supreme Court has final say on whether a law is unconstitutional or not

Thus my one political commentary for the month

I'm just uncomfortable by this judicial oligarchy system that liberalism has set up. This was FDR's dream... to leave everything up to the court, and then pack the court. 5 people should not decide for 310 million. That's what we call oligarchy. Liberals always say they love democracy, but they'll used dictatorial and oligarchial powers if it achieves their ends.

BJWilliams wrote:This ruling is going to go before the Supreme Court...It has no effect on the law itself because the U.S. Supreme Court has final say on whether a law is unconstitutional or not

Thus my one political commentary for the month

Very ture but hopefully the Supreme Court upholds the Constitution. I mean thats why its there.

God defined marriage as one man for one women.....period. Nothing else matters...end of discussion.

Old School wrote:God defined marriage as one man for one women.....period. Nothing else matters...end of discussion.

That all depends if you are talking in the RELIGOUS or political sense.

Then you have that whole Old Testament multiple wives thng...

Marriage licenses are recognizable across state lines, therefore it's a federal issue, just like drivers licenses and interstate commerce...

lynchburgwildcats wrote:Marriage licenses are recognizable across state lines, therefore it's a federal issue, just like drivers licenses and interstate commerce...

Yeah, I mean what's the difference between marriage and driver's licenses!

DOMA and don't ask don't tell were a good compromise. There's this thing called the 10'th Amendment. Issues like this are perfect for deciding whether to recognize gay marriage.

As it says in the Full Faith and Credit Clause, "Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, thereof."

Interesting. Notice how the liberals use that line to protect their state gun laws? Try using a Florida Concealed Carry Permit in New York, and you'll find yourself in jail, like Plaxico Burruss. So if that is the true interpretation, then it's up to the states to decide, because Congress passed DOMA to clarify the full faith and credit. I'm not a lawyer but if that's the interpretation, that's the result.

Which is why there is a difference between a legal and RELIGOUS definition. I don't know wy that word keeps coming up in all caps
Add to that the federal tax implications of being " married " and it becomes a State, ie Federal, issue.

Purple Haize wrote:Which is why there is a difference between a legal and RELIGOUS definition. I don't know wy that word keeps coming up in all caps
Add to that the federal tax implications of being " married " and it becomes a State, ie Federal, issue.

Just because that is your opinion, does not necessarily make it a fact. I've never had any issues with civil unions, but when we use the word "marriage", that's a whole different issue. Marriage in religious terms existed long before the government got involved.

Marriage in God's eyes is between a man and a woman. Now the homos want to use 'civil rights' to make marriage between same sex.

jbock13 wrote:

Purple Haize wrote:Which is why there is a difference between a legal and RELIGOUS definition. I don't know wy that word keeps coming up in all caps
Add to that the federal tax implications of being " married " and it becomes a State, ie Federal, issue.

Just because that is your opinion, does not necessarily make it a fact. I've never had any issues with civil unions, but when we use the word "marriage", that's a whole different issue. Marriage in religious terms existed long before the government got involved.

I check this box on my taxes :Married Filing Jointly. The fact that it is on a Federal form makes it a Federal Issue. I'm not arguing about 'Domestic Partnerships' etc. but as of right now that's not an option on Federal taxes. So why penalize same sex couples? The fact that they do what they do is of no consequence to me. I am not a fan of calling those partnerships 'marriages' but there should be consideration given to same sex couples on the Federal level that are afforded all citizens.

4everfsu wrote:Marriage in God's eyes is between a man and a woman. Now the homos want to use 'civil rights' to make marriage between same sex.

And there is the difference. Once the government got into the 'marriage business' it took it out of the realm of soley spiritual.

Purple Haize wrote:

jbock13 wrote:

Purple Haize wrote:Which is why there is a difference between a legal and RELIGOUS definition. I don't know wy that word keeps coming up in all caps
Add to that the federal tax implications of being " married " and it becomes a State, ie Federal, issue.

Just because that is your opinion, does not necessarily make it a fact. I've never had any issues with civil unions, but when we use the word "marriage", that's a whole different issue. Marriage in religious terms existed long before the government got involved.

I check this box on my taxes :Married Filing Jointly. The fact that it is on a Federal form makes it a Federal Issue. I'm not arguing about 'Domestic Partnerships' etc. but as of right now that's not an option on Federal taxes. So why penalize same sex couples? The fact that they do what they do is of no consequence to me. I am not a fan of calling those partnerships 'marriages' but there should be consideration given to same sex couples on the Federal level that are afforded all citizens.

Or just add a box titled Companions filing jointly, and take it out of the marriage field, therefore hetersexuals or homosexuals can apply.

I'm fine with that.

4everfsu wrote:Marriage in God's eyes is between a man and a woman.

*In your opinion.

them sounds like theological fightin' words

LUconn wrote:them sounds like theological fightin' words

It wasn't a theological challenge at all.

Just like you have the Christians who hate all people who sin (even though we all do), then we also have the Christians who will willingly compromise any perfectly Biblical argument for the sake of the illusion of being "progressive".