Defence of Marriage Act Unconstitutional

[Waniou]

Incidentally, as a Christian, it kinda depresses me to see so many other "Christians" out there who seem to have completely lost base with the message that Jesus was trying to get across. I really don't get what part of "Love your neighbour as you love yourself" is difficult to understand. Seriously, have any of you actually looked at what Jesus was like as a person? I'm sure that if he saw the way a lot of "Christians" treat gay people, he'd be incredibly ashamed.

In any case, none of that really has any relevance on gay marriage anyway, because religion has no place in the law. Marriage has not been an exclusively religious ceremony for an extremely long time, unless you want to also make it illegal to be married outside a church, and for atheists to get married.

[Reeve]

And you sir left out what the number was. 15-20 is not a problem with fire. How many house parties are broken up due too many people in the home. I have been to many 3 or 4 bedroom homes where there was at least 150 people in the house drinking under age and cops did not break the party up.

And I've been in several house parties around that size that were broken up by the police.

[Politicus]

And you sir left out what the number was. 15-20 is not a problem with fire. How many house parties are broken up due too many people in the home. I have been to many 3 or 4 bedroom homes where there was at least 150 people in the house drinking under age and cops did not break the party up.

Maybe, I left the numbers out, because the article didn't give them.

And what Chrysia said, I can go to a family party, where there's 20+ people but it's not a consistent gathering so it doesn't violate any laws.

---------- Post added 2012-11-30 at 03:35 PM ----------

Incidentally, as a Christian, it kinda depresses me to see so many other "Christians" out there who seem to have completely lost base with the message that Jesus was trying to get across. I really don't get what part of "Love your neighbour as you love yourself" is difficult to understand. Seriously, have any of you actually looked at what Jesus was like as a person? I'm sure that if he saw the way a lot of "Christians" treat gay people, he'd be incredibly ashamed.

In any case, none of that really has any relevance on gay marriage anyway, because religion has no place in the law. Marriage has not been an exclusively religious ceremony for an extremely long time, unless you want to also make it illegal to be married outside a church, and for atheists to get married.

Waniou, you're awesome
If more people went by what you just said, a lot of these types of issues would just fade away.

[Dethox]

It violates the 14 amendment blabla, but the main reason this was brought in front of court is someone's greed. ( a dusgustingly rich gay refused to pay taxes after hes partner died because hes marriage was not recognized by the law ) Yes, I see how he fights for the human right to....not pay w/e taxes.
America....I'm so glad I don't live there

Mod warning: Please refrain from "glad I don't live in America" posts.

[Reeve]

It violates the 14 amendment blabla, but the main reason this was brought in front of court is someone's greed. ( a dusgustingly rich gay refused to pay taxes after hes partner died because hes marriage was not recognized by the law ) Yes, I see how he fights for the human right to....not pay w/e taxes.
America....I'm so glad I don't live there

He's fighting for the right to be treated like all the other married couples out there. Not sure how his wealth is relevant in that argument.

[Dethox]

He's fighting for the right to be treated like all the other married couples out there. Not sure how his wealth is relevant in that argument.

Windsor is a former IBM computer programmer who married Thea Clara Spyer in Toronto, Canada, in 2007. The two had been engaged since 1967.

Spyer died in 2009 of multiple sclerosis, leaving all of her property to Windsor. Because the marriage was not recognized under federal law, Windsor had to pay more than $363,000 in federal estate taxes, according to her lawsuit.

Windsor's attorneys argued that the act violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law.

Good enough for you?

[Reeve]

Windsor is a former IBM computer programmer who married Thea Clara Spyer in Toronto, Canada, in 2007. The two had been engaged since 1967.

Spyer died in 2009 of multiple sclerosis, leaving all of her property to Windsor. Because the marriage was not recognized under federal law, Windsor had to pay more than $363,000 in federal estate taxes, according to her lawsuit.

Windsor's attorneys argued that the act violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law.

Good enough for you?

Yup, and it sounds like a completely reasonable lawsuit. Exactly the sort of the thing the system is there to deal with.

[Chrysia]

Windsor is a former IBM computer programmer who married Thea Clara Spyer in Toronto, Canada, in 2007. The two had been engaged since 1967.

Spyer died in 2009 of multiple sclerosis, leaving all of her property to Windsor. Because the marriage was not recognized under federal law, Windsor had to pay more than $363,000 in federal estate taxes, according to her lawsuit.

Windsor's attorneys argued that the act violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law.

Good enough for you?

The point being, that tax doesn't exist for straight married couples, so seeking equal protection under the law is perfectly valid.

[Bergtau]

Windsor is a former IBM computer programmer who married Thea Clara Spyer in Toronto, Canada, in 2007. The two had been engaged since 1967.

Spyer died in 2009 of multiple sclerosis, leaving all of her property to Windsor. Because the marriage was not recognized under federal law, Windsor had to pay more than $363,000 in federal estate taxes, according to her lawsuit.

Windsor's attorneys argued that the act violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law.

Good enough for you?

At this point, who cares if he's doing it for money? If he wins, it helps any gay person who wants to have their marriage recognized.

[Tiing]

Incidentally, as a Christian, it kinda depresses me to see so many other "Christians" out there who seem to have completely lost base with the message that Jesus was trying to get across. I really don't get what part of "Love your neighbour as you love yourself" is difficult to understand. Seriously, have any of you actually looked at what Jesus was like as a person? I'm sure that if he saw the way a lot of "Christians" treat gay people, he'd be incredibly ashamed.

In any case, none of that really has any relevance on gay marriage anyway, because religion has no place in the law. Marriage has not been an exclusively religious ceremony for an extremely long time, unless you want to also make it illegal to be married outside a church, and for atheists to get married.

Well as a Christian myself i pretty much agree with you on the first part you said. I don't think ashamed is the right word, But yes the way people treat eachother isnt right. That said,.You don't have to like the ways of gay people be for it or even agree with. But you can't condemn them, or judge them. Still in the ways of the bible being gay is Wrong but it shouldn't be up to us to judge them. But that doesen't mean Christians have to allow gay marriage either And well priests that do Are doing it wrong. But okay you can't say too much about relegion here

[tenzing21]

Sigh. You don't have a right to get married. This issue was settled in, oh... 885 A.D., I believe. Marriage is a social construct, out of the governance of a legislative body. If you choose a civil union, then you agree that the corpus of western thought/law states specifically marriages' only purpose is to promulgate more humans, to provide a method of passing on property and establishing primogeniture. Gays and/or (insert whatever else your mind can think of) CANNOT legally marry, and never will, because the government has at best an ancillary capacity when it comes to marriage, and even that function is no more than as a registrar of the event. Therefore, since gov't does not sanction nor broker marriages, and indeed there is no law anywhere in any English common law jurisdiction adventing that marriage must be sanctioned by gov't, it's obvious that certiorari will not be granted and that furthermore this law suit, will be tossed on face, the case struck down as moot as the plaintiff can't show standing (he isn't claiming he has been discriminated against, nor is he claiming a lack of equal application of law, since there is no law) and can't show good cause to bring the suit (he can't show damages, he can't show malice, he can't show the loss of real or presumed earnings etc...)

Marriage is a social construct. Society says it's only purpose is to provide a method for families, which gays by definition cannot create, to understand their relationship, and how the legal heirs of their union are allowed to move forward in various courts.

TL;DR Gays can't have kids - the law doesn't allow them to get married and/or sue because they don't like the lack of law allowing it.

[Bergtau]

Well as a Christian myself i pretty much agree with you on the first part you said. I don't think ashamed is the right word, But yes the way people treat eachother isnt right. That said,.You don't have to like the ways of gay people be for it or even agree with. But you can't condemn them, or judge them. Still in the ways of the bible being gay is Wrong but it shouldn't be up to us to judge them. But that doesen't mean Christians have to allow gay marriage either And well priests that do Are doing it wrong. But okay you can't say too much about relegion here

The state recognizing a marriage does not in any way violate your religion, nor is it you as a Christian allowing gay marriage.

Sigh. You don't have a right to get married. This issue was settled in, oh... 885 A.D., I believe. Marriage is a social construct, out of the governance of a legislative body. If you choose a civil union, then you agree that the corpus of western thought/law states specifically marriages' only purpose is to promulgate more humans, to provide a method of passing on property and establishing primogeniture. Gays and/or (insert whatever else your mind can think of) CANNOT legally marry, and never will, because the government has at best an ancillary capacity when it comes to marriage, and even that function is no more than as a registrar of the event. Therefore, since gov't does not sanction nor broker marriages, and indeed there is no law anywhere in any English common law jurisdiction adventing that marriage must be sanctioned by gov't, it's obvious that certiorari will not be granted and that furthermore this law suit, will be tossed on face, the case struck down as moot as the plaintiff can't show standing (he isn't claiming he has been discriminated against, nor is he claiming a lack of equal application of law, since there is no law) and can't show good cause to bring the suit (he can't show damages, he can't show malice, he can't show the loss of real or presumed earnings etc...)

Marriage is a social construct. Society says it's only purpose is to provide a method for families, which gays by definition cannot create, to understand their relationship, and how the legal heirs of their union are allowed to move forward in various courts.

TL;DR Gays can't have kids - the law doesn't allow them to get married and/or sue because they don't like the lack of law allowing it.

That's actually not what marriage is for, it's what you think it's for.

[Tiing]

The state recognizing a marriage does not in any way violate your religion, nor is it you as a Christian allowing gay marriage.



That's actually not what marriage is for, it's what you think it's for.

Sorry where exactly am i talking about the state? What the state allows isn't my problem. But if priests want to call themselves priests yet still do what is forbidden.... Yeah..
Whatever the state allows has nothing to do with religion nor did i say so. i spoke purely of religion not the goverment or whatever you may call it

[poser765]

Well as a Christian myself i pretty much agree with you on the first part you said. I don't think ashamed is the right word, But yes the way people treat eachother isnt right. That said,.You don't have to like the ways of gay people be for it or even agree with. But you can't condemn them, or judge them. Still in the ways of the bible being gay is Wrong but it shouldn't be up to us to judge them. But that doesen't mean Christians have to allow gay marriage either And well priests that do Are doing it wrong. But okay you can't say too much about relegion here

I would hazarda guess that very few people who are pushing for legalization of gay marriage are not doing it to force the church to recognize their union. How the church feels about it is moot...or should be moot in the eyes of the law.

[Reeve]

Sigh. You don't have a right to get married. This issue was settled in, oh... 885 A.D., I believe. Marriage is a social construct, out of the governance of a legislative body. If you choose a civil union, then you agree that the corpus of western thought/law states specifically marriages' only purpose is to promulgate more humans, to provide a method of passing on property and establishing primogeniture. Gays and/or (insert whatever else your mind can think of) CANNOT legally marry, and never will, because the government has at best an ancillary capacity when it comes to marriage, and even that function is no more than as a registrar of the event. Therefore, since gov't does not sanction nor broker marriages, and indeed there is no law anywhere in any English common law jurisdiction adventing that marriage must be sanctioned by gov't, it's obvious that certiorari will not be granted and that furthermore this law suit, will be tossed on face, the case struck down as moot as the plaintiff can't show standing (he isn't claiming he has been discriminated against, nor is he claiming a lack of equal application of law, since there is no law) and can't show good cause to bring the suit (he can't show damages, he can't show malice, he can't show the loss of real or presumed earnings etc...)

Marriage is a social construct. Society says it's only purpose is to provide a method for families, which gays by definition cannot create, to understand their relationship, and how the legal heirs of their union are allowed to move forward in various courts.

TL;DR Gays can't have kids - the law doesn't allow them to get married and/or sue because they don't like the lack of law allowing it.

First of all, all that above is nonsense because it doesn't take into account the straight but barren or non-procreating couples.

Beyond that, however, our constitution specifically says you can't categorically extend certain governmental benefits or protections to certain groups while denying them to others without a rational basis (one group has a lack of capacity, for example).

[Bergtau]

Sorry where exactly am i talking about the state? What the state allows isn't my problem. But if priests want to call themselves priests yet still do what is forbidden.... Yeah..

I kinda figured you'd be talking about the state/nation in a threat regarding state/national recognition of marriage, especially given that the person you replied to seemed to be talking about those who would bar gay marriage at a state/national level.

[Majad]

TL;DR Gays can't have kids - the law doesn't allow them to get married and/or sue because they don't like the lack of law allowing it.

Gay people can get married, it's happening all the time, especially in the USA, and on my country, Portugal, so you're wrong there.

Also, gays can make families and have kids, not the way a woman has one, but they can adopt and have a kid and that makes a family, so yes, gays can also make families.

[Tiing]

I would hazarda guess that very few people who are pushing for legalization of gay marriage are not doing it to force the church to recognize their union. How the church feels about it is moot...or should be moot in the eyes of the law.

Maybe not, But when Gay people get mad because the church doesen't want to do their marriage, well its kind of pathethic.
I do however agree on that what the state allows has nothing to do with the church.

I kinda figured you'd be talking about the state/nation in a threat regarding state/national recognition of marriage, especially given that the person you replied to seemed to be talking about those who would bar gay marriage at a state/national level.

I only saw Waniou talking on a relgious level. Apart from the part where he said Religion has no place in Law

[tenzing21]

The state recognizing a marriage does not in any way violate your religion, nor is it you as a Christian allowing gay marriage.



That's actually not what marriage is for, it's what you think it's for.

Sigh. Marriage is a social construct, outside the parameters of gov't to interfere with, no matter how much drivvle you type.

And to prove it, I'll wager everything I own vs everything you own that in the jurisdiction YOU live in, you can be married without a) filing paperwork and b) letting/telling/asking the gov't to get involved.

I'll be expecting my super huge Fedex package any day now.

Infracted.

Gay people can get married, it's happening all the time, especially in the USA, and on my country, Portugal, so you're wrong there.

Also, gays can make families and have kids, not the way a woman has one, but they can adopt and have a kid and that makes a family, so yes, gays can also make families.

Although I appreciate your taking time to respond, the laws of Portugal are not being discussed here. And if you would be so kind, I think I'll take my day one anatomy class lecture (wherein it was proved that gays can't reproduce) over your non-nonsensical statement that I'm wrong. In the US, no legal marriage between anything other than a man and a woman can take place. The US has a law, the Defense of Marriage Act, it discusses how the feds will handle issues of gays trying to claim to be married.

[Dethox]

Yup, and it sounds like a completely reasonable lawsuit. Exactly the sort of the thing the system is there to deal with.

The point being, that tax doesn't exist for straight married couples, so seeking equal protection under the law is perfectly valid.

Actually, I only wanted to prove that this does not come out of self sacrifice and love for the other people's rights, but out of greed and hypocrisy.