DOMA decision cited to block Michigan law

  • Thread starter Thread starter markomalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SeannyM said:
No… I’m not. But I do see a legitimate reason to deny them the right to do so. Just like I see a legitimate reason to limit free speech in the military, or to deny people the right to purchase rocket launchers. While there is a right to free speech and a right to bear arms, when there is a legitimate interest to do so, those rights may be limited.
Click to expand...
Well, now we have it, what’s legitimate to you makes it OK to be bigotted!:rolleyes:
 
SeannyM said:
Why can’t people recognize that they don’t have a monopoly on morality. We are a nation with many different belief systems, and many different definitions of morality. I don’t believe that my relationship is perverse. You should continue practicing your religion, and believing what you want… But when it comes to my rights, yes, you should get with the program.
Click to expand...
You don’t believe a homosexual relationship is perverse, yet you identify as Catholic (your religion icon)? Do you not realize the discrepancy there?
SeannyM said:
Just like I have gotten with the program when it comes to your right to belittle gay people and demean them in public… That is a right you have, and I am 100% supportive of it.
Click to expand...
You seem to have a misunderstanding of the Church. The Church does not ‘belittle’ gays (though some of its individual members do, I’ll concede that). But voting against same-sex ‘marriage’ != belittling or demeaning gay people. There is one way to get married. If you are not comfortable dating someone of the opposite sex, celibacy is a very well-respected vocation in the Church. You are not forced to marry, but that does not give you the right to put into place a bastardization of a Sacrament as if your warped reality of the term marriage is somehow legitimate.
 
SMGS127 said:
You don’t believe a homosexual relationship is perverse, yet you identify as Catholic (your religion icon)? Do you not realize the discrepancy there?

You seem to have a misunderstanding of the Church. The Church does not ‘belittle’ gays (though some of its individual members do, I’ll concede that). But voting against same-sex ‘marriage’ != belittling or demeaning gay people. There is one way to get married. If you are not comfortable dating someone of the opposite sex, celibacy is a very well-respected vocation in the Church. You are not forced to marry, but that does not give you the right to put into place a bastardization of a Sacrament as if your warped reality of the term marriage is somehow legitimate.
Click to expand...
I’m a member of the Old Catholic Church and I am permitted in my religion to marry another man. It is a legitimate sacrament in my church, not bastardized at all, and that statement right there reeks of intolerance and belittling.

Voting to restrict an entire group of people’s rights is far beyond belittling, it’s outright persecution, and I don’t believe that you have a right to do so, and neither did our founders.

I was not referring to the RCC in my comments, I was referring to individuals of any faith, or none at all. They all have a right to free speech.

I do not appreciate your attack on my religious beliefs, I do not attack yours, and I would appreciate the same from you.
 
SeannyM said:
Wilson doesn’t set precidence, it was dismissed and the plantiffs did not appeal. I’m confident that the decision would be vacated if it made it before SCOTUS. The logic in the decision is flawed. I don’t see how it’s difficult to understand how section 2 of DOMA is in direct violation of the full faith and credit clause. Find one other type of marriage not recognized by another state (besides common law). The refusal to recognize a legal marriage from another state is unheard of except in the case of gay marriages. There is no logical justification for this, leaving only religiously and socially based animus as the motivating factor.
Click to expand...
You pointed out that common law marriage is not recognized by another state necessarily, and states have differing laws that may or not be recognized in other states.

I do not know if SCOTUS would vacate Wilson v Ake, but the supreme court is not a an arbitator of what is right and wrong, they have a history of terrible rulings:
Code: 
Supreme court ruled on the case Plessy v Ferguson that states could segregate by race in public facilities
Supreme court ruled on the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford that congress could not prohibit slavery and the case ruled that people who were descended from Africans could not be protected by the Constitution because they never could become citizens and were not citizens.
Supreme court ruled on the case of Korematsu v United States that the internment of Japanese Americans was constitutional
Supreme court ruled on the case of Buck v Bell that forcible sterilization by states of the mentally ill was allowed
Supreme court on the case of Roe v Wade and legalized abortion and that has led to the killing of 55 million plus people
Supreme court ruled Affordable Care Act was a tax
Supreme court struck down part of DOMA and Prop 8.
 
SeannyM said:
Wilson doesn’t set precidence, it was dismissed and the plantiffs did not appeal. I’m confident that the decision would be vacated if it made it before SCOTUS. The logic in the decision is flawed. I don’t see how it’s difficult to understand how section 2 of DOMA is in direct violation of the full faith and credit clause. Find one other type of marriage not recognized by another state (besides common law). The refusal to recognize a legal marriage from another state is unheard of except in the case of gay marriages. There is no logical justification for this, leaving only religiously and socially based animus as the motivating factor.
Click to expand...
You pointed out that common law marriage is not recognized by another state necessarily, and states have differing laws that may or not be recognized in other states.

I do not know if SCOTUS would vacate Wilson v Ake, but the supreme court is not a an arbitator of what is right and wrong, they have a history of terrible rulings:
Code: 
Supreme court ruled on the case Plessy v Ferguson that states could segregate by race in public facilities
Supreme court ruled on the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford that congress could not prohibit slavery and the case ruled that people who were descended from Africans could not be protected by the Constitution because they never could become citizens and were not citizens.
Supreme court ruled on the case of Korematsu v United States that the internment of Japanese Americans was constitutional
Supreme court ruled on the case of Buck v Bell that forcible sterilization by states of the mentally ill was allowed
Supreme court on the case of Roe v Wade and legalized abortion and that has led to the killing of 55 million plus people
Supreme court ruled Affordable Care Act was a tax
Supreme court struck down part of DOMA and Prop 8.:cool:
 
SeannyM said:
Wilson doesn’t set precidence, it was dismissed and the plantiffs did not appeal. I’m confident that the decision would be vacated if it made it before SCOTUS. The logic in the decision is flawed. I don’t see how it’s difficult to understand how section 2 of DOMA is in direct violation of the full faith and credit clause. Find one other type of marriage not recognized by another state (besides common law). The refusal to recognize a legal marriage from another state is unheard of except in the case of gay marriages. There is no logical justification for this, leaving only religiously and socially based animus as the motivating factor.
Click to expand...
You pointed out that common law marriage is not recognized by another state necessarily, and states have differing laws that may or not be recognized in other states.

I do not know if SCOTUS would vacate Wilson v Ake, but as be seen from supreme court ruling, the supreme court is not an arbitator of what is right and wrong
Code: 
Supreme court ruled on the case Plessy v Ferguson that states could segregate by race in public facilities
Supreme court ruled on the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford that congress could not prohibit slavery and the case ruled that people who were descended from Africans could not be protected by the Constitution because they never could become citizens and were not citizens.
Supreme court ruled on the case of Korematsu v United States that the internment of Japanese Americans was constitutional
Supreme court ruled on the case of Buck v Bell that forcible sterilization by states of the mentally ill was allowed
Supreme court on the case of Roe v Wade and legalized abortion and that has led to the killing of 55 million plus people
Supreme court ruled Affordable Care Act was a tax
Supreme court struck down part of DOMA and Prop 8.😊
 
SeannyM said:
Wilson doesn’t set precidence, it was dismissed and the plantiffs did not appeal. I’m confident that the decision would be vacated if it made it before SCOTUS. The logic in the decision is flawed. I don’t see how it’s difficult to understand how section 2 of DOMA is in direct violation of the full faith and credit clause. Find one other type of marriage not recognized by another state (besides common law). The refusal to recognize a legal marriage from another state is unheard of except in the case of gay marriages. There is no logical justification for this, leaving only religiously and socially based animus as the motivating factor.
Click to expand...
You pointed out that common law marriage is not recognized by another state necessarily, and states have differing laws that may or not be recognized in other states.

I do not know if SCOTUS would vacate Wilson v Ake, but as be seen from supreme court ruling, the supreme court is not an arbitator of what is right and wrong
Code: 
Supreme court ruled on the case Plessy v Ferguson that states could segregate by race in public facilities
Supreme court ruled on the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford that congress could not prohibit slavery and the case ruled that people who were descended from Africans could not be protected by the Constitution because they never could become citizens and were not citizens.
Supreme court ruled on the case of Korematsu v United States that the internment of Japanese Americans was constitutional
Supreme court ruled on the case of Buck v Bell that forcible sterilization by states of the mentally ill was allowed
Supreme court on the case of Roe v Wade and legalized abortion and that has led to the killing of 55 million plus people
Supreme court ruled Affordable Care Act was a tax
Supreme court struck down part of DOMA and Prop 8.😊:eek:
 
SeannyM said:
Wilson doesn’t set precidence, it was dismissed and the plantiffs did not appeal. I’m confident that the decision would be vacated if it made it before SCOTUS. The logic in the decision is flawed. I don’t see how it’s difficult to understand how section 2 of DOMA is in direct violation of the full faith and credit clause. Find one other type of marriage not recognized by another state (besides common law). The refusal to recognize a legal marriage from another state is unheard of except in the case of gay marriages. There is no logical justification for this, leaving only religiously and socially based animus as the motivating factor.
Click to expand...
You pointed out that common law marriage is not recognized by another state necessarily, and states have differing laws that may or not be recognized in other states.

I do not know if SCOTUS would vacate Wilson v Ake, but as be seen from supreme court ruling, the supreme court is not an arbitator of what is right and wrong
Code: 
Supreme court ruled on the case Plessy v Ferguson that states could segregate by race in public facilities
Supreme court ruled on the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford that congress could not prohibit slavery and the case ruled that people who were descended from Africans could not be protected by the Constitution because they never could become citizens and were not citizens.
Supreme court ruled on the case of Korematsu v United States that the internment of Japanese Americans was constitutional
Supreme court ruled on the case of Buck v Bell that forcible sterilization by states of the mentally ill was allowed
Supreme court on the case of Roe v Wade and legalized abortion and that has led to the killing of 55 million plus people
Supreme court ruled Affordable Care Act was a tax
Supreme court struck down part of DOMA and Prop 8.😊:mad:
 
SeannyM said:
Wilson doesn’t set precidence, it was dismissed and the plantiffs did not appeal. I’m confident that the decision would be vacated if it made it before SCOTUS. The logic in the decision is flawed. I don’t see how it’s difficult to understand how section 2 of DOMA is in direct violation of the full faith and credit clause. Find one other type of marriage not recognized by another state (besides common law). The refusal to recognize a legal marriage from another state is unheard of except in the case of gay marriages. There is no logical justification for this, leaving only religiously and socially based animus as the motivating factor.
Click to expand...
You pointed out that common law marriage is not recognized by another state necessarily, and states have differing laws that may or not be recognized in other states.

I do not know if SCOTUS would vacate Wilson v Ake, but as be seen from supreme court ruling, the supreme court is not an arbitator of what is right and wrong
Code: 
Supreme court ruled on the case Plessy v Ferguson that states could segregate by race in public facilities
Supreme court ruled on the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford that congress could not prohibit slavery and the case ruled that people who were descended from Africans could not be protected by the Constitution because they never could become citizens and were not citizens.
Supreme court ruled on the case of Korematsu v United States that the internment of Japanese Americans was constitutional
Supreme court ruled on the case of Buck v Bell that forcible sterilization by states of the mentally ill was allowed
Supreme court on the case of Roe v Wade and legalized abortion and that has led to the killing of 55 million plus people
Supreme court ruled Affordable Care Act was a tax
Supreme court struck down part of DOMA and Prop 8.😊:confused:
 
🤷
SeannyM said:
Wilson doesn’t set precidence, it was dismissed and the plantiffs did not appeal. I’m confident that the decision would be vacated if it made it before SCOTUS. The logic in the decision is flawed. I don’t see how it’s difficult to understand how section 2 of DOMA is in direct violation of the full faith and credit clause. Find one other type of marriage not recognized by another state (besides common law). The refusal to recognize a legal marriage from another state is unheard of except in the case of gay marriages. There is no logical justification for this, leaving only religiously and socially based animus as the motivating factor.
Click to expand...
You pointed out that common law marriage is not recognized by another state necessarily, and states have differing laws that may or not be recognized in other states.

I do not know if SCOTUS would vacate Wilson v Ake, but as be seen from supreme court ruling, the supreme court is not an arbitator of what is right and wrong
Code: 
Supreme court ruled on the case Plessy v Ferguson that states could segregate by race in public facilities
Supreme court ruled on the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford that congress could not prohibit slavery and the case ruled that people who were descended from Africans could not be protected by the Constitution because they never could become citizens and were not citizens.
Supreme court ruled on the case of Korematsu v United States that the internment of Japanese Americans was constitutional
Supreme court ruled on the case of Buck v Bell that forcible sterilization by states of the mentally ill was allowed
Supreme court on the case of Roe v Wade and legalized abortion and that has led to the killing of 55 million plus people
Supreme court ruled Affordable Care Act was a tax
Supreme court struck down part of DOMA and Prop 8.😊:confused:
 
SeannyM said:
Wilson doesn’t set precidence, it was dismissed and the plantiffs did not appeal. I’m confident that the decision would be vacated if it made it before SCOTUS. The logic in the decision is flawed. I don’t see how it’s difficult to understand how section 2 of DOMA is in direct violation of the full faith and credit clause. Find one other type of marriage not recognized by another state (besides common law). The refusal to recognize a legal marriage from another state is unheard of except in the case of gay marriages. There is no logical justification for this, leaving only religiously and socially based animus as the motivating factor.
Click to expand...
You pointed out that common law marriage is not recognized by another state necessarily, and states have differing laws that may or not be recognized in other states.

I do not know if SCOTUS would vacate Wilson v Ake, but as be seen from supreme court ruling, the supreme court is not an arbitator of what is right and wrong
Code: 
Supreme court ruled on the case Plessy v Ferguson that states could segregate by race in public facilities
Supreme court ruled on the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford that congress could not prohibit slavery and the case ruled that people who were descended from Africans could not be protected by the Constitution because they never could become citizens and were not citizens.
Supreme court ruled on the case of Korematsu v United States that the internment of Japanese Americans was constitutional
Supreme court ruled on the case of Buck v Bell that forcible sterilization by states of the mentally ill was allowed
Supreme court on the case of Roe v Wade and legalized abortion and that has led to the killing of 55 million plus people
Supreme court ruled Affordable Care Act was a tax
Supreme court struck down part of DOMA and Prop 8.:co
 
SeannyM said:
Wilson doesn’t set precidence, it was dismissed and the plantiffs did not appeal. I’m confident that the decision would be vacated if it made it before SCOTUS. The logic in the decision is flawed. I don’t see how it’s difficult to understand how section 2 of DOMA is in direct violation of the full faith and credit clause. Find one other type of marriage not recognized by another state (besides common law). The refusal to recognize a legal marriage from another state is unheard of except in the case of gay marriages. There is no logical justification for this, leaving only religiously and socially based animus as the motivating factor.
Click to expand...
You pointed out that common law marriage is not recognized by another state necessarily, and states have differing laws that may or not be recognized in other states.

I do not know if SCOTUS would vacate Wilson v Ake, but as be seen from supreme court ruling, the supreme court is not an arbitator of what is right and wrong
Code: 
Supreme court ruled on the case Plessy v Ferguson that states could segregate by race in public facilities
Supreme court ruled on the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford that congress could not prohibit slavery and the case ruled that people who were descended from Africans could not be protected by the Constitution because they never could become citizens and were not citizens.
Supreme court ruled on the case of Korematsu v United States that the internment of Japanese Americans was constitutional
Supreme court ruled on the case of Buck v Bell that forcible sterilization by states of the mentally ill was allowed
Supreme court on the case of Roe v Wade and legalized abortion and that has led to the killing of 55 million plus people
Supreme court ruled Affordable Care Act was a tax
Supreme court struck down part of DOMA and Prop 8.😊🤷🤷
 
SeannyM said:
Wilson doesn’t set precidence, it was dismissed and the plantiffs did not appeal. I’m confident that the decision would be vacated if it made it before SCOTUS. The logic in the decision is flawed. I don’t see how it’s difficult to understand how section 2 of DOMA is in direct violation of the full faith and credit clause. Find one other type of marriage not recognized by another state (besides common law). The refusal to recognize a legal marriage from another state is unheard of except in the case of gay marriages. There is no logical justification for this, leaving only religiously and socially based animus as the motivating factor.
Click to expand...
You pointed out that common law marriage is not recognized by another state necessarily, so from a secular perspective if common law marriage is not recognized by many states, and all types of laws are not recognized from one state to the next, why should homosexual marriage?

Supreme court rulings have shown the supreme court is not an arbiter of right and wrong
Code: 
Supreme court ruled on the case Plessy v Ferguson that states could segregate by race in public facilities
Supreme court ruled on the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford that congress could not prohibit slavery and the case ruled that people who were descended from Africans could not be protected by the Constitution because they never could become citizens and were not citizens.
Supreme court ruled on the case of Korematsu v United States that the internment of Japanese Americans was constitutional
Supreme court ruled on the case of Buck v Bell that forcible sterilization by states of the mentally ill was allowed
Supreme court on the case of Roe v Wade and legalized abortion and that has led to the killing of 55 million plus people
Supreme court ruled Affordable Care Act was a tax
Supreme court struck down part of DOMA and Prop 8
 
_Abyssinia said:
You pointed out that common law marriage is not recognized by another state necessarily, so from a secular perspective if common law marriage is not recognized by many states, and all types of laws are not recognized from one state to the next, why should homosexual marriage?

Supreme court rulings have shown the supreme court is not an arbiter of right and wrong
Code: 
Supreme court ruled on the case Plessy v Ferguson that states could segregate by race in public facilities
Supreme court ruled on the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford that congress could not prohibit slavery and the case ruled that people who were descended from Africans could not be protected by the Constitution because they never could become citizens and were not citizens.
Supreme court ruled on the case of Korematsu v United States that the internment of Japanese Americans was constitutional
Supreme court ruled on the case of Buck v Bell that forcible sterilization by states of the mentally ill was allowed
Supreme court on the case of Roe v Wade and legalized abortion and that has led to the killing of 55 million plus people
Supreme court ruled Affordable Care Act was a tax
Supreme court struck down part of DOMA and Prop 8
Click to expand...
Because a common law marriage isn’t necessarily intentionally entered into. It isn’t considered a contract between two parties and there is no license issued. So states that are not common law states don’t recognize it.
 
SeannyM said:
Because a common law marriage isn’t necessarily intentionally entered into. It isn’t considered a contract between two parties and there is no license issued. So states that are not common law states don’t recognize it.
Click to expand...
[Full faith and credit clause does not mandate gay marriage](Full faith and credit clause does not mandate gay marriage)
 
_Abyssinia said:
[Full faith and credit clause does not mandate gay marriage](Full faith and credit clause does not mandate gay marriage)
Click to expand...
That doesn’t link anywhere… I don’t think. But the court hasn’t ruled on whether the full faith and credit clause would mandate that states recognize gay marriages. It was only ruled on by a lower court in Wilson, which does not set precedent. I am confident that the question will be brought before the SCOTUS sooner, rather than later, and I believe that the court will rule that section 2 of DOMA violates the full faith and credit clause. I honestly can’t think of any class of marriage that is not recognized by other states. I believe that any law that bans equality is motivated by religious or social animus, because I have yet to hear a logical and coherent argument that was not based on specific religious beliefs.
 
SeannyM said:
I don’t understand what you are trying to convey, but I think you’re just trying to be antagonistic.
Click to expand...
I am conveying the fact that you are bigotted againt incestuous marriage yet support same sex marriage.

No. I’m not being antagonistic, I’m being your Christian brother. I am sorry you bear the SSA cross. We all bear crosses. We are called to do so with humility, faith and obedience.
 
SeannyM said:
marriage doesn’t cause any harm, or deprive anyone else of their rights. Enforcing your religion on the other hand does. =.
Click to expand...
Its actually the beliefs of YOUR religion, the one you proclaim to be. maybe you should figure out your issues before trying to sort out the worlds.
 
iamrefreshed said:
I am conveying the fact that you are bigotted againt incestuous marriage yet support same sex marriage.

No. I’m not being antagonistic, I’m being your Christian brother. I am sorry you bear the SSA cross. We all bear crosses. We are called to do so with humility, faith and obedience.
Click to expand...
I support the limit on free speech in the military. Does this mean that I’m bigoted against service members? The difference between my disapproval of incest and your disapproval of gay marriage is that my opinion is based on demonstrable negative effects of incest, whereas your disapproval is based on religious beliefs alone.

As to any cross I have to bear, it’s not my sexual orientation that is my cross. My religion approves of my relationship, and I am obedient to my church. My cross that I have to bear is the treatment I undergo at the hands of my Christian brothers and sisters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top