the conservative case for same sex marriage - Page 17 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-08-2010, 10:32 AM   #321
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 10:33 AM




“Over 33 days, we’ll travel more than 6000 miles, holding rallies in 23 cities from Maine to Minnesota to Atlanta and Tampa before heading back to Washington, DC for the tour finale on August 15th. Many of the states we’ll be visiting are key battlegrounds in this critical debate, as we work to organize grassroots support for marriage as the union of a husband and wife at both the state federal levels, building support for state marriage amendments and opposing the repeal of DOMA.

Please visit Summer for Marriage Tour | National Organization for Marriage | MarriageTour2010.com for the latest tour information, including the bus schedule, a chance to register for email alerts from the tour, and video footage of each tour stop. We need your help to make this summer’s tour a success!
__________________

MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-08-2010, 10:42 AM   #322
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:33 AM
__________________

BVS is offline  
Old 07-08-2010, 10:48 AM   #323
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 03:33 PM

These people need to get a life.
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 07-08-2010, 10:57 AM   #324
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 10:33 AM
I'm going to make a 2 out of 3 straight marriages end in divorce bus. I'll paint pictures of Mel Gibson and Tiger Woods on it.
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-08-2010, 04:25 PM   #325
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 10:33 AM
By Denise Lavoie
AP Legal Affairs Writer / July 8, 2010

BOSTON—A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right a state to define marriage.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on Thursday ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.

Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.

The Justice Department argued the federal government has the right to set eligibility requirements for federal benefits -- including requiring that those benefits only go to couples in marriages between a man and a woman.
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-08-2010, 05:47 PM   #326
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 02:33 PM
Feds sue to overturn Arizona immigration law - CNN.com

"Justice Department lawyers argued that the state statute should be declared invalid because it has improperly preempted federal law."

Tough balancing act, state rights vs. federal rights...
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 07-08-2010, 06:05 PM   #327
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:33 AM
Both are on the wrong side of history, so they got that going for them
BVS is offline  
Old 07-08-2010, 06:07 PM   #328
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,900
Local Time: 11:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Feds sue to overturn Arizona immigration law - CNN.com

"Justice Department lawyers argued that the state statute should be declared invalid because it has improperly preempted federal law."

Tough balancing act, state rights vs. federal rights...

I don't know enough about state vs. federal rights and how it applies to the U.S.

But the one difference that I see between what Mrs. Springsteen posted and what you posted is that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is discriminatory and the Arizona immigration bill is equally discriminatory.

Really no balancing act where I'm coming from...
__________________

BoMac is offline  
Old 07-08-2010, 06:18 PM   #329
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,153
Local Time: 10:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoMac View Post
But the one difference that I see between what Mrs. Springsteen posted and what you posted is that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is discriminatory and the Arizona immigration bill is equally discriminatory.
Holder's Justice Dept should be suing Arizona on that ground then. Should be a home run, right?

But of course, Holder hasn't, and can't.
Bluer White is offline  
Old 07-08-2010, 07:41 PM   #330
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 06:33 AM
Federal Court Hands Major Victory to Gay Couples - Law Blog - WSJ

good news here


bad news from Hawaii - GOP Gov vetoed same sex bill

soon the CA Prop 8 decision will be announced, lets hope that one comes down on the right side of history.
deep is offline  
Old 07-08-2010, 09:44 PM   #331
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 10:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post


bad news from Hawaii - GOP Gov vetoed same sex bill


the Gov of Hawaii has only been divorced twice. for a Republican, that's an incredible accomplishment.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-08-2010, 10:10 PM   #332
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 10:33 AM
well, obviously.

Quote:
Judge declares US gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff

A federal district court judge in Boston today struck down the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman.

Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage law violates the Constitutional right of married same-sex couples to equal protection under the law and upends the federal government’s long history of allowing states to set their own marriage laws.

"This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status," Tauro wrote. "The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state."

Tauro drew on history in his ruling, writing that the states have set their own marriage since before the American Revolution and that marriage laws were considered "such an essential element of state power" that the subject was even broached at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Tauro noted that laws barring interracial marriage were once at least as contentious as the current battle over gay marriage.

“But even as the debate concerning interracial marriage waxed and waned throughout history, the federal government consistently yielded to marital status determinations established by the states,” Tauro wrote. “That says something. And this court is convinced that the federal government’s long history of acquiescence in this arena indicates that, indeed, the federal government traditionally regarded marital status determinations as the exclusive province of state government.”

Gay rights activists cheered the ruling, saying it affirmed that same-sex couples are entitled to the same federal spousal benefits and protections as other married couples.
The Boston-based group Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders had, in March 2009, brought one of two suits challenging the law, on behalf of seven married same-sex couples and three widowers from Massachusetts who contended that it violated their federal constitutional right to equal protection.

“Today the court simply affirmed that our country won’t tolerate second-class marriages,” said Mary Bonauto, a lawyer from the group who argued successfully in the 2003 Supreme Judicial Court case that first legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. “This ruling will make a real difference for countless families in Massachusetts.”

Attorney General Martha Coakley, who brought the second suit challenging the law, also applauded the ruling. Her office had argued that the federal law, known as DOMA, violates the Constitution by interfering with the state’s authority to define and regulate the marital status of its residents.

Coakley’s office also contended that DOMA exceeds Congress’s authority because it requires Massachusetts to violate the constitutional rights of its residents by treating married same-sex couples differently from other married couples in order to receive federal funds for various programs.

“Today’s landmark decision is an important step toward achieving equality for all married couples in Massachusetts and assuring that all of our citizens enjoy the same rights and protections under our Constitution,” Coakley said in a statement. “It is unconstitutional for the federal government to discriminate, as it does because of DOMA’s restrictive definition of marriage. It is also unconstitutional for the federal government to decide who is married and to create a system of first- and second-class marriages.”

Opponents of same-sex marriage condemned the ruling. Kris Mineau, president of Massachusetts Family Institute called it “another blatant example of a judge playing legislator.”

“Same-sex marriage activists have tried time and time again to win public approval of their agenda, and they have failed each time,” Mineau said in a statement. “This is why their strategy is to force same-sex ‘marriage’ through judicial fiat, as they did here in Massachusetts and other states.”

He said he was “confident that an appeals court, and ultimately the Supreme Court, will uphold the government’s right to define marriage, strengthening and protecting children and families.”

The law was defended in court by the US Justice Department, even though President Obama supports DOMA’s repeal and has called the law discriminatory. In a hearing with Tauro in May, the Justice Department argued that Congress and President Clinton, who signed the law, had a legitimate interest in preserving marriage as a heterosexual institution.

Today, a Justice Department spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, declined to comment on Tauro’s ruling, saying in a statement, “We're reviewing the decision.”

Judge declares US gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional - Local News Updates - MetroDesk - The Boston Globe
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-09-2010, 09:27 AM   #333
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 10:33 AM
Lowest common denominator state? What are the other ones? I guess it would be all others that have gay marriage.



Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, called Tauro's ruling "judicial activism" and said Tauro was a "rogue judge." Gay marriage advocates will keep pushing their agenda in the courts, she said, but noted voters consistently have rejected gay marriage at the ballot box, including in a recent California vote.

"We can't allow the lowest common denominator states, like Massachusetts, to set standards for the country," Lafferty said.
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-09-2010, 09:31 AM   #334
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 10:33 AM
I'm going to vote for the same sex couples. I've never voted in this before but now I will.


After a meeting with the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, NBC announced that it would permit same-sex couples to participate in the “Modern Love’ wedding contest on Today and extended the deadline for the contest until Monday, July 12. The news was first reported by TVNewser.

Here’s the statement from Today:

Over the past few days TODAY has received a considerable response regarding our wedding contest application. The rules stated that eligible couples must be able to be legally married in New York, where we will host the wedding, therefore excluding same-sex couple applicants. Our intent was not to be discriminatory or exclusive. In 2005 when the wedding took place outside of New York, the application process was open to same-sex couples. We have listened to every voicemail and read every email. We take this feedback seriously, and we will change our application process. TODAY is a longtime supporter of the LGBT community, and GLAAD considers us an ally. We are committed to keeping those relationships strong and positive. We have opened up the application process to same-sex couples, and will extend the deadline to Monday, July 12. Moving forward, we ensure that our future wedding contests will be inclusive of all couples.

The change came after a meeting between GLAAD and Today was held to deal with the disagreement. Earlier this week, GLAAD announced an action alert about the contest after learning about the exclusion from the blog Good as You. Today had argued that it couldn’t include same-sex couples because same-sex marriage is not permitted under New York law, where the Rockefeller Center wedding is set to take place.

GLAAD told its followers that it was pleased with the decision. In a note from GLAAD head Jarrett Barrios, the organization said:

We’re thrilled that Today Show’s ‘Modern Wedding Contest’ now recognizes what most fair-minded Americans have already concluded – a wedding celebrates love and commitment, whether the spouses are straight or gay. NBC heard the thousands of viewers who contacted them and they have moved to make their contest a truly modern wedding where any couple can share their story. NBC is living up to its own high standard of fairness and for this, we applaud them
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-09-2010, 09:57 AM   #335
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 08:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
I'm going to make a 2 out of 3 straight marriages end in divorce bus. I'll paint pictures of Mel Gibson and Tiger Woods on it.


^
Rush Limbaugh
Newt Gingrich
John McCain
Dick Armey
Bob Barr
etc., etc., etc.



I just learned of this organization doing good things:
Project 515 -- Welcome to Project 515

Equality is slowing gaining in MN. 515 laws in MN still discriminate against families and couples.
kramwest1 is offline  
Old 07-09-2010, 01:00 PM   #336
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 10:33 AM
seems like this Mass ruling is going to get very complex.

so, to de-complexify, i'll just let my girlfriend Wonkette explain:



Quote:
Masshole Judge Overturns DOMA, Uses Teabaggers’ Favorite Amendment For Gayness

We're stone cold getting Social Security benefits now, breeders!Your right-wing types often go on and on and on about “keeping the gummint out of my hair” and “state rights,” and take as their proof text the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which basically says that the Feds can’t do anything but fight wars and mint gold coins and maybe build interstate highways, and the states should be in charge of everything else. And if you’ve had to listen to all this, you’ve probably had the urge to say “So why should the gummint be all up in some dude’s business if he wants to marry another dude?” but you don’t because you promised your mom that you wouldn’t start any fights at Thanksgiving this year. Well, Joseph L. Tauro just basically said the exact thing that you wanted to shout over turkey and stuffing, except he’s a federal judge who was appointed by gay communist Richard Nixon 38 years ago, and he said it in a court decision declaring parts of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, so it’s really a lot more meaningful than your holiday-ruining diatribe.

Tauro’s decision (actually two decisions on two separate but related lawsuits) did not declare that Real American states had to recognize ungodly sodomarriages contracted in the gay states, which, depressing though that might be, at least avoids a probable nuclear-level freakout that would get boring heterosexuality enshrined in the Constitution, forever. But! He did rule that the federal government could not discriminate between legally contracted straight and gay marriages, because, according to the Teabaggers precious, precious Tenth Amendment, only state governments get to decide what a legitimate marriage is. So same-sex marrieds in the states that condone their same-sex-marriedness can file joint tax returns, get spousal Social Security and Medicare benefits, and do all the other hot fucking-and-sucking-related perversions on the “gay agenda.”

Did this elderly judge specifically tailor his decision to irritate conservatives? Probably, according to a Yale Law professor!

Quote:
Professor Balkin said Judge Tauro was “attempting to hoist conservatives by their own petard, by saying: ‘You like the 10th Amendment? I’ll give you the 10th Amendment! I’ll strike down DOMA!’”
Here is a fun side note to this: One of the lawsuits was actually filed by the state of Massachusetts, which argued that DOMA essentially forced the state to discriminate against its own citizens in handing out all the federal largesse that passes through the state government. The suit was brought by the state’s Attorney General, Martha Coakley, who you probably vaguely remember as the woman who somehow lost a Massachusetts Senate election to a frequently naked Republican who drives a pickup truck. Scott Brown, of course, is so terrified of gay marriage that he’ll do anything to stop it, even berating children with obscenities, so this may be some small measure of revenge on her part.

The Obama Administration, which is defending the law in court, will appeal the decision, obviously, even though they’re officially against it, because they are lame. So enjoy the prospect of having simplified tax paperwork while it lasts, gays who live in five states and/or the District of Columbia! Once it gets to the Supreme Court, it will inevitably be overturned in a decision that will mostly consist of Scalia and Roberts coughing and saying “faggot” under their breath. [NYT]

Read more at Wonkette: Wonkette : Masshole Judge Overturns DOMA, Uses Teabaggers’ Favorite Amendment For Gayness
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-09-2010, 06:36 PM   #337
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:33 AM
Oh I see.

It's a states rights, Tenth Amendment issue except... EXCEPT... in the 30 states that have democratically voted not to recognize same-sex marriage. Then... THEN... same-sex marriage is a RIGHT protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States FEDERAL Constitution.

And while we're being all smartyass about cramming "states rights' down the throats of "teabaggers." Part of DOMA reinforces the states right not to recognize same-sex marriage through the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Is it the judgement of this court and the opinion of same-sex proponents that states have the right only to recognize same-sex marriage, not to forbid it?
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-10-2010, 09:46 AM   #338
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 10:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Oh I see.

It's a states rights, Tenth Amendment issue except... EXCEPT... in the 30 states that have democratically voted not to recognize same-sex marriage. Then... THEN... same-sex marriage is a RIGHT protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States FEDERAL Constitution.

And while we're being all smartyass about cramming "states rights' down the throats of "teabaggers." Part of DOMA reinforces the states right not to recognize same-sex marriage through the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Is it the judgement of this court and the opinion of same-sex proponents that states have the right only to recognize same-sex marriage, not to forbid it?

slow down, take a breath, read.

the decision is saying that the citizens of Massachusetts are having their rights violated by the federal government, and that's about it. so if the citizens of Indiana want to express their anger and hatred for gay people by making sure those faggots know their place by passing laws about marriage, they're free to do so.

you really should be very happy about all this, INDY. because what it does is make Arizona 1170 much, much more complicated.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-15-2010, 11:13 AM   #339
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,900
Local Time: 11:33 AM
Argentina may not have played up to their potential in the recent World Cup, but at least they now have equal rights.

Viva!!

Quote:
Argentina legalizes gay marriage in historic vote


Following a long and tense debate among lawmakers, Argentina has joined Canada as one of a select few nations to legalize marriages between same-sex couples.

The ruling early Thursday makes Argentina the first country in Latin America to grant gays and lesbians all the legal rights, responsibilities and protections that marriage brings heterosexual couples.

Following more than 14 hours of heated debate during which thousands of Argentines protested outside the Congress, the vote in the upper house came down to 33-27 for the proposal, with three abstentions.


Since the lower house already approved the bill in May and President Cristina Fernandez is a strong supporter of gay marriage on human rights grounds, it's expected she'll sign the bill into law after her return from a state visit to China.


Opinion polls show a majority of Argentines support gay marriage, and many senators publicly states that they supported it, too.


"I believe this has advanced equal rights," Sen. Eugenio Artaza told reporters after the debate.


Sen. Juan Perez Alsina, who is usually a loyal supporter of the president, disagreed.
"Marriage between a man and a woman has existed for centuries, and is essential for the perpetuation of the species," he insisted.

The proposed law broadly declares that "marriage provides for the same requisites and effects independent of whether the contracting parties are of the same or different sex."


The approval came despite a concerted campaign by the Roman Catholic Church and evangelical groups, which drew 60,000 people to march on Congress.


Opponents, from children to elderly nuns, braved near-freezing temperatures to protest outside the Congress since Tuesday, snarling traffic in Buenos Aires.


The Senate's decision is sure to bring a wave of marriages by gays and lesbians who have increasingly found Buenos Aires to be more accepting than many other places in the region.


Same-sex civil unions -- not marriages -- had already been legal in Buenos Aires, as well as Uruguay and some states in Mexico and Brazil.


Mexico City has legalized gay marriage. And Colombia's constitutional court granted same-sex couples inheritance rights and allowed them to add their partners to health insurance plans.


With Thursday's decision, married gay couples can now adopt children and inherit wealth, which they couldn't do under same-sex unions.


Argentina is the first country in South America to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide.


Nine gay couples have already married in Argentina after persuading judges that Argentina's constitutional mandate of equality supports their marriage rights, but some of these marriages were later declared invalid.
__________________

BoMac is offline  
Old 07-15-2010, 12:40 PM   #340
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 08:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoMac View Post
Argentina may not have played up to their potential in the recent World Cup, but at least they now have equal rights.

Viva!!
Love it. Love their president, too.
__________________

__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Proposition 8 discussion continued yolland Free Your Mind 797 03-03-2009 01:09 PM
SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage phillyfan26 Free Your Mind Archive 1002 11-08-2008 02:23 PM
Rate my album collection. shart1780 Lemonade Stand Archive 75 02-13-2008 11:07 PM
Go Home Human Shields, You U.S. Wankers... Iraqi Citizens topple main Saddam Statue Headache in a Suitcase Free Your Mind Archive 130 04-15-2003 07:48 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×