Gays can already get married in all 50 states and everywhere abroad.

???? Yeah, I know what the amendment says. And like I SAID, DOMA has no effect upon states ability to define marriage (or set requirements of marriage) any way they please. It only defines who is eligible for FEDERAL tax breaks and governmental entitlements. Nothing more.

 

A federal law does not have to prevent a state from defining marriage or setting marriage requirements. All it must do is allow the federal government to define marriage. The reserved power of defining marriage is respectively granted to the states. The federal government cannot define marriage for any purpose, even if it doesn't prevent states from doing so.

 

This reads like an admission of defeat. You're out of rational arguments.

 

CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS YOU ARE READING????? Federal government doesnt define marriage. As we can CLEARLY see, 6 states now have "marriage" defined to also include same sex marriage. They are free to do so. Texas could define it to include a man or woman and their horse if Tx wanted to. That would NOT mean that Federal government would then need to provide SS death benefits to people whose equine spouse dies in Texas. The Federal government would be free to limit social security death benefits to those married couples made up of two humans, just as the federal government is free to limit social security death benefits to those married couples made up of two humans of the opposite sex. After all, neither equine/human marriage or same sex marriage would EVER result in procreation by the spouses or children that could benefit from the presence of both their mother and father to provide and care for them.

 

See, people like loong are why the gay rights movement is needed.

They are also why it still has steam to push for equality.

 

Utter nonsense. You have been brainwashed by Collectivists.

You have created a logical fallacy. "Gays" aren't being oppressed. To say that gays are being oppressed implies that a group of people are being oppressed. The problem with that mentality is that groups do not have rights to begin with. And they shouldn't: only individuals can and should have rights. I, as a heterosexual, am denied my individual liberty to marry a man. It doesn't matter that I would never choose to take advantage of that liberty, but that doesn't mean I am not equally as oppressed as a homosexual is. They just care more than heterosexuals because these particular individuals do wish to take advantage of that liberty.

The liberty of same-sex marriage is an individual right that is denied to all of us (depending on which state you live in). Same sex marriage being outlawed is a simple case of tyranny of the majority oppressing the individual.

 

....................

 

Sure.

So, in other words, the prohibition of same sex marriage is still instating discrimination.

 

No federal decision has had ANY effect upon any state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman or the federal DOMA law. All are still the law of the land.

Only 4 created marriage by decision of the courts. 2 did it in the legislatures.

Because skin color has no relation whatsoever to any legitimate governmental interest regarding riding a bus, eating in a diner or going to school. Of course.

 

Right, the fed has already declared it will not defend DOMA when a case is brought against it.

Neither does preventing couples of the same sex from marrying.

 

Aaaaaand now the demonstration is complete. Told you it was a rhetorical question. And I knew I could count on you to demonstrate the point. Youve made this same claim 100 times and 100 times Ive asked for evidence and 100times you failed to provide even a shred.

 

Rahl claims his logic is "winning in federal court". As you have pointed out he only looks forward to winning when the other side fails to show up for the next contest.

 

Marriage is "instating" discrimination by design, treating married couples differently from unmarried couples.

 

???? doesn't change the fact that you were wrong, and I was right. No law or court precident outlawed same sex marriage before the 1970's.

stomp your feet all you like, reality will still be here when you're done.

 

I didn't claim anything. You ARE losing in federal court.

 

irrelevant. people of the opposite sex can enter into the marriage contract at any time they wish. regardless if they are in love, or if they have any intention of a sexual relationship. people of the same sex are denied this basic civil right. Your point is invalid.

 

I didnt claim it did. YOU were the one disputing my claim that

and youve offered nothing that effects a thing Ive said.

 

Dig DEEP for some shred of integrity if you can.

 

lol, you are losing in federal court. that directly refutes what you said.

 

like I said, I didn't CLAIM anything. you ARE losing in federal court. that's not a claim, that's simple reality.

 

No you are still wrong. Same sex marriage has NOT existed for thousands of years and you have no evidence to indicate otherwise.

 

nope, I'm not wrong. no law or court precident outlawed same sex marriage before the 1970's.

keep stomping though, reality will be here waiting when you are done.

 

That is correct gays, want special rights for gays only.
Opposite sex relationship is regulated and licensed by the state because opposite sex couples have propensity for procreation. The state have tremendous interest to provide father and mother for every child,
Gays do not care, they only care about getting benefits for gays only and it it has already happened in six states.
Special rights for special interest group is very undemocratic and unconstitutional because it give special rights to gays only ignoring interests of other people.