Doma Lawyers Back Out.

Procreation is irrelevant, dixon. And I'll remind you of that, virtually every time you mention it.

dixon, you haven't convinced most people here, that what you are saying is relevant. But you EXPECT them to comprehend points that don't really matter. Really, your arguments are terrible man. Come on... you mention "procreation", as if it makes your argument in a way that negates the valid points of others. All the while, I and virtually everyone else KNOWS that what you're claiming or alluding to where procreation is concerned... is barely relevant.

 

Irrelevant to frustrated homosexuals. Determinative in 44 states with marriage limited to heterosexuals and determinative for 1000s of years of marriages history.

 

Yes they do. Why they marry and why government chooses to license and regulate those who do is two different issues. They dont know which couples will procreate but they do know that all who do will be exclusively heterosexual couples. Thus the encouragement of heterosexual couples to marry.

 

My court precedent wins out over your emotion and hormones.

 

No, dixon. It's about being reasonable, not 'frustration'. I KNOW you are making good sense... and many others can see that as well. Get real man.

And the logic which has somehow arbitrarily supported such 'determinations', is being effectively challenged... case-by-case. If you don't admit that, I understand, but intellectually I'll never accept it.

Procreation isn't enough to deny people the thing(s) they are seeking; and I think you KNOW it.

1000's of years... may explain your beliefs and values, of course. But it isn't some incontrovertible mindset which will sustain ALL laws as written; things are changing whether you like/believe or not. Change is IN-PROGRESS for many good and perfectly valid reasons.

 

The debate isnt about what should be or will be someday, but instead, what is relevant now and in 44 states, in dozens of court cases upholding the constitutionality of marriage limited to heterosexual couples, in several federal court cases upholding the constitutionality of DOMA and in the Obama administrations defense of DOMA, Procreation is not only relevant but is in fact, not only the reason why marriage has been limited to heterosexual couples, but why such a limitation doent in any way contradict the constitution of the US.

 

The Obama administration hasn't upheld DOMA. It has openly stated the justice department will not defend it against cases brought against it.

You still haven't made a case for procreation being the reason for marriage. You can't even make a case for why procreation is required for marriage. You flip flop more than a flounder while you flounder around posting circular logic on here.

 

You aren't facing reality; of course, in YOUR mind the above describes where YOU think the discussion, arguments or protests should end. I had that many many hundreds of your posts ago.

I and others are here to either inform or remind you, that what YOU see in all of this, is surely NOT all that there is or will be. This is a real FIGHT for equal rights, not some mere academic setting where everyone other than you is a student. We're IN THE FIGHT.

We know enough of what the ruling are, to accept the reality that the CHALLENGES presently against certain laws, are valid and worthwhile. Yes, if necessary we will CONTINUE the overall contentions against your position politically and/or legally.

Yes, we are aware of the effects of the "laws" you claim to know... but we also know that those laws can/should be challenged (even directly so).

 

When that guy uses the word "procreation", my mind hears "BLAH".

 

Several court cases related to same-sex marriage have been mentioned on numerous threads but what we find is that court rulings that support the prohibitions against same-sex marriage predominately come from the early 1970's were documentation of actual discrimination and unequal treatment under the law didn't exist. There were no states with legal same-sex marriage in the 1970's so a case couldn't be presented where legally married same-sex couples could present actual evidence of unequal treatment under the law.

With the legalization of same-sex marriage in several states the actual evidence of discrimination under DOMA became clearly evident which is why DOMA has been declared unconstitutional. There have been no cases where DOMA or the mini-DOMA's of the States have been addressed since same-sex marriage was legalized by some States that resulted in a court decision supporting the prohibitions against same-sex marriage.

We can anticipate that there will be a Federal court case in the not to distant future where the denial of "marriage" status to a legally married same-sex couple in a "mini-DOMA" State will be challenged under the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution and the mini-DOMA is going to be declared unconstitutional. When that happens the State that have mini-DOMA's are going to have to allow same-sex marriage because they cannot allow it for some married out of state while denying it to their own citizens.

DOMA laws, whether we're addressing the Federal DOMA law or the mini-DOMA's of the States, are unconstitutional and that is clearly being established in the Federal courts today. This issue doesn't even break along political lines of conservative v liberal as most conservatives today also acknowledge that prohibitions against same-sex marriage under DOMA or mini-DOMA laws are unconstitutional. Hopefully this will be addressed by the Supreme Court soon and we can expect a unanimous Supreme Court decision striking down these laws just as laws banning interracial marriage were struck down in Loving v Virginia.

America is unquestionably better off since the prohibitions against interracial marriages were declared unconstitutional in Loving v Virginia and America will be better off once the prohibitions against same-sex marriage are declared unconstitutional.

 

I said Obamas defense of DOMA. Specifically the Obama administration brief I quoted and cited in the other DOMA thread.
http://hunterforjustice.typepad.com/files/smelt-doj-mot-dismiss.pdf

 

LOLOL!!! Delusional denial. Fascinating to watch your ideology actually alter your perception of reality.

 

The discussion is of the Supreme Court of the US establishment of marriage as a constitutional right. Its recorded in the cases. Not in my mind.

 

dixon, you apparently think/believe that homosexual-couples should not be allowed to marry legally; most Americans do not agree with you, and there are current court cases which reflect evidence upon the same.

DOMA is ultimately history.

 

Yeah, thats part of the problem. Courts are supposed to interpret the laws, not public opinion.

 

And that's what YOU think they are doing; THAT'S the problem here.

 

That's exactly what the Courts are doing which is why DOMA was declared unconsitutional. It violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

 

He doesn't understand that. See he only thinks his opinion should be validated, because of course he's smarter than the supreme court.

 

Declared Constitutional by In re Kandu Bankruptcy Decision, Wilson v Ake and by the Obama administrations earlier defense of DOMA.

 

The only Supreme Court Precednt on the constitutionality of marriage limited to heterosexuals was Baker v Nelson which Ive cited repeatedly, upholding the constituionality of marriage so limited

 

Wilson v Ake was a California State Court decision that addressed the laws under the California State Constitution and not a Federal Court which makes determinations under the US Constitution. It was also a case from 2006 and in 2008 the California State Supreme Court struck down Prop 22 which prohibited same-sex marriage as a violation of the equal protection clause contained in the California State Constitution.

caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/A110449.DOC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_22_(2000)

The Kandu Bankruptcy Decision related to the civil union laws in the State of Washington and not to legally married same-sex couples that were being denied bankruptcy protection under DOMA.

I'm not sure which "other" case is being referred to related to the DOJ defending DOMA but would assume it's Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management and it related to spousal benefits that had been denied.

The lawsuit was then brought against the US government but the case was dismissed on procedural grounds, inviting the plaintiff to refile the lawsuit. That was done on April 14, 2011 and on December 16, 2011 Court heard oral arguments. There hasn't been a decision in that case that I'm aware of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/golinski-v-us-office-personnel-management

So we have one State case that was later overruled by the California State Supreme Court, one case that had nothing to do with a same-sex couple married in the United States, and one case where the decision is still pending.

In short, no rebuttal to the facts has been provided.

 

Baker v Nelson was from 1971 and was a decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court that has absolutely nothing to do with the Federal DOMA law which didn't even exist at the time.

As previously noted there simply wasn't the factual evidence of denial of benefits under the 14th Amendment at the time as there were no same-sex marriages from which to draw any factual evidence. A potential denial of benefits is not accepted by the Court as an actual denial of benefits is required in litigation. That simply didn't exist in 1971 but it does exist today.

 

Revealing how effortlessly, without even a moment of hesitation, probably without even a second thought, you just make the (*)(*)(*)(*) up about topics you know nothing about.

Wilson v Ake was a federal case alleging that both Florida state law AND federal DOMA violated the US constitution.

Dig DEEP! for some shred of integrity.

 

No lack of integrity on my part as Findlaw.com referred me to the California case:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/A110449.DOC

That is why it helps when links are provided so mistake based upon a search are not encountered.

So now in referring to the correct decision there was no decision at all. The case was dismissed based upon a motion to dismiss by John Ashcroft. The Court did not enter an opinion at all except on the motion to dismiss and did not judge the merits of the case per se.

In short the decision neither supported or denied the claims of the plantiff but merely dismissed the lawsuit. The plantiff had a right to appeal the the US Supreme Court but I don't know if that's happened at all. If they did appeal I know for a fact that the Supreme Court has not heard the case.