Doma Lawyers Back Out.

You think/believe "DOMA" is really Constitutional? Can you share why you believe that to be true?

What exactly is 'unfortunate' about allowing a homosexual person to marry the one they are most compatible with?

What problem do YOU have with homosexuality? Try REALLY explaining it; I don't understand where your animus come from.

Keep it. We don't need any empty SHOW gestures. Help us to attain EQUAL rights, and you'll be appreciated.

You're simply unaware of what is truly correct, IMO.

You talk as though everything you are saying is reality, and no one can challenge you. Also, these arguments were going on long before I ever became an adult. BTW... if you see that a certain "right" has been denied you, why wouldn't you FIGHT for it (even for a lifetime, if necessary)?

What does it 'cost' society? (Tell everyone, and please explain exactly what you mean.)

 

LOLOLOLOL

Any adult is capable of consenting to a marriage. Any consenting adults can have sex together, thus consummating a marriage. A-yuck yuck yuck! So hilarious!

 

The statute you cant comprehend requires a male and female.

 

I went back to read the initial story in the OP but it was linked to a homepage and the story is no longer there so I searched for a different link. From that link:

http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/king-clement-resigns-923921.html

In short they took the case to expand their national appellate practice but when they investgated the actual transcripts from the court case ("vetted this engagement") they came to the same conclusion that Attorney General Eric Holder came to in that an appeal could not succeed. Not wanting to be on the "losing side" in this case Robert Hay decided to withdraw his law firm from the case. No law firm wants to be on the losing end of a lawsuit and they will not continue litigation when there is no chance of success. Given any hope of success a law firm will continue litigation but it's obvious that based upon the review of the case it was determined that they reached the conclusion that appeal could not succeed, period.

All of their review was paid for with taxpayer money authorized by Republicans in the House at a rate of $250/hr for a case that after they read the transcripts they determined that the appeal will fail.

DOMA is doomed and those that don't recognized this fact are living in Fantasyland.

 

Fertile imagination having nothing to do with the words written in the article.
"dumped a Republican-driven defense of federal marriage law Monday, yielding to protests from gay rights ". You just make up whatever (*)(*)(*)(*) you need to make sense of your preconceived views.

 

no it doesn't.

 

Plainly and clearly stated. "Any unmarried male ...and any unmarried female....are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage". You have only demonstrated for us how complete detached from reality you have become.

 

Apparently that verbiage did not exist in California law in 1971:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California

We must come to the conclusion that originally California had a law that established the minimum marriage ages for a man and a woman in the State but which did deny anyone else a right to marry. By 1971 following the first challenge to marriage laws the leglislature of California determined that the law was ambiguous enough to require revision in 1977.

Later, in March of 2000 during a primary election (not a general election) Prop 22 was passed that expressly prohibited same-sex marriage but that law was struck down as being unconsitutional by the California Supreme Court because it violated the equal protection clause of the California State Constitution.

After that in 2008, in a referendum initiative basically funded by the Mormon Church, Prop 8 that was a California State Constitutional Amendment was passed to prohibit same-sex marriage. Prop 8 was struck down by the 9th Circuit Court which cited a violation of the 14th Amendments equal protection clause.

Bascially California has seen mulitple attempts to prohibit same-sex marriage that have all failed because they violate the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and the US Constitution. California alone provides enough evidence on it's own to show that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is unconsitutional.

 

I agree and of course.

I think this is where the general thrust of dixon's overall argument fails (or misses the point). DOMA and various mini-DOMA's throughout the U.S.A. (now or inevitably) must/will be reviewed and likely revised concerning their constitutionality. And there is no far-fetched, unrealistic view or major debate in acknowledging the same.

And anyone who thinks that homosexual people SHOULD be discriminated against as it pertains to allowing them to marry legally, simply WILL be challenged, as long as such laws are either proposed or are in effect. I suppose if we turned America into some "theocracy" or "fascistic" state... denying homosexual people marriage might become an amendment to our Constitution. But for now, sanity prevails, and arbitrary violations of the 14 Amendment to our existing Constitution are still taken seriously. Thank goodness for that!!

 

Like I said, its from 1872, went even further back to demonstrate the absurdity of your claim

1776 to the late 1990s. EVERYWHERE in the US, marriage was limited to heterosexual couples. This delusion of yours and several others that this is something that didnt even exists untli the 1970s, only demonstrates how truely detached from reality your ideology has driven you.

 

The law is unconcerned with your sexuality. While it seems to define your very existance, to the government it is irrelevant in 44 states

 

You realize that statement is 'laughable', right?

You just let BS roll off of your keyboard, don't you? You say the above, and this type of story is essentially front-page?

 

If 44 States don't care about the sexuality of individuals involved in marriage then why would they prohibit same-sex marriage? That makes no sense at all. If they don't care about the sexuality of the individuals then they don't even care about the ability of individuals to procreate because that is related to the sexuality of the individuals.

 

I think the point Dixon is making is that your sexuality is irrelevant because any man can marry any woman (regardless of whether or not they are hetero or homosexual).

His position is that the reason same-sex marriages aren't licensed and regulated is that they don't need to be. This makes it sound like some kind of merely harmless oversight or laissez faire happenstance; not the targeted policies of lawmakers demonizing and dehumanizing a sector of their electorate in order to gain a few more voters at the polls.

It also overlooks the fact that many gay and lesbian couples are in marriages that share identical situation with other heterosexual couples and that, often, there is a genuine need for the kind of protection that the marriage contract affords and no rational reason to deny it.

 

I, of course, was referring to marriage law.

 

nowhere in that decision is marriage limitted to a man and a woman.

 

nowhere in US law, or any court case was marriage limitted to a man and a woman only until the 1970's.

 

An argument that both Dixon and Kreo have repeatedly made is that same-sex marriage amounts to "special rights" for gay people - whilst I'm pretty sure both have hinted they either support or do not mind civil unions/registered partnerships. That seems kind of odd, because surely those are also awarding them "special rights" under this logic...? Please shed some light if you would..

 

You aren't referring to much really, since so many of your comments are less-than-relevant.

 

What you can't seem to understand is, that by today's standards, any two consenting adults can indeed consummate a marriage.

 

This can be exemplified by the fact that after Baker v Nelson the States began to pass mini-DOMA laws in the 1970's because they realized that their laws did not prohibit same-sex marriage. California is a perfect example of a State creating mini-DOMA laws (and a revision to it's State Constitution) and as we know those laws were later struck down as being unconstitutional by the Court.

 

1872, California and the other 50 states all had marriage limited to heterosexual couples.

"Any unmarried male ...and any unmarried female....are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage"

Which words dont you understand.

 

Nonsense. Baker v Nelson held that use of the word "marriage" itself limited the institution to a man and a woman. And California didnt enact a DOMA law in the 70s. State DOMA were a reaction to court cases in the 90s

 

The court's decision in Baker v Nelson revolved around the fact that the plaintiffs did not establish that they had personally "suffered" by being denied the legal institution of marriage (i.e. they did not establish denial of equal protection under the law).

Other plaintiffs since Baker v Nelson have establshed denial of equal protection under the law and that they have personally suffered denial of equal protection under the law which is why mini-DOMA's and the Federal DOMA law have been determined to unconstitutional.

Once again a plaintiff must produce evidence that they have personally experienced a violation of their Rights for the Court to address that violation. Baker v Nelson failed to establish that personal violation of the Rights of the Plaintiffs but cases since then have established that fact.

In the case of Baker v Nelson the Court determined that simply denying marriage alone to same-sex couples did not violate the equal protection clause and that determination was correct.

Since then the Courts have ruled that denying Social Security benefits, Bankruptcy protection as weil as other protections based upon the legal institution of marriage does violate the equal protection clause. The current rulings do not contradict Baker v Nelson because the Court in Baker v Nelson did not address these specific denials to equal protection under the law.

If no privileges or benefits were related to the legal institution of marriage then denial of marriage would not be a denial of equal protection under the law. But benefits and privileges are related to the legal institution of marriage which creates a denial of equal protection for those that are denied access to the legal institution. Baker v Nelson did not address the benefits and privileges related to the legal institution of marriage in it's decision. Had it done so the decision would have been different as we see by today's Court decisions.

 

LOLOLOL!! Just make the (*)(*)(*)(*) up as you go along. Thats what you do here. I see to support your assertion you provide the quote of a single word, "suffered", which isnt even used anywhere in the entire decision. The court held
"The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state's classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination."