Is DOMA Unconstitutional?

And your post is what I have an issue with. I really do not care about the marriage issue it is what can come after that. I reckon I will need to bend me some boiz over from time to time so I can get special treatment.

 

I don't know what you think is "special" about being able to hold down a job without the fear of being sacked if people find out you're gay.

What "special rights" do you think gay people get?

 

Nonsense. Being in the protected class usually shifts the burden to the employer who has to show an absence of discrimination. A high bar to meet.

 

I can sue claiming I was canned for screwing other men.

What the hell can a heterosexual white male sue for? Yup come lay off time if I had to choose I would have to let the white hetero go. Don't want to get sued by the ACLU you know.

 

Not really. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If it can be shown the employer has bigoted attitudes and has treated the gay employee more harshly than anyone else for no apparent reason, that's where the anti-discrimination legislation comes in.

 

Often times this is true because the employer does not keep documentation of the reasons for termination (eg documentation on tardiness/absence, insubordination, ect). When I have to fire someone for whatever reason they are given all documentation as to why their services are no longer required; not to mention they have to sign an at-will employee contract.

The system always favors the employee, sometimes unfairly so. It is irrelevant whether they be white black brown gay or poka-dotted.

If they are fired for a bs reason they should be able to sue - but unfortunately people abuse the system.

 

Quaint, 20th century mentality.

...the emergence of "plastic sexuality," "confluent love," and the "pure relationship" as democratic and desirable alternatives to a sexuality harnessed to reproduction, love based on addictive or co-dependent relationships, and the rights and obligations of traditional marriage. The separation of sexuality from procreation entails its freedom from heterosexuality and its emergence as an individual attribute, something individuals can develop, enjoy, change or project as part of their changing definition of the self. Sexuality becomes plastic because the self itself has broken the bounds of traditional institutional expectations and it is now free to constitute and reconstitute itself in a series of narratives answering to nothing else but the growing freedom of individuals to develop their potential

 

Now you're just making (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

 

Revealing another prejudice - the idea that gay people will automatically be inclined to sue, and likewise that they're somehow responsible for an employer's fear that they'll sue.

Any excuse to denigrate us, I guess.

 

ROFL! (that's really all this deserves)

 

Does that however mean that gay people generally speaking would be disposed toward abusing the system?

Should we not protect them (or any other group) from undue discrimination based on the potential for some people to abuse the system?

 

No, its because the one making allegations is within a protected class. For instance if I and a gay guy both get fired. I, overhearing comments by my boss about my long hair, believe its because he doesnt like my long hair. The gay guy, overhearing comments by his boss about his sexuality, believes it is because he is homosexual. I have no case. He has a case, the courts will presume it is motivated by discrimination against gays and employer will have the burden of showing that it was nor discrimination.

Just the first thing I see from a google search.

Generally to bring a claim for discrimination, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case for discrimination by producing evidence that he or she is in a class protected from discrimination, that he or she was performing his or her job competently but was discriminated against (including but not limited to termination, demotion, denial of benefits, etc.), and some other circumstance suggesting discriminatory motive. Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc., (2005) 135 Cal. App. 4th 1088, 1097. This showing creates a presumption of discrimination, which shifts the burden of producing evidence to the employer.
http://www.losangelesemployeelawyer.com/lawyer-attorney-1650868.html

 

You want to get married and have the same rights as everyone else? Well that is fine by me but you and I are both men (I f you are a woman I am sorry bout that) and if it came to a quota I would not keep my job. That is the way it is. Make no mistake I have no ACLU or anything. Hell I am out of a job.

That is just how it is.

 

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

 

Now please understand my rage. Read above. This is why I support DOMA. Precedents.

 

Marriage has been well defined and codified into our laws for hundreds of years. What seem to be pretty clear is that tens of thousands of people are having delusions that a right of gay people to enter into a (same sex) contract of marriage was somehow codified into law one hundred and fifty years ago, and yet somehow, this oversite, this obvious violation of one's Constitutional and civil rights, went completely unnoticed until recently.

 

honestly; YES

pleasantly surprised I might add and reps sent

there seems to be a growing theme about govt over-reach

 

That's crazy. Such oversights of what it means to be equal under the law, of obvious violations of one's constitutional and civil rights, have never happened before.

​

 

denying of same sex marriage was not codified into law until the 1970's.

And, the oversite, and obvious violation of ones constitutional and civil rights went completely unnoticed, until black people were no longer considered property. until women could vote. until interracial marriage was legalized.

see where I'm going?

 

From your link:

 

Except that it hasn't. It was not explicilty defined at the state level until the 1970s - and that was in response to same-sex couples trying to obtain legal marriage recognition.

Marriage wasn't explicitly defined in federal law until 1996 - and that also was in response to same-sex couples trying to obtain legally recognized marriages.

Yet above you falsely claimed it had been well defined and codified. That's not remotely the same thing as "seemed to be pretty clear". Obviously the law hasn't been clear.

No one is laboring under any such delusion. They're contesting the idea that they're not equal citizens with an equal right to marriage. They'd be doing so whether or not the law had been more explicit. The law evolves as society evolves.

Welcome to 2012.

 

And in my state people can be fired for no reason other than their employer hating gay people. So I'd be out of a job in that situation were it not for protections at the local level - protections which my state's governor and our legislature are trying to take away.

So am I supposed to boo hoo for you? Don't hold your breath.

 

No that is not right either but you can not legislate equality without knocking someone else down.

 

So in your book Discrimination > Equality. That is just beyond offensive. It's also a bunch of bullpucky. The person who discriminates out of bigotry is the one damaging to society, not the person who is just living their life as an equal citizen. The discriminator knocks himself down, and takes other people with him.

Disgusting.

 

Where the white supremacists knocked down by african americans gaining equality.

If they were...does that matter? I don't believe it does.

Where misogynists knocked down when women gained the right to own property? Or the right to vote?

If they were....does that matter? I don't believe it does.