Is DOMA Unconstitutional?

It has happened:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf

and does happen:

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/court_revives_reverse-discrimi.html

There is a bunch of this out there. Now you want me to fear (*)(*)(*)(*) will get jobs before I do.

Do notice there were the city's issues not the black people causing issues. This is what happens when you give special protections. Whites stop hiring the most qualified (black white or whatever) for fear of being sued because the queers did not get their special entitlement for being funky butt lovers.

So in my book Equality = Equality in yours Discrimination > Equality where employment is concerned.

EDIT: I want to qualify something. I do not care if you or anyone else is gay. I have always supported gay rights as it pertains to equality. I have had gay friends and there were no issues but the line has to be drawn when you want more than just equality. If the gays/lesbians would not seek equal protection which is actually discrimination in many cases I would march with you in support of this but as I said many times it is the precedent not the DOMA I have issue with.

 

Did you somehow miss the part about the court saying that the city couldn't practice such reverse discrimination? Seriously, you're using a case in which discrimination lost to equality in order to argue against equality. Affirmative action and quotas are not equality.

My fingers are nearly 'speechless' at this point.

Projection. You are in no position to say what I do or do not want. Your fears are your own to deal with, they are not something I desire, and not anything of my making.

No, this is what happens when public officials misapply the law. You are again attempting to use the abuses of affirmative action to argue against protecting people from undue discrimination. Learn already that they aren't the same thing. Or choose to be ignorant of the facts and therefore bigoted in your opinions.

"(*)(*)(*)(*)"? "Queers"? "Funky Butt Lovers"? If you want to have an adult conversation on the topic, then lose the juvenile, inflammatory, insulting language that betrays your rank prejudice.

Or continue and see exactly what you reap from it.

Not at all. You are having a tantrum about affirmative action, which isn't the same thing as anti-discrimination laws. My state does protect some people through anti-discrimination law (though not gay people). My state has also banned affirmative action. You thus cannot reasonably argue that anti-discrimination laws produce an affirmative action law result. They're different laws that deal with different things.

But then I suppose it's a bit much for me to expect reasonableness from someone who calls gay people "queers" and "funky butt lovers" with an obviously derogatory intent.

The existence of your alleged gay friends does not improve your arguments or shield them from due criticism.

Your statements here are at odds with the namecalling you engaged in earlier. I'm forced to conclude that the additional paragraph is not sincere, and merely offered as an attempt to cover your ass and/or feel better about yourself.

In other words, you're not fooling anyone but yourself with this BS.

Well, I frankly don't think your support is worth anyone trying to convince you to see the errors in your thinking on these issues.

I'm not persuaded that you view us as your equals or are capable of treating us as your equals.

 

The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments abolished slavery, gave citizenship and voting rights to those former slaves and their children. In spite of other Civil Rights Laws passed by republicans to enforce those amendments, the democrats did in fact ignore them and wrote many Jim Crow laws to stifle and repress Blacks.

None of those amendments mention marriage, or the right of men to marry men, nor women to marry women.

Your comparison also diminishes the experience of Blacks and is racially insensitive.

Simply untrue.

While the above is not American law, I provide it as proof of the understanding and definition of marriage. As it is understood today, so too in that time, that marriage was and is defined and understood to be that of a union between a man and a woman.

Here is a sample of how the laws for marriage were in fact defined. This is the law for the State of Virginia which was passed in 1792:

If you check the link, you will find many restrictions as to who can marry whom. Clearly, it was not permissible for a man to marry a man, nor a woman to marry a woman. The fact that no such union ever took place in any state in history is clearly indicative of the underlying restrictions.

I have sufficiently rebuked you above. You are clearly misinformed or simply mistaken.

They are contesting the idea that they are not allowed to redefine the word marriage. No one is being denied the right to marry. They have just as much right to enter into a marriage as anyone else. They do not have a right to enter into an unlawful marriage such as one between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or a mother and a son, or a father and a daughter, ect.

 

1. Are you implying that homosexual people (in America) aren't denied marriage to the person most compatible with them?

2. Do you really think that homosexual people should NOT petition and fight FOR the right to legally marry a person of the same sex?

3. Do you fathom (at all) that the LEGAL definition of "marriage" MUST be changed, in order that homosexual couples would be allowed to marry (legally)?

Be certain, that right about now... homosexual people DO have cause to be literally INTOLERANT of the kinds of thoughts you expressed above. No one and no group of human beings should/will put up with unnecessary persecution or oppression for ALL time. Sooner or later, they will fight back OR at least advocate for change.

 

1. I am implying that they are not barred from marriage.
2. Yes, I do think that homosexual people should NOT petition or fight for a right that does not exist.
3. No. Words mean things. An orange is an orange. An apple is an apple. If I rename an apple an orange, confusion might ensue.
4. What persecution or oppression? The only thing persecuting homosexuals is the lack of medical care that should be afforded them for the pupose of psychological treatment of their mental defects which cause them to be attracted to the same sex.

 

Not barred from marriage? In the sense that they can't marry the partner of their choosing, a partner of the same sex? Or in the sense that they could marry someone of the opposite sex legally?

One is the truth and one is a silly tactic to distort the truth.

Why? Should blacks not have marched for their own equality? Should women have accepted not being able to own property or vote in popular elections.

Marriage would still me the same. A union between two committed individuals forming a family together.

Your opinion, which is not backed by psychology.

 

In the sense that marriage is between a man and a woman, they are not barred from marriage.

Comparing being Black to being gay is just improper and insulting to Blacks. Being gay is not a race.

A family is a mom and a dad. Changing the meaning of marriage and family is an stupid attempt of homosexuals to gain acceptance of their perversion as normal; a strategy to destroy the basic family structure; and an effort to destroy basic church doctrines and institutions by claiming discrimination of religious institutions. It is already happening. The Catholic church is no longer allowed to perform adoption services in the state of Mass. because of gays. How long before they start closing down churches for not marrying gay people?

Homosexuality was considered a mental illness until 40 years ago, when political correctness forced the medical professions to "redefine" homosexuality as a lifestyle choice. I'll never forget when a reporter was asking Surgeon General C. Everette Koop about gay sex practices and expected him to say they were perfectly normal. Instead he said that it was inherently and obviously unhealthy. Homosexuality is obviously not normal. To pretend otherwise is just harmful to families and the homosexual as well. If you are homosexual, stop kidding yourself. Seek treatment, there are cures out there.

 

What BS. If you can, prove that happened and have it backed by a reputable, credentialed expert in the field.

I see your opinions in this thread, and I know that is all that they are.

 

As a Black man, and knowing many others who are Black, I'd say that you've assumed too much. Even so, people reading this thread need to know that you are surely disagreed with.

Dr. MLK Jr.'s widow saw this in the proper way. (And eventually, many lawmakers, juries and judges will also.)

Yes... it is merely a matter of time before homosexual people possess the legal freedoms they are properly entitled to as human beings.

 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was a plaintiff in the lawsuit because the State could not provide equality under the law for legally married individuals because of DOMA. This was not "gay people" seeking "equal protection" but instead that has a mandatory requirement to provide equal protection under the law and DOMA prevented it.

Also noteable is that gays and lesbians are not seeking "affirmative action" which was correctly noted as being reverse discrimination to remedy prior discrimination against a class of people. Gays and lesbians do not seek affirmative action but instead are simply demanding equality. The inclusion of same-sex marriage under the law creates no discrimination against opposite-sex couples and does not in anyway infringe upon their Rights. Including same-sex marriage under the marriage laws is not an "affirmative action" which creates discrimination. It is an action that simply eliminates discrimination without imposing any discrimination of it's own.

 

Well said! Thank you!

 

I never said that it was what I said is that killing DOMA sets a precedent and could lead to it as the SC has already said that they can not be kept from protected class status. So if you would reread what I have been saying it might make more sense to ya.


Perriquine you appear to be in denial. I missed nothing and they did and people still do practice reverse discrimination out of ignorance and fear of the ACLU.

 

Right...they are only barred from marrying the person of their choice because of the gender of that individual.

Comparing one civil rights movement to a anther is neither insulting nor improper.

No one is changing the meaning of family? Wanna know why? Because everyone has a different meaning or idea for what makes a family.

As for marriage, times change, so do social institutions.

Moreover, homosexuality is normal and the church has no power of law. The catholic church stopped performing adoptions on its own after being told they couldn't discriminate against gays trying to adopt.

You're exaggerating quite a bit about churches and their place in the law as well as society.

Right, right. Political correctness.

More like research and case studies. Not to mention throwing out blatant bigotry from the annals of psychology.

What cure? Pray the gay away? Don't make me laugh.

 

Yeah, just abandon your claims like a cheap suit, move onto the next, and maybe nobody will notice.

 

Marriage was extended to homosexual couples only.
Read the laws.

 

Well except that he has confirmed that exception has been made for homosexual couples, only.
It would be the same thing as if after Loving vs Virginia government allows only marriages between Blacks and Whites but not between Whites and Asians or Blacks and Latinos.

 

laughably false. marriage was extended to 2 people of the same sex. their sexuality is not even a consideration. just like it's not a consideration when 2 people of the opposite sex marry.

 

Rahl put the silly idea into prerriquines head over a year ago. It is now his reality, and nothing will shake it loose. Ive asked them dozens of times for this law in the 70s they keep talking about, but neither of them can even respond.

 

In black and white. "man and wife"

Thats 1792, silly. Fascinating to see how your and perriquines ideology actually transforms your reality

 

It is B.S. from your side.
The whole basis of awarding special rights to homosexuals was discrimination.
That is why I am saying that those four judges were inherently stupid and primitive since they could not distinguish special rights from equal rights.

 

Which does not excuse bigotry or discrimination against people based on perceptions about their orientation.

 

I haven't abandoned anything. While you've found something to support your one assertion, you're doing so at the expense of the full context - namely that the employee still has the primary burden of persuasively supporting their claim.

 

It wasn't - re-read the court decisions.

 

And you wonder why? You seem to demand to be a victim.

It is called a self fulfilling prophecy. You and your kind have shoved your (*)(*)(*)(*) in the faces of people for so long that some of us have reached a point that we are sick of hearing you wine. Liberal trash always wants more. There are many gays out there who just want to be left to themselves. They are Gay and do not care if you know but they do not flaunt it with Gay pride.

I propose all hetero sexual white males (black guys you have one as well) have a Non-Gay White Male Pride Day. We can cry about things and demand things and force the government to make people put up with our deviant behavioral issues.