It's this simple, so quit wasting my time media

Do the federal rights cease to exist when a couple legally married in Massachusetts move to Texas? I don't think they do.

 

No. Not sure of your point. Fed is treating citizens from Texas and Mass the same, while you think the fed should treat them differently, depending on what state they are from.

 

How so? The federal benefits are accessible to all citizens of the United States without DOMA in place. A same-sex couple from Texas can travel up to Iowa, marry in that jurisdiction, and they will still be married in the eyes of the federal government when they go home.

The only inequity is that their own state refuses to recognise it - nothing to do with the federal government though.

 

No, only married couples are entitled to the benefits, and in your above scenario the federal government would not recognize a gay couple from Texas married in texas. Treating the couple from Texas, differently than the couple married in Iowa. AS OPPOSED to treating them the same as they do now under DOMA.

 

?? A gay couple in Texas cannot marry in Texas, so the government wouldn't be treating any marriages differently. Only state law treats them differently. A gay couple from Texas are just as able to obtain the federal benefits as a gay couple from any of the 9 SSM states.

 

Sure they can. I attended a wedding at our local church of christ of two gay guys. From what I hear a somewhat regular occurence at that church. Under DOMA they are treated by the federal government identically to the couple from Iowa, while you wanted them treated differently by the federal government without DOMA

 

Religious marriage and legal marriage, two different things. The point is a gay couple in Texas is no less able to attain federal rights than a gay couple in Iowa. The issue is how the state treats them, not the federal government.

 

Nope, DOMA is about how the Fed treats them.

 

It is about the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States; not your special pleading.

 

Yep, I wasn't disputing that. I was saying in the absence of DOMA, the only unequal treatment is imposed by the states. But every gay couple in America can attain the federal benefits if they marry where it is legal.

 

The operative word being "IN" the several states.

 

That was only relevant during the Articles of Confederation and no longer relevant since our new and federal Constitution was ratified with that choice of law whenever their should be any conflict of laws for the citizenry of the Union.

 

Share what I have been sharing for years instead of pushing one sided bias deceptions on the public and then see how they vote.

thousands of years prove that marriage was created for and in honor of the unity of the one sexual orientation to which we owe our existence and that sexual orientation is quite obviously heterosexuality,

Even heterosexual couples who can't have children doesn't disprespect that marriage was created for and in hnor of heterosexual unions.

share that with the public and see how they vote. Now we all know why homosexual activists have been discriminating me for years, following me around from site to site having me banned (making up lies about me calling me a hater, a homophobe, a sicko, etc.) because they don't want what I share to become public knowledge because when the public does it's game over.

love

/ David

 

The public disagrees with you:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx

 

Share that with the public and find out what happens instead of desperately scrambling to make what is into what you would rather it be.

Facts aren't agreed upon, they are either recognized or ignored

love

/ David

 

Well, it doesn't get more public than a public opinion poll published for the public to see. I backed my claim with evidence, you have not.

 

Facts are not agreed upon, they are either recognized or ignored. Mainstream what i share on mainstream media and see what happens. Eventually it will happen.

love

/ David

 

One more time, Gallup is about as respected and public as polls get. I don't even know what it is that you "share", other than misinformation backed by nothing. If what you say is true, then prove it.

And what exactly, is going to happen?

 

Fact in quotes of which you are obviously not able to contest with so much as a trace of validity:

"thousands of years prove that marriage was created for and in honor of the unity of the one sexual orientation to which we owe our existence and that sexual orientation is quite obviously heterosexuality,

Even heterosexual couples who can't have children doesn't disrespect that marriage was created for and in honor of heterosexual unions."

share that with the public and see how they vote. Now we all know why homosexual activists have been discriminating me for years, following me around from site to site having me banned (making up lies about me calling me a hater, a homophobe, a sicko, etc.) because they don't want what I share to become public knowledge because when the public does it's game over.

What is going to happen you ask, marriage will be restored to a respectable state in which it was created for and in honor of = heterosexual unions. And your ignorance towards fact is only revealing you for deliberately exemplifying your ignorance towards fact. Do you actually think you're fooling anyone but yourself? Your transparency is certainly not pulling the wool over my eyes.

love

/ David

 

And what is your source for that quote? You need to provide a valid source, or you are breaking the rules of the forum if you claim that as fact.

 

You think that is bad, practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy sometimes get me banned for resorting to the fewest fallacies.

 

Native American tribes had same-sex relationships, which were even viewed as holy.
http://www.firstpeople.us/articles/the-two-spirit-people-of-indigenous-north-americans.html

Homosexuals were defined as "two-spirit" people, having both spirits of a man and a woman in them. They were seen as doubly blessed, honored for having two spirits, and seen as more gifted than the typical male or female.

So no, you are wrong, unless by "thousands of years of history" you mean "the last 200 years in the United States."

 

This occured to me over the weekend.
A straight couple almost immediately decides they want to have sex. The most moral and religious couples wait until a marriage authorized by both their church and country permits them to do so. Having sex with each other reinforces the love and friendship.
homosexuals also want to have sex to cement their love and friendship and argue they should have that same happiness. Suppose the Supreme Court goes that far and makes gay marriage legal. Happiness and sex then become the definition of marriage.
Suppose a woman has lost all interest in sex after many years of marriage. The man is permitted to divorce her, but loves her as much as ever. How can he be denied the right to marry an additional wife who wants sex, so his marriage is full?
Consider the case of a bisexual. A bisexual male is permitted to marry a woman he loves and wants sex with but not a man. As he marries he takes an oath not to cheat. Since he's having sex with his wife he doesn't need another woman, but he becomes half a monk as far as men are concerned. Surely he should be allowed to marry both a man and a woman so he can find fulfillment instead of half-filment.
The argument against gay marriage and for straight marriage is thaty children are better off with two parents of opposite genders. This is true. However the parents need to be a part of the child's life, preferably for many hours each week. The reality is different. Many children rarely see their fathers and see their mothers less than they should because both need to work. A child is best off if at least one parent is at his disposal at all times. Therefore if a man with children had at least two wives (or a woman two husbands) one of them could be a homemaker and the child would have a parent home almost continuously.
Therefore any decision based on love, sex or child-rearing has to endorse polygamy or real discrimination will be taking place.
Can the court make a ruling that in no way cites love, sex or child-rearing as a consideration?

 

these are the same people who traded Manhattan for some beads..... Taking morality lessons from groups that cannibalized is not high on my list

 

The Indians didnt view them as the same sex.