Taxpayers On The Hook For $1.5 Million To Defend Law Barring Same-Sex Marriage

...I'm an atheist that was raised with a christian world view...I don't believe in god but I still follow more then one religious tradition, marriage being one of them...I agree, the gays and other liberal freaks HATE RELIGION but they are fighting for the right to partake in a religious ceremony...go figure...



Kabuki Joe

 

They're (*)(*)(*)(*)ing weird.

 

Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Yea Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Yea Roth (R-DE), Yea
Florida: Graham (D-FL), Yea
Georgia Yea Nunn (D-GA), Yea
Iowa: Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Kentucky: Ford (D-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Breaux (D-LA), Yea Johnston (D-LA), Yea
Maryland: Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Yea
Montana: Baucus (D-MT)
Nevada: Bryan (D-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Jersey: Bradley (D-NJ), Yea Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Glenn (D-OH), Yea
South Carolina: Hollings (D-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin: Kohl (D-WI), Yea


These are all the DEMOCRATIC senators who voted for DOMA

31 DEMOCRATS voted for DOMA.

 

Quite a few. Then one signed it into law, as the president does.

 

But all the libs are blaming the Republicans.

 

No, they are fighting for legal parity -- which IS a constitutionally-guaranteed right. Nobody has a right to participate in a particular ceremony. But we all, as citizens, are equal under the law, presumably. Well, that's what the Constitution says anyway, but of course most of us consider that to be toilet paper these days.

 

Ah, well that's where we disagree. For you it's the homos, for me it's the darkies -- especially the Asians. Good god they're annoying with all that ching chong bing bong crap.

 

How exactly? Be specific. None of the laws you reference ever mention homosexuality anywhere.

 

Well at least Darkies and Asians have actually contributed stuff to man kind.

All gays have done was....

I'll let you know when I'll figure out what they have done.

 

They do have equal protection under the law. Everyone has individual rights. You don't get special rights simply because you decide to become married.

 

Sure you do. THere are 1400 rights that come with marriage.

 

More like entitlements.

 

naaa...its called the law.

 

Your ignorance of the law is impressive.

 

...and society expects progeny for them.

That's the grand bargain.

 

Asians are darkies. Big deal, who needs chopsticks?

 

Entitlements to which all citizens are guaranteed by law.

 

Your ignorance of the law, constitution and simple terms are not.

 

All citizens are guaranteed those benefits...When they get married. To call it a right is to merely imply that everyone gets it regardless of martial status.

There is a difference between a "Right" and a "Benefit." You should know it.

 

Oh so now we're calling them benefits? Make up your mind. Regardless of what you feel like calling them, all citizens are guaranteed equal access to the civic franchise. Disenfranchising certain citizens on discriminatory criteria is unconstitutional and frankly Un-American.

 

Entitlements are benefits.

All laws discriminate in one way or another. That's specifically what benefits do. All citizens are guaranteed these benefits when they meet requirements. To assume that they are guaranteed regardless of status is incorrect. When people become married they can obtain certain economic and legal benefits. They're not "rights" exclusive only to straight people.

 

No. An entitlement is a guarantee of access to a benefit.

When there is a compelling state interest. In the case of marriage statutes, the discrimination is arbitrary. IOW, there is no compelling state interest such that government may discriminate as regards gender.

But the requirements are arbitrary -- the 14th Amendment is clear on this.

Again, your ignorance of the Constitution is impressive.

The state can not use arbitrary criteria to determine eligibility, which is what it does when it stipulates gender in the statutes.

 

In other words, the same thing in essence of the topic we are discussing.

No one is discriminating based on gender for this issue as being gay is not a gender. It's a behavior.

14th amendment states the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. It also states that everyone has equal protection under the law. Don't think that covers payment definitions or deductible or other economic benefits which comes with being married.

And yet you make it so easy for me to smack down your weak arguments.

Again, that's not what it's doing. When you become married you have economic benefits which comes with being married. You have to be "married" to receive them. It had nothing to do with gender. It's no different from being unemployed and being eligible for unemployment benefits. You have to be "unemployed" to receive them.

Try again.

 

The taxpayers shouldn't be required to fork out anything to defend the Marriage Act or to oppose it. If the taxpayers wish to help out, they should be able to voluntarily donate money without it being taken from them.

What about those people who support same sex marriage? Is it fair to take their taxes to oppose it? Its like taking the taxes of an anti abortionist to defend pro choice laws, and vice versa. It isn't fair.

 

Perhaps things work a little differently in Australia. But the scenario you laid out above would not happen in the U.S. -- for several reasons.