U.S. Asks Court to Dismiss Challenge to Marriage Law
J
marriage have known all along; there is no Constitutional provision for any
changes to what 'Mother Nature' intended. Gays and other weirdos demand
special rights but the people and the law say "No!". End of story.
http://www.newsmax.com/us/us_gay_marriage_benefits/2009/09/18/261940.html
U.S. Asks Court to Dismiss Challenge to Marriage Law
BOSTON -- The Justice Department on Friday asked a federal judge in
Boston to dismiss a lawsuit that claims a federal law defining marriage as a
union between a man and a woman is unconstitutional because it denies gay
couples access to federal benefits given to other married couples.
In court documents, the Justice Department makes it clear the Obama
administration thinks the law is discriminatory and should be repealed. But
the department said it was defending the statute because the law is
"constitutionally permissible."
The 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, bars federal
recognition of gay unions and denies gay couples access to pensions, health
insurance and other government benefits.
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
'You can't cheat an honest man' - W.C. Fields
IAAH
> The Obama administration believes what we supporters of traditional
> marriage have known all along; there is no Constitutional provision for any
> changes to what 'Mother Nature' intended. Gays and other weirdos demand
> special rights but the people and the law say "No!". End of story.
"Mother Nature" never had a voice or a say in what you call
"traditional" marriage - a term that is itself a falsehood,
since other forms of marriage have a much longer and more
established history.
You don't want gay people to be able to marry each other
because you don't like them. We get it.
J
"IAAH" <n...@email.exist> wrote in message
news:h91jb3$rvs$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Nothing could be further from the truth. I have always been an advocate of
gays leading a lifestyle that would result in a longer, healthier, and more
prosperous life. That doesn't sound like hatred to me. I oppose any assault
on traditional marriage because I don't believe in special rights being
granted to any particular group of people. Gays already have the right to
get married, just not to a member of the same sex. The same right that is
enjoyed by everyone else.
IAAH
Same sex marriage isn't a special right; that's a bunch of
crap to say that it is.
I remember that once upon a time, not so long ago, people
had the right to get married, as long as that other person
was the same race - that's exactly the same kind of bigotry
you defend.
Your 'defence' of marriage cannot be reasonably defended in
any intellectual fashion; and you have not defended it in
any such way. In fact, so far no argument against same sex
marriage has not been based on bigotry of some fashion, be
it ignorance or religious.
Syd
> The Obama administration believes what we supporters of traditional
> marriage have known all along; there is no Constitutional provision for any
> changes to what 'Mother Nature' intended. Gays and other weirdos demand
> special rights but the people and the law say "No!". End of story.
>
No.
The only ones demanding 'Special Rights' are you religious bigots.
PDW
Syd
> "IAAH" <n...@email.exist> wrote in message
>
> news:h91jb3$rvs$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >J wrote, On 9/18/09 11:25 PM:
> >> The Obama administration believes what we supporters of traditional
> >> marriage have known all along; there is no Constitutional provision for
> >> any changes to what 'Mother Nature' intended. Gays and other weirdos
> >> demand special rights but the people and the law say "No!". End of story.
>
> > "Mother Nature" never had a voice or a say in what you call "traditional"
> > marriage - a term that is itself a falsehood, since other forms of
> > marriage have a much longer and more established history.
>
> > You don't want gay people to be able to marry each other because you don't
> > like them. We get it.
>
> Nothing could be further from the truth. I have always been an advocate of
> gays leading a lifestyle that would result in a longer, healthier, and more
> prosperous life.
By demanding that they ignore how they are.
An unreasonable demand.
That doesn't sound like hatred to me.
Then your not listening, asshole
I oppose any assault
> on traditional marriage because I don't believe in special rights being
> granted to any particular group of people.
So, tell your buddies in the right-wing religious orgs to stop
demanding them.
Gays already have the right to
> get married, just not to a member of the same sex.
Then you are lying below.
The same right that is
> enjoyed by everyone else.
>
>
You are a liar, Junkie Young.
PDW
Ray Fischer
> The Obama administration believes
It's c aommon tactic for you nazi turds to lie about what other people
believe
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
W.T.S.
news:34u8g7....@news.alt.net...
> The Obama administration believes what we supporters of traditional
> marriage have known all along; there is no Constitutional provision for
> any changes to what 'Mother Nature' intended. Gays and other weirdos
> demand special rights but the people and the law say "No!". End of story.
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/us/us_gay_marriage_benefits/2009/09/18/261940.html
Sex, good. Pope, bad.
Dank 110100100
> In court documents, the Justice Department makes it clear the Obama
> administration thinks the law is discriminatory and should be repealed. But
> the department said it was defending the statute because the law is
> "constitutionally permissible."
The federal anti-marijuana law seems to be constitutionally
permissable, but that didn't stop Obama from issuing an executive
order to the Justice Department telling it to stop raids on cannabis
clubs in states with medical marijuana laws.
Barack Obama is a master politician, with the ability to convince just
about anyone that he supports their respective causes. Potheads are
convinced he supports marijuana legalization, and vote for him even
though he never promised any such thing. Gays are convinced he
supports same-sex marriage even though he is on record as opposing it,
and vote for him anyway.
Burea Rippy
Homosexuals don't want to marry they want to destroy the institution of
marriage with the objective being: the more immoral they can create in or
society the more "Normal" they will appear.
panam...@hotmail.com
the puddle of piss in front of his toilet:
>The Obama administration believes what we supporters of traditional
marriage
snip more crap
Okay, here's a suggestion.
It's time to separate, once and for all, and for all eternity the co-
operative regulation of coupling that exists between religious cults
and secular government. From now on, any religious shaman is no longer
allowed to legally "marry" couples. After the religio-social ceremony,
there must be an official governmental ceremony. If you wish to keep
people from calling the secular pairing a "marriage", so be it. I'd
rather have the practical rewards from a "civil union". The words are
not important. The rights *are*. It scares me that even though in
these enlightened times, me & my girlfriend can live in the same
house, sleep in the same hotel room, and pool our incomes into a
common bank account...there are still people that wouldn't let her
visit my hospital room because we're not "related", or let her inherit
my stuff if I should die.
I can only imagine how much worse that fear must be for the
homosexuals I know.
It's time to get these moronic old cults *out* of the marriage
business. Once and for all.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Ray Fischer
IAAH
Ah, yes. A perfect example of that destruction can be seen
in Canada, where absolutely nobody gets married anymore
because it's been utterly destroyed.
No, wait a sec, that's not what happened. What happened is
that at some point you turned into a retard.
The Chief Instigator
...which is pretty funny, coming from an inborn anonymous coward that would
rather kill itself than actually own up to a real name. Maybe you'll figure
out how to handle WebTV some day. (Today obviously ain't your day.)
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Manitoba 3, Houston 1 (May 25: Moose advance, 4-2)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 2 at Manitoba, 7:35
Dionisio
> The Obama administration believes what we supporters of traditional
> marriage have known all along; there is no Constitutional provision for any
> changes to what 'Mother Nature' intended. Gays and other weirdos demand
> special rights but the people and the law say "No!". End of story.
I see that time has not dulled your notable sense of irony.
A.P.H.'s most devout "Christian" appealing to the wisdom of the Pagan "Mother Nature."
> BOSTON -- The Justice Department on Friday asked a federal judge in
> Boston to dismiss a lawsuit that claims a federal law defining marriage as a
> union between a man and a woman is unconstitutional because it denies gay
> couples access to federal benefits given to other married couples.
How *dare* the government treat all men as equal!
LOL!
> In court documents, the Justice Department makes it clear the Obama
> administration thinks the law is discriminatory and should be repealed. But
> the department said it was defending the statute because the law is
> "constitutionally permissible."
Just like slavery was.
Queue one for the unemployment line...
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
"I thought the power was off in the galley...?"
"I used a hand phaser and *zap* – hot coffee."
-- McCoy and Yeoman Rand
(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)
Dionisio
> Barack Obama is a master politician, with the ability to convince just
> about anyone that he supports their respective causes.
Ronny Ray-gun got the religious to think that he supported marriage, even whilst is was a
known fact that he was an adulterer.
Politicians prey on people. Simple fact.
They need to or else they don't get elected.
The question is what is the electorate willing to allow?
There is a line in the sand, somewhere. Cross it and die. Dance on it and you'll get 50% + 1.
That is politics.
Protecting the folks you truly represent from the rest of the nation; By preying on the
insecurities which the political parties consistently milk: Rich vs poor. Capitalist vs
Socialist. Moral as opposed to immoral.
And all the while pretending that that is not what one is doing... That's politics.
This time we got a dreamer.
I was terrified we'd get the man whom deliberately partook in actions that facilitated the
financial crisis. Oh, and the bimbo who would replace him upon his heart attack. (Mrs. "I
can see Russia despite the mountains and the curvature of the Earth.")
In the battle of Dreamer vs Establishment, sometimes the Dreamer wins.
We'll see whether it was worth it or not.
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
If you cook a cow, it turns into "beef." Pop a pig in the oven and you've got "pork."
Serving up some deer? No you're not! That's "venison." Chow down on some sheep and you're
eating "mutton," or "lamb." But, if you plunk a chicken into a deep fryer, it remains
"chicken." Why?