A Cynical Move on DOMA
Michael Ejercito
constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA in federal court, affecting two
pending cases within the Second Circuit and an appeal before the First
Circuit. He argues that homosexuals are entitled to heightened
scrutiny in federal equal protection claims, thus abandoning a legal
argument used by the U.S. Department of Justice since the Carter
administration.
It would be one thing if EVERY federal court to decide the issue of
DOMA's constitutionality struck it down, or if EVERY appellate court
to consider the level of scrutiny under which homosexuals are entitled
were to rule that heightened scrutiny is appropriate.
But that is not the case. DOMA was upheld in Wilson v. Ake, 354
F.Supp.2d 1298 (MDFL 2005) AND In Re Kandu, 03-51312 (B.R.W.D.WA
2004 ), and Hunt v. Ake, 804-CV-1852 (MDFL 2005)
And the courts have consistently held that equal protection claims
on the basis of homosexuality merits only rational basis review. E.g.,
See Cook v. Gates , 528 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2008) Thomasson v. Perry ,
80 F.3d 915 (4th Cir. 1996), Ben-Shalom v. Marsh, 881 F.2d 454 (7th
Cir.1989), High Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance
Office, 895 F.2d 535 (9th Cir. 1990), Woodward v. United States, 871 F.
2d 1068, 1076 (Fed.Cir.1989), Steffan v. Perry, 41 F.3d 677 (D.C. Cir.
1994)
Thus, he is going against the collective judgment of previous
administrations and the courts.
Furthermore, this would not make DOMA invalid throughout the entire
country, for trial courts can only determine the rights and duties of
the litigants. Thus, in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and
Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services, the
injunction only applies to the acts of the defendants (the United
States and its officials) against the named plaintiffs.
And this certainly does have an impact. If the First Circuit were
to strike down DOMA on the merits, it would be controlling law, not
just for the plaintiffs and defendants, but for EVERYONE in the entire
circuit, which, at a minimum, would most likely invalidate marriage
laws in Maine and Rhode Island. If it merely dismissed the appeal
because the government is not contesting DOMA, then the marriage laws
in Rhode Island and Maine would remain valid under the ruling. And
adverse rulings in those cases in the Second Circuit would be limited
to the plaintiffs and defendants, and will not affect marriage laws in
New York should the government refuse to appeal.
One might view this as a cynical attempt to prevent an appellate
court ruling which would not only strike down DOMA but state same-sex
"marriage" bans within the circuit. And such a thing is not
unprecedented. In Florida Department of Children and Families v.
Adoption of X.X.G. and N.R.G., the Florida Third District Court of
Appeal had struck down a Florida law banning homosexuals from adopting
children. Attorney General Bill McCollum, hardly a defender of gay
rights, refused to appeal. And the reason for this is that the ruling
only establishes precedent within the Third District (as well as the
specific litigants), while a Florida Supreme Court ruling could
invalidate the law statewide. The adoption ban could still be enforced
outside the Third District. And by keeping DOMA out of the appellate
courts, same-sex "marriage" bans could still be enforced within those
circuits.
Michael
Phlip
> Just recently, President Barack Obama will no longer defend the
> constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA in federal court, affecting two
> pending cases within the Second Circuit and an appeal before the First
> Circuit. He argues that homosexuals are entitled to heightened
> scrutiny in federal equal protection claims, thus abandoning a legal
> argument used by the U.S. Department of Justice since the Carter
> administration.
Don't worry, hatefag. you can still hate on Mexicans & Muslims...
Michael Ejercito
Michael
Lee Curtis
It can.
Remember miscegination?
Tom Fitzpatrick
Definitions change dude. Get a grip.
Phlip
>
> > Michael
>
> Definitions change dude. Get a grip.
Furtherless, we are back to the talking point "no definition of
marriage has ever been traditional. The Bible advocates keeping a
harem, ancient Egypt had the gay marriage, etc. etc. etc."
However, when we ask what rights gays take from straights by getting
married, we are usually treated to a list of innocent wingnuts who
were punished for hating on gays.
Hate.
David Hartung
>>> So then the definition of marriage constitutes hate?
>>
>>> Michael
>>
>> Definitions change dude. Get a grip.
>
> Furtherless, we are back to the talking point "no definition of
> marriage has ever been traditional. The Bible advocates keeping a
> harem, ancient Egypt had the gay marriage, etc. etc. etc."
More unsupported an dishonest claims.
Phlip
> >> Definitions change dude. Get a grip.
>
> > Furtherless, we are back to the talking point "no definition of
> > marriage has ever been traditional. The Bible advocates keeping a
> > harem, ancient Egypt had the gay marriage, etc. etc. etc."
>
> More unsupported an dishonest claims.
The Bible has dozens of examples of tribal leaders with multiple
wives. That explains the armies of sons!
And an Egyptian pharaoh married his nephew...
JLS
[...]> So then the definition of marriage constitutes hate?
>
> Michael
This is why we all got a great laugh when Gail Weasel called you
"Michael Estupido."
BTW, my inbred cracker, if you don't approve of gay marriage, don't
have one.
David Hartung
Yes, there are several examples of multiple wives in the Old Testament,
and there are even provisions in the Old Testament law addressing
polygamous marriage, but nowhere does the Bible teach that this polygamy
is desirable or right. At best, it was tolerated.
You still have not supported your assertion that the Bible "advocates"
the keeping of harems.
> And an Egyptian pharaoh married his nephew...
Still no support.
Care to try again?
wy
Well, just simply tolerating multiple wives is in itself advocating
keeping harems. Otherwise, something would've been done about it, no?
Michael Ejercito
wrote:
Michael
Michael Ejercito
The relationship between “husband and wife” is “founded in nature,
but modified by civil society: the one directing man to continue and
multiply his species, the other prescribing the manner in which that
natural impulse must be confined and regulated.” 1 William Blackstone,
Commentaries *410.
The relationship between "parent and child" is “consequential to
that of marriage, being its principal end and design: it is by virtue
of this relation that infants are protected, maintained, and
educated.” Id.; see also id. *35 (“the establishment of marriage in
all civilized states is built on this natural obligation of the father
to provide for his children”
Marriage is “is made by a voluntary compact between man and woman.”
John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government § 78 (1690)
Marriage is the “act of uniting a man and woman for life.” Samuel
Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (1755)
Marriage “was instituted … for the purpose of preventing the
promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,
and for securing the maintenance and education of children” Noah
Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (1st ed.
1828)
Marriage is a “ contract, made in due form of law, by which a man
and woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their
joint lives, and to discharge towards each other the duties imposed by
law on the relation of husband and wife.” John Bouvier, A Law
Dictionary Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States
105 (1868)
"For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and
necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit
to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the Union, than that
which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as
consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one
woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that
is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that
reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in
social and political improvement. " Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 at
45 (1885)
So much hate indeed.
Michael
Ray Fischer
> Just recently, President Barack Obama will no longer defend the
>constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA in federal court, affecting two
>pending cases within the Second Circuit and an appeal before the First
>Circuit.
Good. There is no justification for rabid bigotry.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
rfis...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
Michael Ejercito
> Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Just recently, President Barack Obama will no longer defend the
> >constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA in federal court, affecting two
> >pending cases within the Second Circuit and an appeal before the First
> >Circuit.
>
> Good. There is no justification for rabid bigotry.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
Then Sir William Blackstone, John Locke, Samuel Johnson, Noah
Webster, John Bouvier, and Thomas Stanley Matthews must have been
bigots.
Michael
Lee Curtis
What is it to you if people you don't even know
choose to get married, even if they ARE a same sex?
Does that harm you in some way?
David Hartung
The male/female marriage has always been the basic building block of
society. You can argue all you wish, but there is simply no basis in
history or in law for a same sex marriage, let alone families headed by
a same sex couple. Western law has, until recently, defined marriage as
one woman and one man. This historical definition actually kept Utah out
of the union until they outlawed polygamy.
Due to the historic nature of marriage, same sex marriage should not be
granted the sanction of our legal system until those who support it,
make their case that such relationships constitute a valid marriage. As
yet, this has not been done.
Michael Ejercito
What they propose is not a marriage.
Michael
Lee Curtis
So has polytheism, slavery and child labor. That
doesn't mean we are obligated to continue them.
> You can argue all you wish, but there is simply no basis in
> history or in law for a same sex marriage, let alone families headed
> by a same sex couple.
Mary Cheney and Heather Poe are raising their
daughter together as a family. What is wrong with
that?
> Western law has, until recently, defined
> marriage as one woman and one man. This historical definition
> actually kept Utah out of the union until they outlawed polygamy.
>
> Due to the historic nature of marriage, same sex marriage should not
> be granted the sanction of our legal system until those who support
> it, make their case that such relationships constitute a valid
> marriage. As yet, this has not been done.
Racists used to make that *exact same argument*
against interracial marriages. And religious fundies
once deemed all marriages "outside the faith" as
invalid. In fact some religions still do. Look up
"honor killing".
1) Should all relationships be held "invalid" because
of groundless bigotry?
2) You still haven't shown any harm you have suffered
because people you don't even know got married.
David Hartung
While you have not demonstrated the advantage to the society in changing
a historic standard.
David Hartung
The dirty little secret, and one which I have long expected the same sex
crowd to bring up, is that it is not they who are destroying marriage.
It is the heterosexuals who see marriage as a matter of convenience, and
not the life long commitment it is meant to be.
wy
And you haven't demonstrated what real need there was for DOMA when
society has managed to survive and function quite well without it for
centuries and millennia.
Michael Ejercito
Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
property rights.
Of course, we have opposite-sex couples who remain married all
their lives, even if it means seventy plus years of marriage, to
counter them.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 12:17:37 -0800 (PST), Michael Ejercito
> opposite sex couples.
>
> Issuing a "marriage contract" (license) is by definition "marriage"
And that contract could be given to same-sex couples, regardless of
the sexual orientation of the partners, under a different name.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
Why do you claim that the reason that the Western civilizational
traditional definition of marriage was adopted because of bigotry?
>
> 2) You still haven't shown any harm you have suffered
> because people you don't even know got married.
They are not harmed if society refuses to redefine marriage, or
uses another word to describe their unions.
Michael
Ray Fischer
>On 03/03/2011 01:43 PM, Lee Curtis wrote:
>> What is it to you if people you don't even know
>> choose to get married, even if they ARE a same sex?
>> Does that harm you in some way?
>
>The male/female marriage has always been the basic building block of
>society.
A complete lie, of course. There have been all manner of "marriage"
over the centuries, including gay marriage, polygamy, tree marriage,
political marriage, etc.
But of course rightard bigots cannot argue their case without lying
because they are, at heart, anti-american bigots.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
Ray Fischer
>On Mar 2, 10:26 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Just recently, President Barack Obama will no longer defend the
>> >constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA in federal court, affecting two
>> >pending cases within the Second Circuit and an appeal before the First
>> >Circuit.
>>
>> Good. There is no justification for rabid bigotry.
>
>Webster, John Bouvier, and Thomas Stanley Matthews must have been
>bigots.
Don't forget yourself, bigot. You have no justification for your
bigoted and unAmerican hate.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
Falstaff
Definitions change. In their era "broadcast" was a fishing term and
monitor was only a verb. Terms charge, get used to it.
Lee Curtis
And then there are the ludicrous, but straight",
marriages of Britney Spears, Michael Jackson, Dennis
Rodmand and Jennifer Lopez.
Talk about making a mockery of the institution....
Lee Curtis
Separate but equal?
Lee Curtis
> On Mar 3, 11:43 am, "Lee Curtis" <cleet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Michael Ejercito wrote:
> > > On Mar 2, 9:59 am, Tom Fitzpatrick <tom.fitzpatrick2...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mar 1, 7:42 pm, Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > So then the definition of marriage constitutes hate?
> >
> > > > > Michael
> >
> > > > Definitions change dude. Get a grip.
> >
> > > I see no good reason to change the definition.
> >
> > What is it to you if people you don't even know
> > choose to get married, even if they ARE a same sex?
> > Does that harm you in some way?
> It is nothing to me if they enter into a lifelong committed union.
That wasn't the question. What harm is it to
you if gays you don't even know get married?
>
> What they propose is not a marriage.
Tell that to the conservatives who fight like
hell to make sure married gays STAY married.
Gay Divorce? Texas Says No
DALLAS — After the joy of a wedding and the adoption
of a baby came arguments that couldn't be resolved,
leading Angelique Naylor to file for divorce. That
left her fighting both the woman she married in
Massachusetts and the state of Texas, which says a
union granted in a state where same-sex marriage is
legal can't be dissolved with a divorce in a state
where it's not.
A judge in Austin granted the divorce, but Texas
Attorney General Greg Abbott is appealing the decision.
He also is appealing a divorce granted to a gay couple
in Dallas, saying protecting the "traditional definition
of marriage" means doing the same for divorce.
Lee Curtis
Well?
> >
> >
> >
> >> Western law has, until recently, defined
> > > marriage as one woman and one man. This historical definition
> > > actually kept Utah out of the union until they outlawed polygamy.
> > >
> > > Due to the historic nature of marriage, same sex marriage should
> > > not be granted the sanction of our legal system until those who
> > > support it, make their case that such relationships constitute a
> > > valid marriage. As yet, this has not been done.
> >
> >
> > Racists used to make that *exact same argument*
> > against interracial marriages. And religious fundies
> > once deemed all marriages "outside the faith" as
> > invalid. In fact some religions still do. Look up
> > "honor killing".
> >
> > 1) Should all relationships be held "invalid" because
> > of groundless bigotry?
> >
> > 2) You still haven't shown any harm you have suffered
> > because people you don't even know got married.
>
> While you have not demonstrated the advantage to the society in
> changing a historic standard.
1) You don't see an advantage to gays quitting the
"promiscuous lifestyle" in favor of settling down
and getting married?
2) You still haven't shown any harm YOU have suffered
Michael Ejercito
> On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 18:40:06 -0600, David Hartung <david@hotmai*l.com>
> wrote:
>
> >While you have not demonstrated the advantage to the society in changing
> >a historic standard.
>
> a silly belief you have?
>
> Government policy is supposed to set up advantages to the entire
> society----like food inspection, enforcement of civil rights laws, etc
>
> It also is a good thing for society to elevate INDIVIDUAL rights to
> their maximum potential
>
> If a married hetero couple are CITIZENS and are protected by the
> myriad of Civil Liberties and Civil Rights accorded by law----why in
> fuck aren't TWO Citizens of ANY gender given that same right?
Because what they propose is not a marriage.
Why were not THREE people of ANY gender given that same right?
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 18:21:19 -0800 (PST), Michael Ejercito
>
> <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > The need for DOMA came from two court decisions- Baehr v. Lewin and
> >Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics.
>
>
> THere is no "need" to deny a citizen full protection of the law, full
> civil liberty and civil rights accorded to ALL citizens---no matter
> what state they reside.
They all had the same liberty to marry one person of the opposite
sex, just like the residents of the Utah Territory did back in 1879.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 2, 10:26 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Just recently, President Barack Obama will no longer defend the
> >> >constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA in federal court, affecting two
> >> >pending cases within the Second Circuit and an appeal before the First
> >> >Circuit.
>
> >> Good. There is no justification for rabid bigotry.
>
> > Then Sir William Blackstone, John Locke, Samuel Johnson, Noah
> >Webster, John Bouvier, and Thomas Stanley Matthews must have been
> >bigots.
>
> Don't forget yourself, bigot. You have no justification for your
> bigoted and unAmerican hate.
>
> --
Johnson, Noah
Webster, John Bouvier, and Thomas Stanley Matthews were bigots?
Michael
David Hartung
> Well?
Well what?
>>>> Western law has, until recently, defined
>>>> marriage as one woman and one man. This historical definition
>>>> actually kept Utah out of the union until they outlawed polygamy.
>>>>
>>>> Due to the historic nature of marriage, same sex marriage should
>>>> not be granted the sanction of our legal system until those who
>>>> support it, make their case that such relationships constitute a
>>>> valid marriage. As yet, this has not been done.
>>>
>>>
>>> Racists used to make that *exact same argument*
>>> against interracial marriages. And religious fundies
>>> once deemed all marriages "outside the faith" as
>>> invalid. In fact some religions still do. Look up
>>> "honor killing".
>>>
>>> 1) Should all relationships be held "invalid" because
>>> of groundless bigotry?
>>>
>>> 2) You still haven't shown any harm you have suffered
>>> because people you don't even know got married.
>>
>> While you have not demonstrated the advantage to the society in
>> changing a historic standard.
>
>
>
> 1) You don't see an advantage to gays quitting the
> "promiscuous lifestyle" in favor of settling down
> and getting married?
>
> 2) You still haven't shown any harm YOU have suffered
> because people you don't even know got married.
The burden of proof is not mine. The burden of proof is with those who
wish to change the law. It is your responsibility to demonstrate that
keeping the law the way it is will be injurious to our society.
As of this date, that burden has not been met.
Michael Ejercito
By the way, in the Naylor case you mentioned, the Texas 3rd Circuit
upheld the lower court on the basis that the state intervened too
late.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
Michael
Sid9
news:kLidnab5E_qBuezQ...@giganews.com...
> Well?
Well what?
.
.
.
===============================
sid9 sez:
The "law" was a meaningless exercise of RRR hubris.
It is self enforcing and requires NO action on the part of the federal
government.
===============================
_______________________________
Michael Ejercito
Michael
5922 Dead, 1065 since 1/20/09
Actually, at that's required is that it be shown that maintaining the law
does not serve the public interest.
--
Information has never been so free. Even in authoritarian countries
information networks are helping people discover new facts and making
governments more accountable.- US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
January 21, 2010
Michael Ejercito
wrote:
Michael
David Hartung
A good point Zepp.
If I understand correctly, you are speaking directly about the DOMA law,
while I was speaking of same sex marriage in general.
The homosexual community is using marriage as a part of their campaign
to gain societal acceptance. In the changing of marriage law, I believe
that those who wish to change these laws to legalize same sex marriage
have the burden to prove that not changing the law would be injurious. I
believe that this burden has not been met.
You are referring specifically to the DOMA law which is a recently
passed law, and which attempts to uphold the long standing, historical
societal position on marriage. In a sense, we are sayin gthe same thing,
although we are on opposite sides of the issue.
pyjamarama
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 10:40:49 -0600, "Lee Curtis" <cleet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Michael Ejercito wrote:
>
> >> On Mar 3, 4:19 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 12:17:37 -0800 (PST), Michael Ejercito
>
> >> > <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >On Mar 3, 11:43 am, "Lee Curtis" <cleet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >> Michael Ejercito wrote:
> >> > >> > I see no good reason to change the definition.
>
> >> > >> What is it to you if people you don't even know
> >> > >> choose to get married, even if they ARE a same sex?
> >> > >> Does that harm you in some way?
> >> > > It is nothing to me if they enter into a lifelong committed
> >> > > union.
>
> >> > > What they propose is not a marriage.
>
> >> > A contract is required by government to receive the same benefits of
> >> > opposite sex couples.
>
> >> > Issuing a "marriage contract" (license) is by definition "marriage"
> >> And that contract could be given to same-sex couples, regardless of
> >> the sexual orientation of the partners, under a different name.
>
> > Separate but equal?
>
>
'F'-bomb dropping homophobe Gary Roselles ....."is inherently
hypocritical"....
His prior comments on homosexuals include multiple, vein-popping, foam-
flecked hissings of the word 'f*ggot'...
His prior comments on blacks include these...
"Then why was you mother stupid enough to fuck all them black guys?" -
Gary 'yoorg' Roselles, racist prick
What the fuck would a dumb cocksucker like (Distinguished African-
American Scholar, Thomas) Sowell, who sits out at Stanford, never
having
worked a day in his Uncle Tom life, know anything?" -- Gary
Roselles
"Both are traitors to their race" -- Race Purist Gary Roselles on the
importance of Race Loyalty
"You actually think that placing blackskinned, white thinking people
is going to gain anything with real minorities?" -- Gary Roselles,
Racist
"Them brown niggers need to be taken out" -- Gary Roselles, Racist
"He (African-American scholar Thomas Sowell) goes against his own
kind." Race loyalist Gary Roselles, insisting once again that “them
blacks” should "stick
to their own kind"
"His appointment will bridge nothing. It's apparant he's being an
uncle tom to appease voters." -- White trash, racist asshole Gary
Roselles
slurs African-American Hero General Colin Powell
"Group Negro Poster Pyjamarma admits to being a coconut headed coon"
-- Gary Roselles, pathetic racist
"Say "yes Massa", Uncle Tom." – Vile racist Gary Roselles pathetically
mocks and
slurs prominent African-American man-of-the-cloth Jesse Lee
Peterson
"How does a pampered, Stanford based, Scaife funded, Uncle Tom make
judgements on "the bottom", McFly?" -- Another day, another racial
slur on an educated, successful, independent black man from Gary
Roselles
"Nope, Don't have to hire blacks" -- Gary Roselles, Racist Prick
The Amazing Usenet Intellect Of Gary 'Yoorg' Roselles:
"She should be at least shot" -- Gary Roselles calling for the
shooting death of duly elected US government official Katherine
Harris
"I call Kathering Harris a nazi/fascist right wing ideologue whore.
What did we do to German nazis right wing whores?" -- Roselles clearly
states his motive for gunning down Katherine Harris in cold-blood
"I consider hating RIGHT WING nazi/fascist fucks like you a God
inspired emotion." -- Sociopath Roselles enters Charles Manson
territory as he claims his foam-flecked hatred and calls to murder are
divinely 'inspired'
"Hating RIGHT WINGERS is doing God's work, Dumbapropyl." -- More
Manson-like megalomania from usenet sociopath Gary Roselles
"Who gives a shit what these nuts (religious groups) want or don't
want -- KORESH THEM ALL" -- Psychopath Gary Roselles calls for
widespread fiery deaths of US Religious Groups by the ATF.
"May a real american have the honor of putting a bullet between her
eyes." -- Gary Roselles calls for the brutal shooting death of Rob
Robertson's teenage daughter.
"Go Ahead and put his face there. I ain't blowed a mountain up today.
I can make it (blowing up Mt. Rushmore) look like a mining accident"
-- Ex-miner <chuckle> and Rapid City resident Gary Roselles threatens
to blow up Mt. Rushmore.
"Hinckley TRIED to do a good thing" -- Gary Roselles praises would-be
presidential assassin John Hinckley
"That slut Barbara Olsen (9/11 victim) is dead? GOOD!" On 12 Sept 2001
08:42:54 GMT Gary Roselles <rosell19@idt...> wrote. That's right
folks -- sociopath Gary Roselles really did gloat about the 9/11 death
of fellow citizen Barbara Olsen ON SEPTEMBER TWELFTH!!!
"God turned Olsen into jelly" -- Psychopath Gary Roselles says "God
killed" US 9/11 victim Barbara Olsen
"Then why was you mother stupid enough to fuck all them black guys?" -
Gary 'yoorg' Roselles, racist prick
What the fuck would a dumb cocksucker like (Distinguished African-
American Scholar, Thomas) Sowell, who sits out at Stanford, never
having
worked a day in his Uncle Tom life, know anything?" -- Gary
Roselles
"Both are traitors to their race" -- Race Purist Gary Roselles on the
importance of Race Loyalty
"You actually think that placing blackskinned, white thinking people
is going to gain anything with real minorities?" -- Gary Roselles,
Racist
"Them brown niggers need to be taken out" -- Gary Roselles, Racist
"He (African-American scholar Thomas Sowell) goes against his own
kind." Race loyalist Gary Roselles, insisting once again that “them
blacks” should "stick
to their own kind"
"His appointment will bridge nothing. It's apparant he's being an
uncle tom to appease voters." -- White trash, racist asshole Gary
Roselles
slurs African-American Hero General Colin Powell
"Group Negro Poster Pyjamarma admits to being a coconut headed coon"
-- Gary Roselles, pathetic racist
"Say "yes Massa", Uncle Tom." – Vile racist Gary Roselles pathetically
mocks and
slurs prominent African-American man-of-the-cloth Jesse Lee
Peterson
"How does a pampered, Stanford based, Scaife funded, Uncle Tom make
judgements on "the bottom", McFly?" -- Another day, another racial
slur on an educated, successful, independent black man from Gary
Roselles
"Nope, Don't have to hire blacks" -- Gary Roselles, Racist Prick
"Che (Guevara) was a conservative ideologue" - Gary Roselles
"Marx and Engels were RIGHT-WINGERS you dumb cocksucker" -- Gary
Roselles
"The United States is obligated to follow the DEMOCRATIC rule of the
UN" -- Gary Roselles
"The Soviet Union should've kept Afghanistan" -- Gary Roselles
> >=============================================================
>
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Kurtis T. Nicklas of
> 1293 Westbrook Ave, Elon, NC 27244-9372"
>
> <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >I don't pay much attention to him these days, but I'd wager he's not
> >happy.
>
> You sure as shit paid attention when you got caught
> making all those late-night hang-up phone calls, didn't
> ya, Nickkkkers?
>
> CLICK ! ! !- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
5922 Dead, 1065 since 1/20/09
> On 03/04/2011 12:17 PM, 5922 Dead, 1065 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 11:40:44 -0600, David Hartung wrote:
>
>>> The burden of proof is not mine. The burden of proof is with those who
>>> wish to change the law. It is your responsibility to demonstrate that
>>> keeping the law the way it is will be injurious to our society.
>>>
>>> As of this date, that burden has not been met.
>>
>> Actually, at that's required is that it be shown that maintaining the
>> law does not serve the public interest.
>
> A good point Zepp.
>
> If I understand correctly, you are speaking directly about the DOMA law,
> while I was speaking of same sex marriage in general.
>
> The homosexual community is using marriage as a part of their campaign
> to gain societal acceptance. In the changing of marriage law, I believe
> that those who wish to change these laws to legalize same sex marriage
> have the burden to prove that not changing the law would be injurious. I
> believe that this burden has not been met.
Whereas I believe it has. You cannot demonstrate a single legitimate
study that shows that gay marriage could, in any way, harm society.
However, by excluding a significant percentage of the population from
basic civil rights, the harm of banning gay marriage is manifest.
>
> You are referring specifically to the DOMA law which is a recently
> passed law, and which attempts to uphold the long standing, historical
> societal position on marriage. In a sense, we are sayin gthe same thing,
> although we are on opposite sides of the issue.
Society has a lot of "long-standing, historical societal positions", and
a lot of them have turned out to be utter nonsense. Blacks couldn't
marry whites. Women couldn't own property. Books that contained
explicit sex scenes shouldn't be published.
David Hartung
> Society has a lot of "long-standing, historical societal positions", and
> a lot of them have turned out to be utter nonsense. Blacks couldn't
> marry whites. Women couldn't own property. Books that contained
> explicit sex scenes shouldn't be published.
And as the harm to society caused by these law was shown, they changed,
although the jury is still out on the subject of books with explicit sex
scenes(porn).
Phlip
> although the jury is still out on the subject of books with explicit sex
> scenes(porn).
Meanwhile, studies show that white teens have a higher pregnancy rate
in red states...
...and all kinds of horrifically nasty websites showing practices like
analingus, that should be prohibited for simple health reasons, are a
click away on their smart phones.
Yeah, books, dude. Cave paintings have porn on them; whatever the
"harm", humans have evolved based on it.
5922 Dead, 1065 since 1/20/09
Not really. They can't even find an individual who was harmed by "Lady
Chatterley's Lover", let alone a society.
Some people were claiming that Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" was
pornographic. Not because there's any explicit sex scenes (or any sex
scenes at all, for that matter, save for the very end, where the two
protagonists get married) but because it was "blasphemy". So: does
blasphemy harm society?
Lee Curtis
?
So the Republican AG doesn't know what he is doing.
Lee Curtis
What to you have against equality?
Michael Ejercito
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 09:43:11 -0800 (PST), Michael Ejercito> But mikey
>
> That's the whole point
>
> THe entire south didn't see any "good reason" to free slaves either.
So then defining marriage as between one man and one woman equals
slavery.
Funny how back then, those who opposed slavery also opposed
redefining marriage.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 09:45:20 -0800 (PST), Michael Ejercito
> people based on a idiotic religious, or misinformed belief?
Everyone can marry one person of the opposite sex, regardless of
their individual sexual orientation.
If an equivalent institution under a different name is created
requiring that both partners be of the same sex, then people of any
sexual orientation can presumably participate.
>
> That would suggest you disagree with the Brown v board ruling that
> addressed "separate but equal" and the conclusion as to "inherent"
> inequality for citizens that are under the same laws.
Our society and the federal judiciary tolerates separate but equal
on the basis of sex.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
linguistic distinctions.
Michael
5922 Dead, 1065 since 1/20/09
If you've ever observed the lines in front of bathrooms at concerts, then
you know that separate is unequal.
>
> Michael
Phlip
> Equality means equality of treatment, not utterly eliminating any
> linguistic distinctions.
>
> Michael
Point. The first time I ever heard a guy say "my husband", my surprise
came from my grammar center. As if he had a verbal gender mismatch.
"Over it get you shall" --Yoda.
Phlip
> Chatterley's Lover", let alone a society.
In that culture, a woman "cheating" on her husband - what we'd now put
in quotes - was considered a much worse crime than that husband being
sexually incompatible with her.
(Tip: Test drive the car before you sign. Duh!)
And, in that culture, a man was EXPECTED to cheat on a wife, if SHE
was the frigid one...
That's what caused the kerfluffle over that book. Not the sex itself.
Phlip
> Everyone can marry one person of the opposite sex, regardless of
> their individual sexual orientation.
Wow. Just wow.
Marriage is so "sacred" to you, you'd advise marrying someone you
don't love or feel physical attraction to.
Lee Curtis
> On Mar 4, 11:57 am, "Lee Curtis" <cleet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Michael Ejercito wrote:
> > > On Mar 4, 8:40 am, "Lee Curtis" <cleet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Michael Ejercito wrote:
> > > > > And that contract could be given to same-sex couples,
> > > > > regardless of the sexual orientation of the partners, under a
> > > > > different name.
> >
> > > > Separate but equal?
> > > So what?
> >
> > > Michael
> >
> > What to you have against equality?
> Equality means equality of treatment, not utterly eliminating any
> linguistic distinctions.
Equality of treatment - when standing in line for
marriage licenses. Cool.
David Hartung
Believe it or not, "love" and physical attraction have little to do with
marriage. Historically, a marriage is a joining of a man and a woman for
to form a family. This was a lifelong joining, and both parties were
expected to do what it took to make the marriage work. Marriages were
serious things, and for this reason, were often arraigned by other
family members.
5922 Dead, 1065 since 1/20/09
wrote:
All right: Miller's "Tropic of Capricorn", then.
Michael Ejercito
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 12:36:16 -0800 (PST), Michael Ejercito
> beliefs, should enjoy maximum rights under the constitution---while
> excluding those which don't agree with YOUR moral convictions
>
> And----using govenment to do it.
And what is this right that I am assigning?
Michael
Buzz
> Just recently, President Barack Obama will no longer defend the
> constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA in federal court, affecting two
> pending cases within the Second Circuit and an appeal before the First
> Circuit. He argues that homosexuals are entitled to heightened
> scrutiny in federal equal protection claims, thus abandoning a legal
> argument used by the U.S. Department of Justice since the Carter
> administration.
>
> It would be one thing if EVERY federal court to decide the issue of
> DOMA's constitutionality struck it down, or if EVERY appellate court
> to consider the level of scrutiny under which homosexuals are entitled
> were to rule that heightened scrutiny is appropriate.
>
> But that is not the case. DOMA was upheld in Wilson v. Ake, 354
> F.Supp.2d 1298 (MDFL 2005) AND In Re Kandu, 03-51312 (B.R.W.D.WA
> 2004 ), and Hunt v. Ake, 804-CV-1852 (MDFL 2005)
>
> And the courts have consistently held that equal protection claims
> on the basis of homosexuality merits only rational basis review. E.g.,
> See Cook v. Gates , 528 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2008) Thomasson v. Perry ,
> 80 F.3d 915 (4th Cir. 1996), Ben-Shalom v. Marsh, 881 F.2d 454 (7th
> Cir.1989), High Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance
> Office, 895 F.2d 535 (9th Cir. 1990), Woodward v. United States, 871 F.
> 2d 1068, 1076 (Fed.Cir.1989), Steffan v. Perry, 41 F.3d 677 (D.C. Cir.
> 1994)
>
> Thus, he is going against the collective judgment of previous
> administrations and the courts.
>
> Furthermore, this would not make DOMA invalid throughout the entire
> country, for trial courts can only determine the rights and duties of
> the litigants. Thus, in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and
> Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services, the
> injunction only applies to the acts of the defendants (the United
> States and its officials) against the named plaintiffs.
>
> And this certainly does have an impact. If the First Circuit were
> to strike down DOMA on the merits, it would be controlling law, not
> just for the plaintiffs and defendants, but for EVERYONE in the entire
> circuit, which, at a minimum, would most likely invalidate marriage
> laws in Maine and Rhode Island. If it merely dismissed the appeal
> because the government is not contesting DOMA, then the marriage laws
> in Rhode Island and Maine would remain valid under the ruling. And
> adverse rulings in those cases in the Second Circuit would be limited
> to the plaintiffs and defendants, and will not affect marriage laws in
> New York should the government refuse to appeal.
>
> One might view this as a cynical attempt to prevent an appellate
> court ruling which would not only strike down DOMA but state same-sex
> "marriage" bans within the circuit. And such a thing is not
> unprecedented. In Florida Department of Children and Families v.
> Adoption of X.X.G. and N.R.G., the Florida Third District Court of
> Appeal had struck down a Florida law banning homosexuals from adopting
> children. Attorney General Bill McCollum, hardly a defender of gay
> rights, refused to appeal. And the reason for this is that the ruling
> only establishes precedent within the Third District (as well as the
> specific litigants), while a Florida Supreme Court ruling could
> invalidate the law statewide. The adoption ban could still be enforced
> outside the Third District. And by keeping DOMA out of the appellate
> courts, same-sex "marriage" bans could still be enforced within those
> circuits.
>
>
> Michael
To Urkel Obamba, if he doesn't like a law, it is OK to just ignore it,
but you can't get away with it.
Phlip
The right to hate on married gays - as you yourself have repeatedly
stated.
Ray Fischer
>On Mar 4, 12:03 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Just recently, President Barack Obama will no longer defend the
>> >> >constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA in federal court, affecting two
>> >> >pending cases within the Second Circuit and an appeal before the First
>> >> >Circuit.
>>
>>
>> > Then Sir William Blackstone, John Locke, Samuel Johnson, Noah
>> >Webster, John Bouvier, and Thomas Stanley Matthews must have been
>> >bigots.
>>
>> Don't forget yourself, bigot. You have no justification for your
>> bigoted and unAmerican hate.
>>
> Are you implying that Sir William Blackstone, John Locke, Samuel
I was referring to you, bigot.
How stupid are you?
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
rfis...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
Ray Fischer
>On Mar 2, 10:26 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Just recently, President Barack Obama will no longer defend the
>> >constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA in federal court, affecting two
>> >pending cases within the Second Circuit and an appeal before the First
>> >Circuit.
>>
>> Good. There is no justification for rabid bigotry.
>>
>> Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
> Then Sir William Blackstone, John Locke, Samuel Johnson, Noah
>Webster, John Bouvier, and Thomas Stanley Matthews must have been
>bigots.
And because Hitler hated gays then Samuel Johnson must have been just
like Hitler. Or Hitler was okay to murder gays. Or something.
Ray Fischer
>On Mar 4, 4:07 am, Falstaff <jaxfalst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 12:03 pm, Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 2, 10:26 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:> Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Just recently, President Barack Obama will no longer defend the
>> > > >constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA in federal court, affecting two
>> > > >pending cases within the Second Circuit and an appeal before the First
>> > > >Circuit.
>>
>> > > Good. There is no justification for rabid bigotry.
>>
>> > > --
>> > > Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
>> > > rfisc...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
>>
>> > Then Sir William Blackstone, John Locke, Samuel Johnson, Noah
>> > Webster, John Bouvier, and Thomas Stanley Matthews must have been
>> > bigots.
>>
>>
>> Definitions change. In their era "broadcast" was a fishing term and
>> monitor was only a verb. Terms charge, get used to it.
> And I see no good reason to redefine marriage.
You already have, bigot.
Lee Curtis
> On 03/04/2011 11:13 AM, Lee Curtis wrote:
> > David Hartung wrote:
> >
> > > On 03/03/2011 02:42 PM, Lee Curtis wrote:
> > > > David Hartung wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 03/03/2011 01:43 PM, Lee Curtis wrote:
> > > > > > Michael Ejercito wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mar 2, 9:59 am, Tom
> >>>>>>Fitzpatrick<tom.fitzpatrick2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mar 1, 7:42 pm, Michael
> > > > > > > > Ejercito<mejer...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> >>>>>>>>On Mar 1, 2:37 pm, Phlip<phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:> On
> >>Mar 1,>>>>>>11:47 am, Michael Ejercito<mejer...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> >>>>>>>>>> Just recently, President Barack Obama will no longer
> > > > > > > > > > > defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA
> > > > > > > > > > > in federal court, affecting two pending cases
> > > > > > > > > > > within the Second Circuit and an appeal before
> > > > > > > > > > > the First Circuit. He argues that homosexuals are
> > > > > > > > > > > entitled to heightened scrutiny in federal equal
> > > > > > > > > > > protection claims, thus abandoning a legal
> > > > > > > > > > > argument used by the U.S. Department of Justice
> > > > > > > > > > > since the Carter administration.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Don't worry, hatefag. you can still hate on
> > > > > > > > > > Mexicans& Muslims...
> > > > > > > >
> >>>>>>>> So then the definition of marriage constitutes hate?
> > > > > > > >
> >>>>>>>> Michael
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Definitions change dude. Get a grip.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> >>>>>> I see no good reason to change the definition.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> >>>>> What is it to you if people you don't even know
> > > > > > choose to get married, even if they ARE a same sex?
> > > > > > Does that harm you in some way?
> > > > >
> > > > > The male/female marriage has always been the basic building
> > > > > block of society.
> > > >
> > > >
> >>> So has polytheism, slavery and child labor. That
> > > > doesn't mean we are obligated to continue them.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > You can argue all you wish, but there is simply no basis in
> > > > > history or in law for a same sex marriage, let alone families
> > > > > headed by a same sex couple.
> > > >
> > > >
> >>> Mary Cheney and Heather Poe are raising their
> > > > daughter together as a family. What is wrong with
> > > > that?
>
> > Well?
>
> Well what?
>
> >>>> Western law has, until recently, defined
> > > > > marriage as one woman and one man. This historical definition
> > > > > actually kept Utah out of the union until they outlawed
> > > > > polygamy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Due to the historic nature of marriage, same sex marriage
> > > > > should not be granted the sanction of our legal system until
> > > > > those who support it, make their case that such relationships
> > > > > constitute a valid marriage. As yet, this has not been done.
> > > >
> > > >
> >>> Racists used to make that *exact same argument*
> > > > against interracial marriages. And religious fundies
> > > > once deemed all marriages "outside the faith" as
> > > > invalid. In fact some religions still do. Look up
> > > > "honor killing".
> > > >
> >>> 1) Should all relationships be held "invalid" because
> > > > of groundless bigotry?
> > > >
> >>> 2) You still haven't shown any harm you have suffered
> > > > because people you don't even know got married.
> > >
> > > While you have not demonstrated the advantage to the society in
> > > changing a historic standard.
> >
> >
> >
> > 1) You don't see an advantage to gays quitting the
> > "promiscuous lifestyle" in favor of settling down
> > and getting married?
> >
> > 2) You still haven't shown any harm YOU have suffered
> > because people you don't even know got married.
>
> The burden of proof is not mine. The burden of proof is with those
> who wish to change the law. It is your responsibility to demonstrate
> that keeping the law the way it is will be injurious to our society.
>
> As of this date, that burden has not been met.
1) Did opponents of interracial marriage bans
have a "burden" to prove equality would not be
"ijurious to society"? And who decides when this
"burden" of yours has been met?
2) You still haven't shown any harm YOU have
suffered because people you don't even know got
married.
Lee Curtis
> On Mar 4, 10:17 am, "5922 Dead, 1065 since 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com>
> wrote:
> > Actually, at that's required is that it be shown that maintaining
> > the law does not serve the public interest.
> >
> > --
>
>
> And how does changing the law serve the public interest?
Equality always serves the public interest.
Lee Curtis
> On 03/04/2011 12:17 PM, 5922 Dead, 1065 since 1/20/09 wrote:
> > On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 11:40:44 -0600, David Hartung wrote:
>
> > > The burden of proof is not mine. The burden of proof is with
> > > those who wish to change the law. It is your responsibility to
> > > demonstrate that keeping the law the way it is will be injurious
> > > to our society.
> > >
> > > As of this date, that burden has not been met.
> >
> > Actually, at that's required is that it be shown that maintaining
> > the law does not serve the public interest.
>
> A good point Zepp.
>
> If I understand correctly, you are speaking directly about the DOMA
> law, while I was speaking of same sex marriage in general.
>
> The homosexual community is using marriage as a part of their
> campaign to gain societal acceptance. In the changing of marriage
> law, I believe that those who wish to change these laws to legalize
> same sex marriage have the burden to prove that not changing the law
> would be injurious. I believe that this burden has not been met.
>
I can remember this same refrain during the civil
rights struggles, how blacks had a "burden" to prove
that equality was beneficial, that they had to "earn"
their rights.
Your bigotry has deep roots, Hartung, but your
argument is very old and very stale.
David Hartung
Since you have yet to show that same sex marriage is a valid marriage,
you have not shown that there is any inequality.
David Hartung
No bigotry involved, simply a recognition that homosexuality is not an
immutable trait, and that marriage is and always has been, between men
and women.
Michael Ejercito
hate?
Michael
Michael Ejercito
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Mar 2, 10:26 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Just recently, President Barack Obama will no longer defend the
> >> >constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA in federal court, affecting two
> >> >pending cases within the Second Circuit and an appeal before the First
> >> >Circuit.
>
> >> Good. There is no justification for rabid bigotry.
>
> >> --
> >> Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
> >> rfisc...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
> > Then Sir William Blackstone, John Locke, Samuel Johnson, Noah
> >Webster, John Bouvier, and Thomas Stanley Matthews must have been
> >bigots.
>
> And because Hitler hated gays then Samuel Johnson must have been just
> like Hitler. Or Hitler was okay to murder gays. Or something.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
> rfisc...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
Michael
Michael Ejercito
Michael
Ray Fischer
It's valid in every state that recognizes it.
You lose again, bigot.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
Ray Fischer
Bigots always believe that their discrimination and hate are wholly
justified. Slaveowners believed that God intended them to watch over
blacks. Opponents of women voting believed that women were not
capabale of being ratational.
And bigots like Hartung believe that God endowed them alone with the
"truth" about marriage.
> simply a recognition that homosexuality is not an
>immutable trait
Thanks for sharing your uneducated opinion, bigot.
Ray Fischer
As much as does defining Jews to be subhuman and blacks to be slaves.
Ray Fischer
>On Mar 5, 12:08 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mar 4, 4:07 am, Falstaff <jaxfalst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mar 3, 12:03 pm, Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Then Sir William Blackstone, John Locke, Samuel Johnson, Noah
>> >> > Webster, John Bouvier, and Thomas Stanley Matthews must have been
>> >> > bigots.
>>
>> >> > Michael
>>
>> >> Definitions change. In their era "broadcast" was a fishing term and
>> >> monitor was only a verb. Terms charge, get used to it.
>> > And I see no good reason to redefine marriage.
>>
>> You already have, bigot.
>>
You have redefined marriage in order to justify your bigotry.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
Ray Fischer
> Your sand Nazi heroes are not too fond of gays, from what I hear.
Just like you.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
Michael Ejercito
Michael
Sid9
news:4d728eff$0$10566$742e...@news.sonic.net...
You lose again, bigot.
.
.
.
===============================
sid9 sez:
When the courts throw out DOMA as an unconstitutional violation of the "full
faith and credit" clause in the constitution every state will be compelled
to do what one state does with regard to marriage
================================
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa