DOMA Takes Another Dive.

[fireweaver]

Not talking about the Olympics here, but the odious "Defence of Marriage Act".

A U.S. District Judge in Connecticut, writing a 104-page decision, on Tuesday ruled that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act violates the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Vanessa Bryant, named to the federal bench by President George W. Bush, is the third federal court ruling against DOMA. The law, which denies federal health and other benefits to same-sex couples, is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

For people who like reading legal stuff, the decision is here.

I would like to see the Supremes strike this nonsense down.

[Scarlett]

I would like to see the Supremes strike this nonsense down.

I'm sure stranger things have happened.

Has anyone ever read the DOMA? I can't read 104 pages of legal jargon.

[fireweaver]

I'm sure stranger things have happened.

Has anyone ever read the DOMA? I can't read 104 pages of legal jargon.

Actually, I'm willing to struggle with it if it improves my understanding of how things work.

[david1987]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Huh?

[fireweaver]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Huh?

And the plaintiffs were found to have their rights of due process had been violated. Do you have a PROBLEM with that?

[david1987]

Why does your lifestyle choice suddenly make you a protected species?

[RedBeetEggs]

Why does your lifestyle choice suddenly make you a protected species?

Because they are citizens of the United States and therefore protected under OUR Constitution. Why are you concerned with the laws of a country that you don't even belong to? We separated ourselves from yours for a reason.

[fireweaver]

Why does your lifestyle choice suddenly make you a protected species?

You can't even ask a question without embedding several mistakes in it. Sad.

Let's correct the errors first: (1) Gay is not a choice. (2) Gays are human beings, full stop. (3) You imagine yourself to be civilised when in actuality, you are not.

Now, the answer: Because people like you want to kill us and sometimes do. But we're making progress.

I think you would be so much happier in Uganda where they want to kill gays.

[david1987]

What absolute twaddle. I do not want to kill anyone who has chosen that lifestyle.

[david1987]

Why are you concerned with the laws of a country that you don't even belong to?

Because I care.

[fireweaver]

What absolute twaddle. I do not want to kill anyone who has chosen that lifestyle.

Doesn't matter if you do or don't. You choose to associate and sympathise with those who would kill us which makes you no better.

PS - nobody chooses to be gay.

[fireweaver]

Because I care.

So you're a redneck hillbilly teabagger wannabee.

[david1987]

You continue to make a fool of yourself. Where have I or anyone else here said anything about killing people who have chosen the gay lifestyle?

[SnarkyOracle!]

What absolute twaddle. I do not want to kill anyone who has chosen that lifestyle.

You continue to make a fool of yourself. Where have I or anyone else here said anything about killing people who have chosen the gay lifestyle?

I'm not sure I believe you, David. You've proven to be far too emotionally vested in the topic, and far too self-shaming in regards to it.

In a pinch, who knows how far you'd go or what you'd condone?

[fireweaver]

I'm not sure I believe you, David. You've proven to be far too emotionally vested in the topic, and far too self-shaming in regards to it.

In a pinch, who knows how far you'd go or what you'd condone?

It would be safer not to take chances. Perhaps a visit from the local constabulary to assess his mental fitness under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, would be in order?

[carylfan10]

You continue to make a fool of yourself. Where have I or anyone else here said anything about killing people who have chosen the gay lifestyle?

You kill with your words. Words are powerful weapons and have held back people of all races, orientation, gender for as long as the world's been round. Why in today's society acceptance of intolerance of gays is okay, I'll never know. Words (such as yours) are used to oppress, discriminate, hurt, cause damage to the gay community. I'm not saying they are the only ones who have been oppressed but that is the issue you keep bringing up. (Others have their theories about you, I'll keep mine to myself). When I was in my relationship with my ex, we went on vacations together, paid taxes, dined out, worked, read, raised children- in other words we did everything that a "normal" lifestyle includes. I'd like to know, David, how does my loving another person threaten you, personally? That's just it- you are taking this so personally, as if you were getting attacked by the killer 50 ft gays. Gays are human beings first and foremost. I am not saying they are perfect, but they are human, and deserved to be treated as such. The right to marry does not take away from the validity of marriage between two people of any orientation.