Author Topic: " Is Everybody Gay?"- Nope just all the Gross Old Pervs party, it seems  (Read 6627 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: " Is Everybody Gay?"- Nope just all the Gross Old Pervs party, it seems
« Reply #45 on: September 04, 2007, 05:48:23 PM »
Perhaps one of you geniuses could 'splain to us why DOMA is not anti-gay?

BT already did.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: " Is Everybody Gay?"- Nope just all the Gross Old Pervs party, it seems
« Reply #46 on: September 04, 2007, 05:51:38 PM »
No, he didn't.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: " Is Everybody Gay?"- Nope just all the Gross Old Pervs party, it seems
« Reply #48 on: September 05, 2007, 12:42:03 AM »
This, apparently, was BT's explanation of why DoMA was not anti-gay.  Quoting verbatim:

<<All DoMA did was define maririage from a federal viewpoint and though it allowed the states to have their own definitions it disallowed those definitions from being forced upon the other states.>>

ANY definition of marriage, DoMA's included, that excludes gay marriage, is by definition anti-gay.

The whole point of creating a statute to define marriage in an exclusionary way is to deprive gays of full married status in contravention of their Constitutional rights. 

BT wants to have it both ways.  DoMA is not anti-gay because exclusionary definitions of marriage are not anti-gay (in his warped logic, anyway.)  However, Democrats who condemn outted Republicans are hypocrites because they condemn the failed Constitutional Amendment as anti-gay, but do not equally condemn the "anti-gay" DoMA.

Quite a dilemma you got yourself into, BT!

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: " Is Everybody Gay?"- Nope just all the Gross Old Pervs party, it seems
« Reply #49 on: September 05, 2007, 01:07:48 AM »
The crucial part you gloss over is that the states are free to define marriage anyway they please. The law simply states that the fed is not bound by the definitions of the state neither are the other 49.


Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: " Is Everybody Gay?"- Nope just all the Gross Old Pervs party, it seems
« Reply #50 on: September 05, 2007, 01:17:42 AM »
<<The crucial part you gloss over is that the states are free to define marriage anyway they please. The law simply states that the fed is not bound by the definitions of the state neither are the other 49.>>

That's not the crucial part.  The crucial part is that it attempted to define marriage and in an exclusionary way.

What do you think was the purpose of the law?  How was it explained when first presented to the legislature?

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: " Is Everybody Gay?"- Nope just all the Gross Old Pervs party, it seems
« Reply #51 on: September 05, 2007, 01:34:41 AM »
The Law

104th CONGRESS  2D SESSION

H.R. 3396

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. BARR of Georgia (for himself, Mr. LARGENT, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Ms.
MYRICK, Mr. VOLKMER, Mr. SKELTON, Mr. BRYANT, and Mr. EMERSON)
introduced the following bill, which was referred to the Committee
on_____________

A BILL

To define and protect the institution of marriage.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding after section 1738B the following:

Section 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect
thereof

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or
judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe
respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is
treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory,
possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such
relationship."

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item: "1738C.
Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof."

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:

"Section 7.  Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or
a wife."

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

"7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'."

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: " Is Everybody Gay?"- Nope just all the Gross Old Pervs party, it seems
« Reply #52 on: September 05, 2007, 01:44:38 AM »
The Senate Vote:
Alphabetical by Senator Name
Abraham (R-MI), Yea
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Ashcroft (R-MO), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Bradley (D-NJ), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brown (R-CO), Yea
Bryan (D-NV), Yea
Bumpers (D-AR), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Coats (R-IN), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Cohen (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Coverdell (R-GA), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
D'Amato (R-NY), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Exon (D-NE), Yea
Faircloth (R-NC), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
   Ford (D-KY), Yea
Frahm (R-KS), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Glenn (D-OH), Yea
Gorton (R-WA), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Yea
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grams (R-MN), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hatfield (R-OR), Yea
Heflin (D-AL), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (R-VT), Yea
Johnston (D-LA), Yea
Kassebaum (R-KS), Yea
Kempthorne (R-ID), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerrey (D-NE), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
   Mack (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Moseley-Braun (D-IL), Nay
Moynihan (D-NY), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Nunn (D-GA), Yea
Pell (D-RI), Nay
Pressler (R-SD), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Not Voting
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Robb (D-VA), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Roth (R-DE), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Simon (D-IL), Nay
Simpson (R-WY), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: " Is Everybody Gay?"- Nope just all the Gross Old Pervs party, it seems
« Reply #53 on: September 05, 2007, 01:45:44 AM »
How is this any different from defending an  anti-miscegenation law that various states could pass or not as they chose?

People in this country should  have the same rights, be they gay, straight, white, black, etc. 

No "states' rights" will do.
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: " Is Everybody Gay?"- Nope just all the Gross Old Pervs party, it seems
« Reply #54 on: September 05, 2007, 08:00:29 PM »
BT did not answer the question.  That's OK, it was mainly rhetorical.  I'll answer it for him.  The purpose of DoMA was to head off any judicial interpretation of "marriage" that would allow marriages between Adam and Steve or their female counterparts, i.e. to deny Constitutional equality to gays.

BT's refusal to answer IMHO shows that he knows God-damn well what the purpose of the legislation was, and that it IS homophobic.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: " Is Everybody Gay?"- Nope just all the Gross Old Pervs party, it seems
« Reply #55 on: September 05, 2007, 08:04:48 PM »
Quote
No "states' rights" will do.

DoMA is not about states rights.