NationStates Jolt Archive

Spoffin, even I was opposed to the FMA! Don't assume to much!
Fine. Then my point is for the benifit of everyone on the thread less enlightened than you.

How the hell is going into a lawful contract of marriage a privledge? I gues I'm not seeing that, I'm not seeing how that is different than them saying that interracial couples can't marry either. So there is a question for you. Do you have a problem with interracial marriage aswell, or are you only biggoted by sexual preference?

Not bigotted at all! I just don't believe in gay marriage. You can call it hypocracy but it does violate my beliefs. I have no problem of Interracial marriage. Three of my best friends come from interracial couples!

Not bigotted at all! I just don't believe in gay marriage. You can call it hypocracy but it does violate my beliefs. I have no problem of Interracial marriage. Three of my best friends come from interracial couples!

Why are you against it?

Why are you against it?

I stated why! It violates what I believe in. I believe in the bible and it states in there that sex should be between one man and one woman. Not 2 men or 2 women.

14th Amendment IS NOT the equal Rights amendment. I was quite embarassed by that mistake til I realised I actually said "equal protections clause" not "Equal rights amendment.

People should be allowed to marry whomever they choose, and I think that a strict interpretation of the Equal Protections Clause (the 14th amendment) would suggest that homophobia cannot be made into a law.

And as you so helpfully provided, the clause I was talking about it right here:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Da da!

It seems that in fact, I did correctly identify the correct paragraph of an ancient document that has little connection to history of the country in which I live.

I stated why! It violates what I believe in. I believe in the bible and it states in there that sex should be between one man and one woman. Not 2 men or 2 women.

So then you believe that because of your doctrine that laws should be put into place (in a country with a separate church and state) that are going to deny people with a different view than yours an equal protection in the eyes of the law? I find your views oppressive!

I was quite embarassed by that mistake til I realised I actually said "equal protections clause" not "Equal rights amendment.



And as you so helpfully provided, the clause I was talking about it right here:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Da da!

It seems that in fact, I did correctly identify the correct paragraph of an ancient document that has little connection to history of the country in which I live.

So sue me but then that'll be another fiverlous lawsuit! Anyway, I said you could make a case for it under the 14th but we will be right back to square number 1 on the debate so it really doesn't solve anything.

So then you believe that because of your doctrine that laws should be put into place (in a country with a separate church and state) that are going to deny people with a different view than yours an equal protection in the eyes of the law? I find your views oppressive!

Did I even say that? NO I DID NOT! I said I don't BELIEVE IN IT! I don't mind civil unions but they shouldn't have full rights that are granted to a one man one woman couple.

You know all this thread has proven is that different people believe in different things and have different ideologies. It hasn't proved Bush is a good president, it also hasn't proven that Kerry would make a bad one. It just proves that not every one shares the same opinions. Any one can take a piece of information and spin it to make their argument for or against. I suppose those of you who can vote on Nov 2nd will vote your conscience and hope for the best. It's a philosophical debate more then a substantive policy debate, which actually, probably would of been the better debate. However, it's been my experience that it's hard to have a policy debate with most (not all) republicans because they refuse to accept the numbers. Cold hard data. Perhaps a republican might say the same about a democrat. Who knows.. All I do know is this was an interesting exercise in proving nothing except for a difference of opinion... ;)

Not saying you're right or wrong...but how does getting married fall under equal protection? (I already know the answer, just want to see if you did your homework or are again just repeating the standard liberal line)

Did I even say that? NO I DID NOT! I said I don't BELIEVE IN IT! I don't mind civil unions but they shouldn't have full rights that are granted to a one man one woman couple.

And I said that I BELIEVE that everyone deserves the right to choose for themself who they marry, regardless of their neighbors opinion or faith.

I stated why! It violates what I believe in. I believe in the bible and it states in there that sex should be between one man and one woman. Not 2 men or 2 women.

So you discriminate against ambiguous gay couples just because they're gay then? Your ideology is flawed, and no matter how you cut it you are forcing your beliefs on others and that is what we call biggotry.

Oh, Free speach zones, sorry forgot to address that one. It doesn't deny people freedom of speach. It just makes sure that they can not harm anyone. For instance, you're having a little demonstration...terrorist can not come in and kill Kennedy because he is too far away...understand now?That'd be fine, but they haven't been used for security, they've been used to stifle dissent. The pro-bush people get centre stage in front of the podium, the anti-bush people get a spot a couple of hundred yards away. Couldn't our metaphorical Lee Harvey Oswald hold a pro-Bush banner for the means of getting a closer shot? I think he could

You said he violated the constitution...now you're backtracking and saying "legal vaccume" Amazing how the arguement changes...why don't you form your own opinion instead of just listening to what the 'cool kids' have to say. Some times debating with you liberals seems like debating what running shoes to wear when I was in High School.
Does the constitution define the boundaries of the US? Or does it just say under the jurisdiction of these United States? Does that not therefore include US embassies and colonies and prision camps outside our borders? It seems to me like it should.

And if you'd please stop equating liberalism with herd behaviour in another failed attempt to get me riled up, I'd appreciate it.

Not saying you're right or wrong...but how does getting married fall under equal protection? (I already know the answer, just want to see if you did your homework or are again just repeating the standard liberal line)

By law marriage is a contract to financially and legally join yourself to another person. This includes social security survivorship rights, health care rights, and hundreds of other federally protected marriage rights.

So you discriminate against ambiguous gay couples just because they're gay then? Your ideology is flawed, and no matter how you cut it you are forcing your beliefs on others and that is what we call biggotry.

Micro, Steph is right! You can take a post and spin it! I said I don't believe in gay marraige. I believe in civil unions with LIMITED benefits.

So sue me but then that'll be another fiverlous lawsuit! Anyway, I said you could make a case for it under the 14th but we will be right back to square number 1 on the debate so it really doesn't solve anything.
I'm just saying, its kinda ironic that you try to show that I'm wrong when in fact I'm pretty much exactly bang-on-the-money. Nothing more than that, just ironic.

Micro, Steph is right! You can take a post and spin it! I said I don't believe in gay marraige. I believe in civil unions with LIMITED benefits.

Formal Deances: how would you feel if the government had in place laws the allowed "LIMITED" rights to practice your faith?

Micro, Steph is right! You can take a post and spin it! I said I don't believe in gay marraige. I believe in civil unions with LIMITED benefits.Right, limited benefits, as in "not full benefits". Thats discrimination

By law marriage is a contract to financially and legally join yourself to another person. This includes social security survivorship rights, health care rights, and hundreds of other federally protected marriage rights.


Hundreds? Every single married right is can be duplicated by a simple contract. Yet, somehow the word 'marriage' needs to be in there. What's wrong with civil unions?

What I don't get, is how people can want the right of some people, but ignore the rights of others.

I'm just saying, its kinda ironic that you try to show that I'm wrong when in fact I'm pretty much exactly bang-on-the-money. Nothing more than that, just ironic.

Your right it is but still, the Constitution really shouldn't be used as a crutch for agenda. It should be used to define the laws that are passed by Congress. Judges have NO AUTHORITY in making laws, just INTERPRETING laws passed by Congress.

Oh as an ending footnote though for all of you who said Chenney had no conflict of interest when it comes to Halliburton.. you might be interested in this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=344982) ;)

Right, limited benefits, as in "not full benefits". Thats discrimination

You can believe whatever you want Spoffin.

Formal Deances: how would you feel if the government had in place laws the allowed "LIMITED" rights to practice your faith?


That's the point I'm trying to make.

I, personally, don't care. What I do care about are people ignoring one groups views in favor of another. When some simple wording would fix everything.

Hundreds? Every single married right is can be duplicated by a simple contract. Yet, somehow the word 'marriage' needs to be in there. What's wrong with civil unions?

What I don't get, is how people can want the right of some people, but ignore the rights of others.

And what rights would they ignore?

Your right it is but still, the Constitution really shouldn't be used as a crutch for agenda. It should be used to define the laws that are passed by Congress. Judges have NO AUTHORITY in making laws, just INTERPRETING laws passed by Congress.

Yes exactly, and I believe that the Judicial System will find the laws in place by 40 states in this country will be deemed unconstitutional, because they are.

Formal Deances: how would you feel if the government had in place laws the allowed "LIMITED" rights to practice your faith?

I just now saw this and ONE PROBLEM with that. US 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law establishing nor prohibiting the worship thereof." So they can't do it unless its done through the courts then I would call for the judges impeachment for violating the US Constitution.

You can believe whatever you want Spoffin.
LOL! That's a perfectly ludicrous attempt to make it appear that I'm deluding myself. With your own words you said exactly what I said you'd been saying, and you make it appear as if I'm irrational in calling you on it. Magical, simply magical.

Yes exactly, and I believe that the Judicial System will find the laws in place by 40 states in this country will be deemed unconstitutional, because they are.

Well if your using R v W that was a gross violation of the 14th that I've ever seen AND if the federal courts get involved (and they are with the DOMA), that will eliminate the State's Rights question and turned it into a Federal Issue.

I haven't read all 19 pages, but I'll just jump in with the original topic: In Kerry's first 100 days, I'd like to see him screw up less than Bush would in those 100 days, and I'm virtually certain it'll happen.

Hundreds? Every single married right is can be duplicated by a simple contract. Yet, somehow the word 'marriage' needs to be in there. What's wrong with civil unions?
Nothing is "wrong" with civil unions, its just that it's not marriage, and seperate but equal has never been appropriate justification for discrimination.
What I don't get, is how people can want the right of some people, but ignore the rights of others.You want to elaborate on that?

Micro, Steph is right! You can take a post and spin it! I said I don't believe in gay marraige. I believe in civil unions with LIMITED benefits.

No spinning involved when you leave me holes I can just poke at. I just don't understand how you can believe in such things from a book of fables strongly enough to want to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. I've said it before and I'll say it again, religion breeds hate. A little pictorial propaghanda for you all: http://images.deviantart.com/store/bt/0/0cc8887925b5790d.jpg

LOL! That's a perfectly ludicrous attempt to make it appear that I'm deluding myself. With your own words you said exactly what I said you'd been saying, and you make it appear as if I'm irrational in calling you on it. Magical, simply magical.

Believe what you want Spoffin

I just now saw this and ONE PROBLEM with that. US 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law establishing nor prohibiting the worship thereof." So they can't do it unless its done through the courts then I would call for the judges impeachment for violating the US Constitution.

Semantics again. I argue mine on the 4th amendment and you argue you'd argue yours on the first. Just imagine how you'd feel if someone proposed amending the United States contitution so that they could come after you and your faith Formal Dances. I'm sure you'd find that a bit of a violation of your right to believe and practice what you will.

No spinning involved when you leave me holes I can just poke at. I just don't understand how you can believe in such things from a book of fables strongly enough to want to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. I've said it before and I'll say it again, religion breeds hate. A little pictorial propaghanda for you all: http://images.deviantart.com/store/bt/0/0cc8887925b5790d.jpg

Nice of you to proclaim yourself an athiest. I believe in the Bible and it is the book I live by. If I ever run for Congress, I will vote based on my heart and on what I believe in. That is how you VOTE in Congress. Not by how special interest groups want you to vote.

No spinning involved when you leave me holes I can just poke at. I just don't understand how you can believe in such things from a book of fables strongly enough to want to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. I've said it before and I'll say it again, religion breeds hate. A little pictorial propaghanda for you all: http://images.deviantart.com/store/bt/0/0cc8887925b5790d.jpg

You call the bible, "book of fables" then put down someone for discrimination. You need to look at yourself fucker.

I'm not 'Christian' but I'm not about to put anyone down for their beliefs because I'm 'not' racist...unlike yourself.

Semantics again. I argue mine on the 4th amendment and you argue you'd argue yours on the first. Just imagine how you'd feel if someone proposed amending the United States contitution so that they could come after you and your faith Formal Dances. I'm sure you'd find that a bit of a violation of your right to believe and practice what you will.

That'll never pass congress AND the people would revolt because of that. Most notably the ACLU.

Believe what you want Spoffin
LOL! That's a perfectly ludicrous attempt to make it appear that I'm deluding myself. With your own words you said exactly what I said you'd been saying, and you make it appear as if I'm irrational in calling you on it. Magical, simply magical.

(Steph, please stop the madness! :D)

LOL! That's a perfectly ludicrous attempt to make it appear that I'm deluding myself. With your own words you said exactly what I said you'd been saying, and you make it appear as if I'm irrational in calling you on it. Magical, simply magical.

(Steph, please stop the madness! :D)

Believe what you want Spoffin

(Yes steph please :D)

Nice of you to proclaim yourself an athiest. I believe in the Bible and it is the book I live by. If I ever run for Congress, I will vote based on my heart and on what I believe in. That is how you VOTE in Congress. Not by how special interest groups want you to vote.

No actually that is not how you vote in congress, sorry you must have missed your civics class. Well, then again it is a legitimate way to do it, but the wrong way to do it. As a member of congress, you are supposed to vote based on your constituency not your personal feelings or the feelings of the companies padding your campaign fund. Oh and come now, I'm not an athiest, I'm much worse, I'm Catholic :D .

Believe what you want Spoffin

(Yes steph please :D)
Seriously, either stop it and answer the damn question or get out.

May I suggest another thread? Since this one has basically run it's self into the ground. Why not try Chenney's Conflict Of Interest (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=344982) it's just getting started. :cool:

That'll never pass congress AND the people would revolt because of that. Most notably the ACLU.

Haha, I'm not saying that I believe it or would ever hope it would pass. You're missing the message. I believe in God, I just find your views to be offensive and oppressive to others.

No actually that is not how you vote in congress, sorry you must have missed your civics class. Well, then again it is a legitimate way to do it, but the wrong way to do it. As a member of congress, you are supposed to vote based on your constituency not your personal feelings or the feelings of the companies padding your campaign fund. Oh and come now, I'm not an athiest, I'm much worse, I'm Catholic :D .

Well in that Case, a bill passed the house, the Marriage Act of 2004 (similiar to DOMA but different) that states that the FEDERAL COURTS CANT decide on the issue of Gay Marriage. Thus, the House has effectively told the States, you decide the issue. Hopefully the Senate passes it too and thus the Federal Issue of Gay Marriage is over and it stays at state level.

Seriously, either stop it and answer the damn question or get out.

Can't tel me what to do :p

Well its nearly midnight and I need my wonderful beauty sleep! I'll continue this in the morning!

Nightie night!

Can't tel me what to do :p
You sure did an excellent job of hijacking this thread, especially when you were requested not to post anymore by Bozzy. Even though you apologized, you kept on posting huh? Cute!!

Well in that Case, a bill passed the house, the Marriage Act of 2004 (similiar to DOMA but different) that states that the FEDERAL COURTS CANT decide on the issue of Gay Marriage. Thus, the House has effectively told the States, you decide the issue. Hopefully the Senate passes it too and thus the Federal Issue of Gay Marriage is over and it stays at state level.

Um, I guess I was right about you missing your civics class, because that act is impossible to enforce since the congress has no check over the judicial system other than the impeachment of the judges, a.k.a. that act is irrelevant, outside the bounds of legislative authority and fundamentally, you guessed it, unconstitutional.

You sure did an excellent job of hijacking this thread, especially when you were requested not to post anymore by Bozzy. Even though you apologized, you kept on posting huh? Cute!!

Alright ladies and gents, sorry to have helped in the hijacking of this thread, I too kept posting.

Can't tel me what to do :p

And you can't bait people. No warning, but stop it Formal.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

Um, I guess I was right about you missing your civics class, because that act is impossible to enforce since the congress has no check over the judicial system other than the impeachment of the judges, a.k.a. that act is irrelevant, outside the bounds of legislative authority and fundamentally, you guessed it, unconstitutional.

You forgot ammendments.

How the hell is going into a lawful contract of marriage a privledge? I gues I'm not seeing that, I'm not seeing how that is different than them saying that interracial couples can't marry either. So there is a question for you. Do you have a problem with interracial marriage aswell, or are you only biggoted by sexual preference?And that is where the argument falls to pieces. See, the same-sex couples fail one little test: they are unable to produce offspring. Interracacial couples can, Intergender couples can.

And that is where the argument falls to pieces. See, the same-sex couples fail one little test: they are unable to produce offspring. Interracacial couples can, Intergender couples can.

But old people can't. Barren people can't. Fixed people can't.



Guess it's your job to tell them all they can't get married

But old people can't. Barren people can't. Fixed people can't.



Guess it's your job to tell them all they can't get married

Not only that, but his argument also fails in that gay people can have children through modern (albeit artificial) scientific means.

God, these arguments are so old...then again, I remember thinking about how old they were sitting here last year at about this time. Anyone wanna bet me that one year from today, people will still be rehashing such tired, beaten, old points to make their case against gay marriage?

Um, I guess I was right about you missing your civics class, because that act is impossible to enforce since the congress has no check over the judicial system other than the impeachment of the judges, a.k.a. that act is irrelevant, outside the bounds of legislative authority and fundamentally, you guessed it, unconstitutional.

And you talk about ME missing a civics class (I got an A in all of my classes)!

It isn't unconstitutional at all Microevil. I suggest you read up on Congressional rules and procedures. This is very valid to do and it has been done before. Its Called Checks and Balances. The House recognises this as a State's issue. This bill that passed, KEEPS IT a states issue. NO FEDERAL COURT can touch it.

As for enforcing, once it passes, DOMA, which takes out the full faith and credit clause so states that do have gay marriage ARE NOT recognized by the states that don't, will be enhanced. Once it passes, the judges have to dismiss ALL CASES regarding gay marriage. If any judge takes a case, it'll violate the law and be removed from the bench.

Not only that, but his argument also fails in that gay people can have children through modern (albeit artificial) scientific means.

Men can't do that so Anbar, you just lost that arguement.

Last post on this issue.

I intend to vote for Bush, and I am intelligent enough to follow directions,
but I won't.

I think by the 100th day, Hunt's ketchup will be illegal.

Well, I'm interested in making solar power a reasonable fuel source (for like electricity), but really, anything that is renewable. Although...does anyone know the principle behind wind power? Turbines turned by a fan which is turned by wind, etc...turn in the magnet and create electricity...it wouldn't be that impossible to add some wind turbines on a car...the faster you go, the better it generates.

Yep..wind turbines..until such time as a bird or goose hits the turbines and next thing...PETA will be suing your ass...that happened in California..they did the eco-friendly thing and a huge windmill facility...then a flock of birds were stupid enough to try to fly thru the range of the turbines and the results weren't pretty...damned if you do...damned if you don't...the tree-huggers would love ya, but the animal rights activist would crucify you.

And you talk about ME missing a civics class (I got an A in all of my classes)!

It isn't unconstitutional at all Microevil. I suggest you read up on Congressional rules and procedures. This is very valid to do and it has been done before. Its Called Checks and Balances. The House recognises this as a State's issue. This bill that passed, KEEPS IT a states issue. NO FEDERAL COURT can touch it.

As for enforcing, once it passes, DOMA, which takes out the full faith and credit clause so states that do have gay marriage ARE NOT recognized by the states that don't, will be enhanced. Once it passes, the judges have to dismiss ALL CASES regarding gay marriage. If any judge takes a case, it'll violate the law and be removed from the bench.

No god damnit, it is not legal. That is not a valid check for the congress to use, believe me I did a 10 page paper on checks and balances last year for my government class and passing legislation to limit the jurisdiction of the courts IS NOT ONE OF THEM. The congress can only check the judicial through impeachment of judges and through the appointment of judges, shit the legislative can't even lower the pay of the judges if they think something is going wrong, let alone make a law that says that they can't rule on a specific law. The only thing it would take is a case targeting that specific law that rules that judges can't make rulings on gay marriage and it will be gone in a heart beat, there isn't a judge in the US that wouldn't recognize this abomination of a law's unconstitutionality

No god damnit, it is not legal. That is not a valid check for the congress to use, believe me I did a 10 page paper on checks and balances last year for my government class and passing legislation to limit the jurisdiction of the courts IS NOT ONE OF THEM. The congress can only check the judicial through impeachment of judges and through the appointment of judges, shit the legislative can't even lower the pay of the judges if they think something is going wrong, let alone make a law that says that they can't rule on a specific law.

HAHA!! Ok you believe what you want Microevil. What Congress did they have done on many other issues. They protect things by making sure that FEDERAL COURTS and ONLY FEDERAL COURTS can rule on these issues. Thus, it is LEGAL in what they did.

As for your 10 Page report on Checks and Balances, I guess you DID NOT check on the provisions that Congress can enact against the Judiciary. They can stop them from ruling on controversial issues like Gay Marriage. It is Legal Microevil. Impeachment isn't the only method of checks and balances.

I don't know that I can make it any more clear than this.

http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Images/ChksBalnces.gif

You can also read from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks_and_balances

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:28:./temp/~c108kUPMG6::

WRONG! Read the Act for yourelf. Maybe that'll convince you.

You know what, it isn't even worth going forward with this because you just don't seem to be getting the point and I doubt you ever will.

And you talk about ME missing a civics class (I got an A in all of my classes)!

It isn't unconstitutional at all Microevil. I suggest you read up on Congressional rules and procedures. This is very valid to do and it has been done before. Its Called Checks and Balances. The House recognises this as a State's issue. This bill that passed, KEEPS IT a states issue. NO FEDERAL COURT can touch it.

As for enforcing, once it passes, DOMA, which takes out the full faith and credit clause so states that do have gay marriage ARE NOT recognized by the states that don't, will be enhanced. Once it passes, the judges have to dismiss ALL CASES regarding gay marriage. If any judge takes a case, it'll violate the law and be removed from the bench.DOMA, is that the actual amendment, or is this just a bill? If its not an amendment, then I don't think it can just "take out" the full faith and credit clause, seeing as that is in the constitution.

DOMA, is that the actual amendment, or is this just a bill? If its not an amendment, then I don't think it can just "take out" the full faith and credit clause, seeing as that is in the constitution.
It is just an act.

You know what, it isn't even worth going forward with this because you just don't seem to be getting the point and I doubt you ever will.

Nice Concession! Read the link.

DOMA, is that the actual amendment, or is this just a bill? If its not an amendment, then I don't think it can just "take out" the full faith and credit clause, seeing as that is in the constitution.

DOMA was passed under the Clinton Administration to protect marriage as one man one woman and took Full Faith and Credit BUT ONLY on gay marriage. Thus a Mass gay couple's marriage won't be recognized in the state of California, and yes they don't recognize Gay marriage dispite San Fransico.

You know what, it isn't even worth going forward with this because you just don't seem to be getting the point and I doubt you ever will.

Word of advice, this is classic Formal, what she does is when she's backed into a corner and you have nailed her, she refers you to a huge document, she's counting on the fact you won't read it. She pulled the same stunt on my husband Zeppistan, except my husband called her bluff and read the entire 500+ pages.. then he nailed her to the wall. She just knows that the majority of people won't read the document because most people could care a less to take the time just to point out the flaw in her statement. This is what Zeppistan and I have coined "Classic Formal Dances tactic" Don't worry, I read the thread, you nailed her. She may never admit it, unless Zep or I decide to read the document..lol :)

As for enforcing, once it passes, DOMA, which takes out the full faith and credit clause so states that do have gay marriage ARE NOT recognized by the states that don't, will be enhanced. Once it passes, the judges have to dismiss ALL CASES regarding gay marriage. If any judge takes a case, it'll violate the law and be removed from the bench.
if we want to get into specifics and technicalities, the DOMA can NOT bypass the full faith and credit clause as the full faith and credit clause is in the consitution and the DOMA is not. to DOMA violates full faith and credit, and your statement violates the supremacy clause

Nice Concession! Read the link.

I did read the link, but my point still stands what they are doing with that act is impossible to enforce because they don't have jurisdiction to do that.

if we want to get into specifics and technicalities, the DOMA can NOT bypass the full faith and credit clause as the full faith and credit clause is in the consitution and the DOMA is not. to DOMA violates full faith and credit, and your statement violates the supremacy clause

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~leg450/doma.htm

Sorry boss but your wrong in this case

Defense of Marriage Act (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

--H.R.3396--

H.R.3396


One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

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:

`Sec. 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:

`Sec. 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'.'.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

It does take it out on the gay marriage issue.

Word of advice, this is classic Formal, what she does is when she's backed into a corner and you have nailed her, she refers you to a huge document, she's counting on the fact you won't read it. She pulled the same stunt on my husband Zeppistan, except my husband called her bluff and read the entire 500+ pages.. then he nailed her to the wall. She just knows that the majority of people won't read the document because most people could care a less to take the time just to point out the flaw in her statement. This is what Zeppistan and I have coined "Classic Formal Dances tactic" Don't worry, I read the thread, you nailed her. She may never admit it, unless Zep or I decide to read the document..lol :)

Actually it isn't a huge document it is quite short and simple it ammends the full faith and credit clause so that the courts can't hear certian cases. However, such an act is not possible because it would require a constitutional ammendment to do such a thing.

Word of advice, this is classic Formal, what she does is when she's backed into a corner and you have nailed her, she refers you to a huge document, she's counting on the fact you won't read it. She pulled the same stunt on my husband Zeppistan, except my husband called her bluff and read the entire 500+ pages.. then he nailed her to the wall. She just knows that the majority of people won't read the document because most people could care a less to take the time just to point out the flaw in her statement. This is what Zeppistan and I have coined "Classic Formal Dances tactic" Don't worry, I read the thread, you nailed her. She may never admit it, unless Zep or I decide to read the document..lol :)

Well Steph, if you read what I just posted on DOMA and the MPA, you'll be proud!

Thank god for the Congressional Records.

Actually it isn't a huge document it is quite short and simple it ammends the full faith and credit clause so that the courts can't hear certian cases. However, such an act is not possible because it would require a constitutional ammendment to do such a thing.

Ahhh, okay, I just seen her say "read the act" which sounded pretty much the same as what she tried to pull on my husband. I'm sure she was quite shocked when he took her up on it..lol ;)

Actually it isn't a huge document it is quite short and simple it ammends the full faith and credit clause so that the courts can't hear certian cases. However, such an act is not possible because it would require a constitutional ammendment to do such a thing.

Oh how little you know. You don't need an amendment for what Congress is doing. You need an amendment to BAN IT NATIONWIDE. Massachutes allows it by the State Supreme Court! About 38 States have laws banning it or a constitutional amendment (including CA) that outlaws it.

if we want to get into specifics and technicalities, the DOMA can NOT bypass the full faith and credit clause as the full faith and credit clause is in the consitution and the DOMA is not. to DOMA violates full faith and credit, and your statement violates the supremacy clause

Just a note: you don't mean the DOMA you mean the MPA.

Oh how little you know. You don't need an amendment for what Congress is doing. You need an amendment to BAN IT NATIONWIDE. Massachutes allows it by the State Supreme Court! About 38 States have laws banning it or a constitutional amendment (including CA) that outlaws it.

No they can't, do you need me to say it in swahili or gibberish or some other language that you might understand better? It IS NOT A POWER OF THE CONGRESS TO LIMIT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURTS EXCEPT BU CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT, aka: The MPA is unlawful and will be overturned.

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~leg450/doma.htm

Defense of Marriage Act (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

--H.R.3396--

H.R.3396


One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

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:

`Sec. 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:

`Sec. 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'.'.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

It does take it out!

The first 100 days? I will buy an AR-15 and as much ammunition as I can afford and wait. Kerry is a scary man and he will weaken the US. The DEMS are always trying to take the 2nd amendment away and although I have never owned a personal weapon before I carried one for 20 years. There will be more terrorist attacks with him in office. Of course this is all conjecture anyway because he has not been, and I doubt he will be elected.

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~leg450/doma.htm

Sorry boss but your wrong in this case



It does take it out on the gay marriage issue.
lets have a refresher couse on the us constitution

Article VI Clause 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

the full faith and credit clause supercedes the line in the defense of marriage act, it doesnt matter if it says it waves it or not.

and whats the mpa im not big on acronyms if the bloody tihng hasnt already been listed once written out

lets have a refresher couse on the us constitution

Article VI Clause 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

the full faith and credit clause supercedes the line in the defense of marriage act, it doesnt matter if it says it waves it or not.

and whats the mpa im not big on acronyms if the bloody tihng hasnt already been listed once written out

OH JESUS CHRIST! Why can't people accept the fact that under US LAW the US CODE can be amended and it has! Jeez thus it is LEGAL TO DO!

Under the US Code full faith and Credit has been amended.

lets have a refresher couse on the us constitution

Article VI Clause 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

the full faith and credit clause supercedes the line in the defense of marriage act, it doesnt matter if it says it waves it or not.

and whats the mpa im not big on acronyms if the bloody tihng hasnt already been listed once written out

MPA = Marriage Protection Act of 2004, it is the one that attacks the full faith and credit clause not the DOMA.

MPA = Marriage Protection Act of 2004, it is the one that attacks the full faith and credit clause not the DOMA.


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

`Sec. 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.'.

You were saying?

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

`Sec. 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.'.

You were saying?

God damnit, you and all your mumbo jumbo... you are tying knots in my brain. I really don't have time for this now because I have other more important things to do, but if I get time later I will do some more research and you can enjoy your ass whippin at the hands of the constitution.

God damnit, you and all your mumbo jumbo... you are tying knots in my brain. I really don't have time for this now because I have other more important things to do, but if I get time later I will do some more research and you can enjoy your ass whippin at the hands of the constitution.

Well that is what DOMA STATES! Thus it DID TAKE OUT full faith and Credit. You just don't want to admit it becauase I actually looked at it and read it in its entirety as well as MPA. MPA will amend the US Code to keep this out of Courts. They are amending the proper section of the codes to do this. THus making it legal.

OH JESUS CHRIST! Why can't people accept the fact that under US LAW the US CODE can be amended and it has! Jeez thus it is LEGAL TO DO!

Under the US Code full faith and Credit has been amended.
lets try this again

the DOMA is NOT part of the constitution, it does NOT supercede the full faith and credit clause

that damn clause was created for a reason

lets try this again

the DOMA is NOT part of the constitution, it does NOT supercede the full faith and credit clause

that damn clause was created for a reason

Well your right on one thing, it isn't part of the Constitution. However, the US Code DOES GOVERN how things are runned. Every law passed by the Congress is an Amendment to the US Code. Thus, they have the full weight of the law behind them. In this case, it amends what constitutes marriage. This defines, by law, that its one man one woman. This also states: States don't have to recognize gay marriage. Thus full faith and credit, as amended under US Code, has been amended to EXCLUDE gay marriage.

Well your right on one thing, it isn't part of the Constitution. However, the US Code DOES GOVERN how things are runned. Every law passed by the Congress is an Amendment to the US Code. Thus, they have the full weight of the law behind them. In this case, it amends what constitutes marriage. This defines, by law, that its one man one woman. This also states: States don't have to recognize gay marriage. Thus full faith and credit, as amended under US Code, has been amended to EXCLUDE gay marriage.
it does not supercede full faith and credit without being made into a federal case and turned into an amendment
as a basic law it does NOT supercede it and the full faith and credit clause applies, the law can be struck down if challenged, whether gay marriage is made illegal or not

racism laws can sit aorund saying the constitution doesnt apply to them all day, they are still unconsitutional

it does not supercede full faith and credit without being made into a federal case and turned into an amendment
as a basic law it does NOT supercede it and the full faith and credit clause applies, the law can be struck down if challenged, whether gay marriage is made illegal or not

Ok obviously you have no idea how the US Code works.

The United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. It is divided by broad subjects into 50 titles and published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives. Since 1926, the United States Code has been published every six years. In between editions, annual cumulative supplements are published in order to present the most current information.

Here is info about the US Code

United States Code: About
The United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States based on what is printed in the Statutes at Large. It is divided by broad subjects into 50 titles and published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Since 1926, the United States Code has been published every six years. In between editions, annual cumulative supplements are published in order to present the most current information. Documents are available only as ASCII text files.

GPO Access contains the 2000 and 1994 editions of the U.S. Code, plus annual supplements. At this time, the Statutes at Large is not available on GPO Access.

When a section is affected by a law passed after a supplement’s revision date, the header for that section includes a note that identifies the public law affecting it. In order to find the updated information, you must search the public laws databases for the referenced public law number.

The U.S. Code on GPO Access is the official version of the Code, however, two unofficial editions are available. These are the U.S.C.A.(U.S. Code Annotated) and the U.S.C.S. (U.S. Code Service). The U.S.C.A. and U.S.C.S. contain everything that is printed in the official U.S. Code but also include annotations to case law relevant to the particular statute. While these unofficial versions may be more current, they are not official and not available from the U.S. Government Printing Office.

NOTE: Of the 50 titles, only 23 have been enacted into positive (statutory) law. These titles are 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 44, 46, and 49. When a title of the Code was enacted into positive law, the text of the title became legal evidence of the law. Titles that have not been enacted into positive law are only prima facie evidence of the law. In that case, the Statutes at Large still govern.

The U.S. Code does not include regulations issued by executive branch agencies, decisions of the Federal courts, treaties, or laws enacted by State or local governments. Regulations issued by executive branch agencies are available in the Code of Federal Regulations. Proposed and recently adopted regulations may be found in the Federal Register.

I hope this helps you Chess Squares

Kerry's holdings in Heinz are greater than Cheney's connection to Halliburton. Look at the trouble that caused Cheney.

Heinz is not the only US company servicing overseas clients. Coke, Microsoft, GM and GE all have substantial overseas sales. Does that mean they should be exempt from employing more people overseas than in the US?

Hrm? Kerry holds nothing in Heinz. How can Cheney hold less than nothing?

(a reminder, Kerry and Teresas assets are not to be considered combined. They have a prenuptual that clearly defines all premarital holdings as seperate and distinct. This includes Teresa's holdings in the Heinz company)

As for Cheney's connection to Halliburton.... Cheney was the CEO, and claims to have stepped down from that position despite still being paid his CEO salary. Teresa Heinz Kerry was never CEO, so again this arguement is weak.

careo to explain how it allows a general law to supercede the constitution of the united states?

careo to explain how it allows a general law to supercede the constitution of the united states?

Chess Squares, you absolutely have no idea that the US Code is the the Public Laws passed by the US Congress! Where in the US Constitution does it mention Full Faith and Credit? It doesn't

Full faith and Credit was passed by the US Congress and can be amended. US Code is every law passed by the US Congress. If you don't understand that then I feel sorry for you. Thus the DOMA amends the full faith and credit on gay marriage stating that A state doesn't have to recognise gay marriage if its illegal in said state. There is NOTHING in the US Constitution that prevents the Legistlature from doing this. Thus what Congress did with DOMA of 1996 and MPA of 2004 is completely legal.

You can't change the subject. Haliburton benefited from the war, and Heinz benefits from overseas labor. If the subject is overseas labor Kerry is exposed and must reconcile the conflict.

There is nothing to reconsile here. You seem to think that Heinz's products can be manufactured anywhere to be delivered to market. Sad to say, this is not so. In fact, Heinz produces foodstuff, that is, perishable material. The sooner to market the better, or else the product will spoil before delivery. Heinz's overseas factories are not outsourcing, that is moving workers there to make products for US or worldwide distribution. They are produced locally to where they will be purchased, that is so that there will be the minimum time to market thereby limiting the problems of spoilage.

Cheney isn't profiting at all! He has no SHARE in the company. He sold it all so he doesn't get squat at all. Heinz may have 4% however that is 4% more than what Cheney has so the arguement is invalid.

So why did Cheney accept his paycheck from Haliburton last year? 6-figure salary isn't something to sneeze at.

Chess Squares, you absolutely have no idea that the US Code is the the Public Laws passed by the US Congress! Where in the US Constitution does it mention Full Faith and Credit? It doesn't

Full faith and Credit was passed by the US Congress and can be amended. US Code is every law passed by the US Congress. If you don't understand that then I feel sorry for you. Thus the DOMA amends the full faith and credit on gay marriage stating that A state doesn't have to recognise gay marriage if its illegal in said state. There is NOTHING in the US Constitution that prevents the Legistlature from doing this. Thus what Congress did with DOMA of 1996 and MPA of 2004 is completely legal.

Article IV Section 1

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state; and the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.


its called the full faith and credit clause because its a clause in the constitution with full faith and credit in it

Article IV Section 1

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state; and the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

You just invalidated your own Arguement!

Congress may by General Laws prescribe the manner in which shuch acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Therefor, By General Law, Congress did act in accordance of said Article and Section! By General Law, Congress did act in by prescribing the in which such acts, records, and proceedings. In this case, they used General Law to define full faith and credit. Thus they followed the US Constitution.

I don't know what he'll accomplish. Hopefully a lot of good stuff.

You just invalidated your own Arguement!

Congress may by General Laws prescribe the manner in which shuch acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Therefor, By General Law, Congress did act in accordance of said Article and Section! By General Law, Congress did act in by prescribing the in which such acts, records, and proceedings. In this case, they used General Law to define full faith and credit. Thus they followed the US Constitution.
exactly in accordance with to say "of" is to not know what it means


webster's

accordance - Agreement; harmony; conformity

that line gives them the power to enforce the full faith and credit line: they can, if necesary, force states to follow the law of another state in accordance with article IV section 1

they cannot act contrary to the law, the DOMA acts contrary to full faith and credit, the congress has no power to define full faith and credit as it is already defined, they are just given power to enforce it

Well your right on one thing, it isn't part of the Constitution. However, the US Code DOES GOVERN how things are runned. Every law passed by the Congress is an Amendment to the US Code. Thus, they have the full weight of the law behind them. In this case, it amends what constitutes marriage. This defines, by law, that its one man one woman. This also states: States don't have to recognize gay marriage. Thus full faith and credit, as amended under US Code, has been amended to EXCLUDE gay marriage.
That sounds about right. It can't circumvent full faith and credit, but congress is allowed to dictate what form things like marriage can take. However, this could all be moot if the 14th amendment is ruled to prohibit homophobia being made into law, in which case you'll need a constitutional amendment to ban it.

That sounds about right. It can't circumvent full faith and credit, but congress is allowed to dictate what form things like marriage can take. However, this could all be moot if the 14th amendment is ruled to prohibit homophobia being made into law, in which case you'll need a constitutional amendment to ban it.

Not if MPA is agreed too by the US Senate. Thus that would mean the Fed Courts won't be able to touch it.

The economy appeared to be going well, and so, President Bush decided that it was a good time to pay back some of the surplus money, and give the people a tax cut. That's fine. But then the economy takes a nosedive, and President Bush again decides that the best way to improve things is.... to give the people a tax cut.

A tax cut for all seasons? Please don't tell me that you believe that a tax cut is, as the Republican administration seems to think it is, a panacea for all economic pains. Surely, somewhere, sometime, there must be a situation when a tax cut is not a good idea.

I recall an Al Gore speech in 2000 saying that a tax cut would be foolish, due to future weakness in the economy. That the first goal must be to pay off the debt, so that future economic downturns would be reduced due to the reduction in debt load on the United States.

And that is where the argument falls to pieces. See, the same-sex couples fail one little test: they are unable to produce offspring. Interracacial couples can, Intergender couples can.

Untrue, a same sex couple can produce offspring via a serrogate, same as opposite sex couples can.

Not if MPA is agreed too by the US Senate. Thus that would mean the Fed Courts won't be able to touch it.

You seem to not grasp how the law actually works

Let's start Law 101

The first law of the land is the Constitution. No law can superscene this document. This document can be amended from time to time, however the process is a laborious one, requiring a supermajority of the states to ratify the amendment. If and when the Senate approve such an amendment, it will be then turned over to the states, which have to return a supermajority before it can be ratified. This process is known to take decades, and in fact has only succeeded on a handful of issues throughout its history.

So tell me, which 38 states will radify this amendment Formal?

You seem to not grasp how the law actually works

Let's start Law 101

The first law of the land is the Constitution. No law can superscene this document. This document can be amended from time to time, however the process is a laborious one, requiring a supermajority of the states to ratify the amendment. If and when the Senate approve such an amendment, it will be then turned over to the states, which have to return a supermajority before it can be ratified. This process is known to take decades, and in fact has only succeeded on a handful of issues throughout its history.

So tell me, which 38 states will radify this amendment Formal?

California has a state amendment banning it and many other states do too, can't think of them right now. Other states have laws that define marriage as one man one woman and will not recognize gay marriage.

Under the US Code that was amended by the US Congress, said that states don't have to recognize gay marriages if its banned in said states (DOMA 1996). The MPA (Marriage Protection Act of 2004) Further amends the US Code by stating that FEDERAL COURTS (something people seem to miss) can't decide this issue. It furthers DOMA by taking it one step further. Thus the US Constitution wasn't violated.

I would like to see Mr. Kerry have some plan to pay off the national debt. I was very irritated by Mr. Bush's irresponsible tax cuts, and his incessant need to take us further into debt. The craziest thing about his tax cuts is that taxes on municipalities have risen ridiculously. The whole reason I wanted Mr. Gore to win was the fact that he wanted to pay off the national debt.

USA PATRIOT Act repealed?

HA! Fat chance, we will prolly have to wait for his second term., when he doesn't have to worry about being reelected.

Although, it can't hurt to hope!

Not if MPA is agreed too by the US Senate. Thus that would mean the Fed Courts won't be able to touch it.

Note: if the courts rule that MPA is unconstitutional, which they will, they will then be able to attack DOMA... yet again... And the ammendment will never pass so long as there are more that 24 democrats in the senate, there have been over 3000 attempts to ammend the constitution and only 27 have gone through I think that pretty much shows how unbelievably difficult the process is.

Note: if the courts rule that MPA is unconstitutional, which they will, they will then be able to attack DOMA... yet again... And the ammendment will never pass so long as there are more that 24 democrats in the senate, there have been over 3000 attempts to ammend the constitution and only 27 have gone through I think that pretty much shows how unbelievably difficult the process is.

Wont be able too! I guess you don't understand that! How the bill is written, it won't be able to get challenged.

MPA of 2004 tells the courts they CAN"T RULE ON GAY MARRIAGE!

Marriage Protection Act of 2004 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)


108th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 3313

AN ACT
To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act .

HR 3313 EH


108th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 3313


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AN ACT
To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act .


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 `Marriage Protection Act of 2004 '.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 1632. Limitation on jurisdiction

`No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, section 1738C or this section.'.

(b) Amendments to the Table of Sections- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1632. Limitation on jurisdiction.'.
Passed the House of Representatives July 22, 2004 .

Attest:

Clerk.

I believe this is spelled out clearly in this Bill.

Please read the bills before commenting!

Wont be able too! I guess you don't understand that! How the bill is written, it won't be able to get challenged.

MPA of 2004 tells the courts they CAN"T RULE ON GAY MARRIAGE!



I believe this is spelled out clearly in this Bill.

Please read the bills before commenting!

Just because they can't rule on gay marriage doesn't mean that they can't rule on the MPA itself, or don't you understand what I'm getting at. The MPA is has nothing to do with gay marriage, the MPA is a law that unlawfully redefines US Code and that can be challenged, basically the congress is entering itself into a cycle of meaningless legislation that is a waste of time. And Further more, after they repeal the MPA then the DOMA is on the chopping block again.

Just because they can't rule on gay marriage doesn't mean that they can't rule on the MPA itself, or don't you understand what I'm getting at. The MPA is has nothing to do with gay marriage, the MPA is a law that unlawfully redefines US Code and that can be challenged, basically the congress is entering itself into a cycle of meaningless legislation that is a waste of time. And Further more, after they repeal the MPA then the DOMA is on the chopping block again.

Did you read the bill or not? Obviously you didn't or you would've seen what it stated. This protects states rights. This keeps the Federal Courts out of a State Issue. That is the purpose of this bill! I guess you just don't understand or that you just flat out don't care. Eitherway, its sad when I do and I'm younger than you.

Micro, Steph is right! You can take a post and spin it! I said I don't believe in gay marraige. I believe in civil unions with LIMITED benefits.
And WHAT has all of this got to do with Kerry's first 100 days in office?

I think the spin cycle is on high and the machine just won't shut off?

And WHAT has all of this got to do with Kerry's first 100 days in office?

I think the spin cycle is on high and the machine just won't shut off?

I guess you didn't realize that this started with a comment that I responded too and thus spinned out of control. So why are you singling ME out CH?

Yeah, no one respond to FD anymore, she hi-jacked this thread with a topic that shouldn't even be discussed here. It's not like there aren't 10 other topics, or even 100 other topics that don't specifically address the same issue.

I guess you didn't realize that this started with a comment that I responded too and thus spinned out of control. So why are you singling ME out CH?

Cause you won't let go.

Cause you won't let go.

Neither could you!

I guess you didn't realize that this started with a comment that I responded too and thus spinned out of control. So why are you singling ME out CH?
Actually I didn't single you out. Bozzy did that earlier, as he politely asked you not to post anymore. You apologized then resumed where you left off, and that was way back on page 2 of this thread:

Originally Posted by Formal Dances
I will say this about Iraq! If Kerry wins and takes over, Iraq would've had their elections by then. 2/3 of al Qaeda's leaders are dead or captured. That is all I'm going to say.

Bozzy
Member


Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 225 Quote:

Please read the telegram I sent you and kindly refrain from further posts.

And I don't think i've said you were wrong did I? No I didn't!

I wrote in response to something that was written then it got out of control. For this I apologize and will not post about gay marriage again here.