[MACVSOG68]

In Reynolds vs. the U.S., the Supreme Court upheld the majority's right to establish community standards in these areas. Once you throw out that decision, you impose polygamy (and all other forms of marriage) on society, against the codified will of the people.

Are you referring to the 1878 case? Why would you throw out that decision. I find it fully consistent with the 11th Circuit decision I referenced. The distinction is that the DOMA was designed to interpret Article IV, not to impose anything on states. I simply see no reason at this time to support an amendment that may never be needed. Nor do I want to see one that could interfere with those decisions rightfully belonging to a state.

I suppose next you'll be arguing in favor of the right of streakers to roam the streets. After all, we have no business interfering with their personal choice of dress--or lack thereof--right?

So if your first argument won't fly you create an absurd straw man? What part of privacy do you not understand?

But let's get real here. This is not about ensuring that a state must recognize another state's non traditional marriage. It is an attempt by religious fundamentalists to try and impose their particular value system on everyone else. They know that DOMA is working, but they have another agenda.

[DBeers]

It is an attempt by religious fundamentalists to try and impose their particular value system on everyone else

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

What is and has been observed by ALL through the ages via tradition, conventional wisdom, common law, and enacted law is now the domain of extremists? You by default imply homosexual marriage has legitimacy and in essence expose your illegitimate position on the matter...

You better put your "states rights" facade back in place quickly otherwise the hole you dig will get mighty deep right quickly...

[gidget7]

"It is an attempt by religious fundamentalists to try and impose their particular value system on everyone else. "


The reality is, "religious fundamentalists" as you call them, are not the ones trying to impose their value system on everyone else. That statement is pure projection from the left!

[JCEccles]

Gay marriage is about a small group of self-indulgent nuts forcing their sickness on the rest of us.

You must support the sickness, hence your confused posts.

[DBeers]

It is an attempt by religious fundamentalists to try and impose their particular value system on everyone else.

P.S. You might consider actual rather than perceived social injustice issues in your reasoning when attempting to evoke platitudes to support a flawed position.

The only recent example that readily comes to mind of others imposing their particular value system on everyone else would reside within the domain of the Lawrence decision wherein anal sex was imposed upon everyone else.

It is the activist judges and judicial rulings that impose on everyone else -it is objectively self-evident that everyone else (the people) can not ever impose anything on themselves -not possible to consider that which is chosen to be that which is imposed UNLESS of course you comprise the minority position being imposed upon...

;-)

[longtermmemmory]

Stop the misrepresentation.

The 1996 DOMA is NOT working. Otherwise the Mass court would not have ruled the way it did.

You have a plethora of federal law suits which are precisly challenging (successfully) the mere law.

the 1996 is NOT working.