Aren't you the guy who said he really doesn't care about this issue one way or the other, and has been arguing about it for 3 months?  I'd ask someone to kill me if I were that dumb.

Mike has dementia. Not sure how he got access to a computer.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/21/2013 4:44:00 PM (view original):
Aren't you the guy who said he really doesn't care about this issue one way or the other, and has been arguing about it for 3 months?  I'd ask someone to kill me if I were that dumb.

I enjoy making BL and his idealist flunkies look foolish.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2013 4:37:00 PM (view original):
Right now, a 35 y/o gay man has been unable to legally marry, according to the Feds, his partner his ENTIRE ADULT LIFE.

Tell him how the Feds can't pass laws pertaining to marriage. 

No comment, dumb fish?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2013 4:37:00 PM (view original):
Right now, a 35 y/o gay man has been unable to legally marry, according to the Feds, his partner his ENTIRE ADULT LIFE.

Tell him how the Feds can't pass laws pertaining to marriage. 

Congress doesn't have constitutional authority to regulate marriage, which is why DOMA will be thrown out.

11 states allow gay marriage. So there is a precedent for defining marriage to include gay couples. And, in a few days, there will be no federal law defining marriage as one man one women (and there won't be one in the future).

So what's your point?

He doesn't have a point, so he'll just keep calling you dumb.  Of course he read my last post, but didn't have a response to it, so he just said it was too long.

He clearly has nothing better to do with his time than sit on these forums all day, blows away the field in terms of career posts, why wouldn't he read it?

Did the law exist or not for that gay man's entire adult life?

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/21/2013 4:58:00 PM (view original):
He doesn't have a point, so he'll just keep calling you dumb.  Of course he read my last post, but didn't have a response to it, so he just said it was too long.

No, I don't read long-winded posts from dumbasses.   You'd be surprised how easy it is to not do that.  

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2013 4:58:00 PM (view original):
Did the law exist or not for that gay man's entire adult life?

Sure.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/21/2013 4:58:00 PM (view original):
He doesn't have a point, so he'll just keep calling you dumb.  Of course he read my last post, but didn't have a response to it, so he just said it was too long.

You're giving him too much credit. There were some big words in your post. Maybe, "too long" is mike-code for "don't understand all the words."

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2013 4:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2013 4:58:00 PM (view original):
Did the law exist or not for that gay man's entire adult life?

Sure.

Tell him how the Feds can't govern marriage. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2013 5:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2013 4:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2013 4:58:00 PM (view original):
Did the law exist or not for that gay man's entire adult life?

Sure.

Tell him how the Feds can't govern marriage. 

Congress doesn't have constitutional authority to regulate marriage.

(I'm assuming "he" is reading this)

As I understand it, SSM marriage is technically not legal anywhere in the U.S., even in the 11 (or so) states that have passed laws "legalizing" it.

Check out Cooper vs. Aaron.

States cannot pass laws that attempt to nullify federal law, and should be considered ineffective.

Since DOMA is technically the law of the land, any state laws passed subsequent to DOMA that attempt to contradict it are legally ineffective.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/21/2013 5:06:00 PM (view original):
As I understand it, SSM marriage is technically not legal anywhere in the U.S., even in the 11 (or so) states that have passed laws "legalizing" it.

Check out Cooper vs. Aaron.

States cannot pass laws that attempt to nullify federal law, and should be considered ineffective.

Since DOMA is technically the law of the land, any state laws passed subsequent to DOMA that attempt to contradict it are legally ineffective.

I don't think that applies. NAL, but I think DOMA only regulates marriage at the federal level (taxes, SS, and other benefits) it doesn't restrict state law. And anyway, DOMA is unconstitutional.