On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:32:30 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 15:50:14 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:


Because two is all that is provided for by law. And to remind you,
until the religious wackos started rewriting the law the law didn't
care whether it was a man or woman or a man and man or a woman and
woman.
The laws have long stated a man and a woman (which was reiterated
numerous times in the DOMA decision). As it notes: ""regulation of
domestic relations" is "an area that has long been regarded as a
virtually exclusive province of the States," Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S.
393, 404. The significance of state responsibilities for the definition
and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation's beginning; for ***"when
the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the
domestic relations of husband and wife ***and parent and child were
matters reserved to the States," Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.
S. 379, 383-384. Popovici, by the way was a 1930s case hardly a time of
religious wackos.


It was only when the religious wackos realized the law didn't
care that they had to force thru the DOMA to close that "loophole".
But as the SC ruled, that loophole wasn't a loophole, it was a civil
right.

Where did it say that. I did a search on the SCOTUS decision and civil
right only showed up once and in an entirely different context within
Alito's DISSENT.

The WHAT versus WHO issue has been explained to you folks
before. The WHAT is that marriage is two humans tying the knot. The
WHO is the two humans. That law is about the WHAT, not the WHO. If
the law changes so that WHAT is three humans, or a human and a
non-human then we can explore the WHO that might be involved and
whether limiting whom WHO is violates anyone's rights under the
constitution.

Did not address same sex marriages directly. Rather it was abut DOMA
pre-empting the laws of states (in this case NYS) that HAD specifically
okayed same sex marriages. The entirety of the opinion was solely that
DOMA and "Its unusual deviation from the tradition of recognizing and
accepting state definitions of marriage operates to deprive same-sex
couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with federal
recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having
the purpose and effect of disapproval of a class recognized and
protected by state law." The constitutionality was solely that it
usurped the rights of the state.

Husband and wife is not defined by sex in the law. And what might be
"commonly understood" does not mean it's legal. The fact remains, if
this was clear cut as you are trying to claim there would not have
been any need at all for DOMA nor for so many states to start passing
their own little DOMAs and trying to amend their constitutions in
there attempts to prevent gay marriage. The very ACTS the states took
puts the lie to your claim that existing law said marriages were ONLY
opposite sex. You can't escape that truth.


Crickets...