DOMA struck down

[JayC]

I'm all fine with allowing people their free pursuit of happiness, up until the government forces me violate my freedom of association (or the freedom not to associate with person) because they claim my freedom somehow violates their ability to pursue happiness.

 

I'm glad DOMA is on the way out. Now if we can just get Tennessee to lift it's ban.

We need to go back to being a country of life, liberty, and the pursuit. And if your happiness hinges on denying someone else the right to be happy maybe you should reevaluate your life.

 

[JayC]

Robert while I agree with you completely on this, I'm a little concerned your account has been hacked and taken over by a libertarian :)

 

I am assuming you believe that "marriage" should be restricted to one man/one women and that you believe the government should enforce that limitation as a matter of law, correct?  The problem with government involvement in social issues is that it can cut both ways. Tomorrow, the government could decide that there can be no such thing as "marriage" or the every one, if htey marry at all, are required to have a minimum of two spouses simultaneously.
 

There is a difference, a significant difference I would suggest; between laws that seek to protect victims (i.e. laws against theft, murder, child pornography, adults engaging in sex with minor children, etc.) compared to laws that try to mold society into a currently defined "norm".  As I understand the Constitution, it is not the proper role of government; especially the federal government, to engage in social engineering whether it's "engineering" some people like or not...whether it’s dictating who can marry each other or showing favoritism to married couples (tax treatment, etc) or even doing things such as subsidizing people buying homes, certain “ecologically friendly vehicles” and all the other things that government dose to “make us into the society it wants”.

 

All I'm suggesting is that government shoudl do only what it's supposed to do and engaging in social engineering is not one of government's proper roles.

 

[JayC]

So you have no problem with polygamy then?  Because that form of marriage tends to promote the species to propagate.

 

It's way too late for that.  In the beginning, government wasn't in the "who's married and who isn't" business.  That's not to say there wasn't homosexuality, bestiality, and other aberrant sexual practices.  Yet nature itself taught mankind that sexes were distinct and the only way to propagate the species was the old fashioned way--and it will remain that way if government stays out of the God business and refrains from experimental creation.

 

Mark Twain wrote, "Man is the only animal that blushes. Or needs to."  Thanks to our "evolving" society and Constitution, there's very little of that anymore.

 

[onemancoyote]

I have no problem with polygamy. None of my business and none of the states as long as the children are cared for and all parties are consenting.

But I've read too much Heinlein.

[RobertNashville]

Robert while I agree with you completely on this, I'm a little concerned your account has been hacked and taken over by a libertarian :)

Really JayC...no need to get insulting now is there?  ;)

[JayC]

Rob,  I didn't mean anything..  I was just pulling your leg from the thread we had going the other day ;)

 

Really JayC...no need to get insulting now is there?   ;)

[gun sane]

So you have no problem with polygamy then?  Because that form of marriage tends to promote the species to propagate.

 

No, I don't.  The problem is, many have trouble holding one marriage together.  How will they handle multiple families?  Can the spouse accept sharing their mate with other spouses, even if he/she cannot propagate?  Will children be able to withstand the inevitable badgering by others at school?  How will inheritances be divvied up?  How about pacifying multiple in-laws?  

 

Here's my point:  For too many today, marriage is more like a living arrangement  than a sacred commitment.   One wag said, "Marriage is like a long, dull meal with the dessert at the beginning."  But whether the union is full of love and successful or a continual nightmare of hate and discontent, it influences far more than just two lives.  It's a wise person who checks the depth of the water before diving in head (or even genitals) first.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Perhaps the multiple wives flavor of polygamy should be outlawed-- But not on the basis of sexual morality. Multiple wives polygamy might be more logically outlawed for the prevention of cruelty to dumb animals?

 

How much nagging could a man survive? Monophonic nagging is bad enough. Imagine stereophonic nagging! Or quadraphonic nagging! Not one honey-to-do list, but MANY honey-to-do lists! Multiple birthdays to remember! The man would never get a chance at the TV remote control. A steady diet of women's TV programming. Scarey!

[Oh Shoot]

One thing this decision will do is of course simply add to the federal budget and of course likely require additional personnel to implement.

 

Looks like all denied bennies will be due retroactively, plus with interest. I'm sure it will be many years before all those claims are sorted out.

 

- OS

[thundersnow]

Looks like all denied bennies will be due retroactively, plus with interest. I'm sure it will be many years before all those claims are sorted out.

That's not my idea of moving forward!