DOMA struck down

[onemancoyote]

I don't think we ever had a code of absolute moral ethics. When was this?

Also you do realize that same-sex marriage is legal in other countries, right? And has been for over a decade in some places. Hardly "the first time a government" etc. Edited June 26, 2013 by onemancoyote

[Smith]

I don't think we ever had a code of absolute moral ethics. When was this?

 

 

Uh, the Constitution. ;) Didn't last long.

[onemancoyote]

Not a "code of morals". What are morals? Who gets to decide what is moral?

Also go back and read my other comment. I added something after you posted. Edited June 26, 2013 by onemancoyote

[Smith]

Not a "code of morals". What are morals? Who gets to decide what is moral?

 

and here lies the problem .... :shake:

 

 

 

Evidently, In this case the SCOTUS.

[RobertNashville]

My point exactly. The whole concept of a marriage license is silly.

I see said the blind man. :)

[onemancoyote]

and here lies the problem .... :shake:
 
 
 
Evidently, In this case the SCOTUS.

Which is functioning in the way it was intended to, right? Or is it only working correctly when you agree with it.

[Oh Shoot]

I'm curious; why do you think the government at any level of government, should be involved at all?

 

That's another argument, and a non sequitur one at that in the matter of federal DOMA.

 

The federal government has been "involved" with marriage since the first widow of the Revolution was compensated and to think it would, or even could, duck out is just fantasy.

 

There are, according to the lawsuit, over 1,100 federal benefits to heterosexual spouses, and before this decision, none for state sanctioned homosexual spouses. This was what this suit was about. Remember, the lady who started this suit had to pay 363,000 clams in federal estate taxes when her spouse died. The state of NY recognized her marriage, but the feds did not.

 

As she said, if her spouse had been named Theo instead of Thea, she wouldn't have owed a dime.

 

The ruling was not issued on the base of anyone's "morals", but on the greater issue of "equality". And, the issue of the marriage itself is still left to the states so far, although I don't understand the ramifications of a resident couple from a state that doesn't recognize same sex marriages getting married in a different state that does.

 

- OS

Edited June 26, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Mike.357]

I'm curious; why do you think the government at any level of government, should be involved at all?

 

Frankly, who I marry, don't marry, live with, don't live with, love, don't love is not a roll that governmetn should be or needs to be involved in. I'm certainly in favor of hetrosexual marraige and belive it's the best overall structure for a successful society...but I don't see it as the proper roll of government to be involced in it.

 

you may be right in theory that the .gov need not be involved but in practice it is not going to happen.   The .gov interjects itself into all of our lives through taxation.

Allowing gay marriage levels the taxation playing field for everyone, gay or straight.

[Smith]

Nice try. The ruling on DOMA was not made using law or the constitution, which by the way is the only authority the SCOTUS has. They went outside that boundary and negated the constitutional principles and guidelines in which they are sworn to uphold and abide by.

 

The SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of law. They are simply one of the 3 "EQUAL" branches of government. 

[onemancoyote]

Got any citations? Show me that what was done was unconstitutional or outside of the realm of SCOTUS. Edited June 26, 2013 by onemancoyote

[gun sane]

Not a "code of morals". What are morals? Who gets to decide what is moral?

 

Okay....not another peep about, "Bush lied, people died."

[onemancoyote]

Okay....not another peep about, "Bush lied, people died."

I'm not sure i get this reference.

[RobertNashville]

Of course I believe in the power of choice.  I also acknowledge that some can't see beyond their own desire the eventual outcome of their decisions.  Why not let kids have as much candy as they want?  Why tell your teenager you want them home before midnight?  Liberty without restraint guided by wisdom is not victimless.  It affects many more people than you might realize.  So it is with a government which makes or decides laws based not upon the eventual consequences, but upon what will attract more votes.  Because the poor outnumber the rich, it is far more popular to spread the wealth around to achieve "fairness"  rather than reward individual achievement.  How much of your taxes are you willing to give to finance a drug rehab clinic for illegal aliens or an all-inclusive vacation resort for welfare recipients? A growing number of gays and lesbians are coming out of the closet, perhaps closely followed by polygamists, pedophiles and those strongly attracted to sheep.  You may think it's best to live and let live, but will you hold to that philosophy when the barbarians are storming your gates?

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.

Edited June 26, 2013 by RobertNashville

[TrickyNicky]

I love all the talk about churches being forced to marry people it doesn't want to. Because we all know that Catholic Churches and Jewish synagogues have been forced to marry people on command for years.

You can't see it but I'm rolling my eyes as hard as I can.

[gun sane]

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.

 

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.

[East_TN_Patriot]

I think that was Scalia's point.  In his dissent he wanted the people to decide this issue, and, instead, the court said, " No, WE'LL decide it for you since you decided wrongly."  

 

Kind of like slavery and DC's ban on guns I suppose.

[RobertNashville]

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.

Well, yeah...it's probably way to late for everything...I don't know why anybody is worried bout who's president or who will run next time or voting or any of that stuff, right?

 

I remember some pretty heated discussions about how important it was to keep Obama from a second term and prevent him changing the balance of the court...how Romney was as unfriendly toward guns as Obama and how Ron Paul was our savior if all us idiots who were not Paulbots would just get on board we could change things...how silly that we all got so hot and flustered with each other. ;)

 

I don't have any hope that things will get better...I believe our economy will collapse and probably before I get a whole lot older but I'd still like to at least think there is a chance to change some things; getting the government out defining what is 99% a religious concept in the first place would be a start.

Edited June 27, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

you may be right in theory that the .gov need not be involved but in practice it is not going to happen.   The .gov interjects itself into all of our lives through taxation.

Allowing gay marriage levels the taxation playing field for everyone, gay or straight.

True but the DOMA decision doesn't allow same-sex marriages or prevents them; it just says the federal government can not play favorites with federal benefits...that is at least movement toward a level playing field but not as far as taxes (FIT) are concerned; at least I don't think so.

[thundersnow]

In his dissent, Justice Kennedy argues "...In the end, what the Court fails to grasp or accept is the basic premise of the initiative process. And it is this.  The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around. Freedom resides first in the people without need of a grant from government."

 

That's so right on man!  Although it seems in this case SCOTUS punted the ruling back to the individual states to decide what is best for their own territories. 

[Oh Shoot]

In his dissent, Justice Kennedy argues "...In the end, what the Court fails to grasp or accept is the basic premise of the initiative process. And it is this.  The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around. Freedom resides first in the people without need of a grant from government."

 

That's so right on man!  Although it seems in this case SCOTUS punted the ruling back to the individual states to decide what is best for their own territories. 

 

That was regarding the Prop 8 decision, btw, not the DOMA one, and Kennedy was the swing vote on nuking DOMA, allying with the 4 libs.

 

Ironically, that dissent in the Prop 8 was in keeping with that, in that the states have the say regarding same sex marriage, which the feds must honor.

 

Although now, since the feds must honor any state's same sex marriage stand for issuing benefits, the next suit to work its way up will be likely be on the basis of federal supremacy in the issue -- like, a legally married couple from one state moves to a state where their marriage is not honored. One way or the other, legal same sex marriage will be the universal law of the land at some point.

 

- OS

[No_0ne]

You mean go back to a time when we had a code of absolute moral ethics that established this country that gave us life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?. The same ones we are currently dismantling that you applaud.? Talking about a circular feel good statement. ;)

 

You do realize that this ruling is establishing for the first time in the history of government or the history of man where same sex relationships were deemed "marriage". This is a brand new baby. Just saying.

You might want to learn to history.

[No_0ne]

Of course I believe in the power of choice.  I also acknowledge that some can't see beyond their own desire the eventual outcome of their decisions.  Why not let kids have as much candy as they want?  Why tell your teenager you want them home before midnight?  Liberty without restraint guided by wisdom is not victimless.  It affects many more people than you might realize.  So it is with a government which makes or decides laws based not upon the eventual consequences, but upon what will attract more votes.  Because the poor outnumber the rich, it is far more popular to spread the wealth around to achieve "fairness"  rather than reward individual achievement.  How much of your taxes are you willing to give to finance a drug rehab clinic for illegal aliens or an all-inclusive vacation resort for welfare recipients? A growing number of gays and lesbians are coming out of the closet, perhaps closely followed by polygamists, pedophiles and those strongly attracted to sheep.  You may think it's best to live and let live, but will you hold to that philosophy when the barbarians are storming your gates?

Are you seriously arguing that the federal government should regulate the caloric intake of children, or curfews for teenagers?

[DMark]

Somewhere....

 

Just out of sight.......

 

Divorce Lawyers are cheering this SCOTUS ruling.

 

:stir:

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Somewhere....

 

Just out of sight.......

 

Divorce Lawyers are cheering this SCOTUS ruling.

 

:stir:

 

Divorce lawyers and wedding caterers. Just guessing, there would be big shindigs, no mere anonymous visit to the justice of the peace.

[gun sane]

Are you seriously arguing that the federal government should regulate the caloric intake of children, or curfews for teenagers?

 

Shucks, why should parents look after them well into the young adult stage?  Let us taxpayers just fund breeding camps and turn them over to governmental indoctrination specialists right out of the chute?  We could sterilize women who are unfit--the June Cleaver types who want to stay at home, be there for her family and trust that God means what He says--and have instead mothers who are baby factories, paying them by the pound, and have Kool-Aid drinking training counselors coddle them from cradle to work factory like progressive humanoid nursery ants.

 

Oh, you're asking if I'm serious.........No.