House authorizes and spends 6x original amount on DOMA defense

[xj0hnx]

And so how does allowing government recognized marriage of anyone fit in with not wanting the government to legislate peoples personal lives?

You mean how is wanting to treat people equally under the law regardless of their sexual orientation not wanting the government to legislate people's personal lives 🙄 gee, I don't know.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

The point was that defending DOMA is spending, and therefore stimulative. By the logic of Krugman and the Democrats, it's a good thing when the government spends money on something, anything. Even if it's as stupid as fighting imaginary space aliens, paying lawyers to defend DOMA, or whatever other stupid ideas the Republicans might have, much less Democrats.

Most of the money goes into Lawyers pockets who are not a good place to dump stimulus as they're more likely to save it as opposed to spend it on necessities in a time of need, which then bounces around the economy. Also, stimulating just to stimulate is a poor idea. You do it when the system needs some juice. If you try to do it all the time, it just burns the budget out and leaves you with no good options when a recession actually hits.

 

[nehalem256]

You mean how is wanting to treat people equally under the law regardless of their sexual orientation not wanting the government to legislate people's personal lives 🙄 gee, I don't know.

(1) That is not true. There are many sexual orientations that same-sex marriage supporters have no problem with discriminating against

(2) Saying that you don't want the government involved in your personal life and then demanding that the government recognize your relationship has to be the height of absurdity.

 

[nehalem256]

Most of the money goes into Lawyers pockets who are not a good place to dump stimulus as they're more likely to save it as opposed to spend it on necessities in a time of need, which then bounces around the economy. Also, stimulating just to stimulate is a poor idea. You do it when the system needs some juice. If you try to do it all the time, it just burns the budget out and leaves you with no good options when a recession actually hits.

You think the fancy suits, luxury cars, and mansions don't have to be paid for?

 

[xj0hnx]

(1) That is not true. There are many sexual orientations that same-sex marriage supporters have no problem with discriminating against

This isn't about their opinions.

(2) Saying that you don't want the government involved in your personal life and then demanding that the government recognize your relationship has to be the height of absurdity.

B- Solid effort, but not quite there. The government recognizing same-sex marriage equally isn't messing in anyone's personal life, the government not recognizing it is.

 

[Fern]

House authorizes and spends 6x original amount on DOMA defense

Well, since Obama decided not to have the DoJ take up the case of behalf of the govt this seems the obvious result. SCOTUS case aren't cheap.

I'd rather the DoJ do it and save us taxpayers a bunch of money, but Obama called it differently.

Fern

 

[Zorba]

You think the fancy suits, luxury cars, and mansions don't have to be paid for?

Most well off people don't spend all of their income, or anywhere near all of their income. The poor and lower middle class tend to spend close to all of their income.

 

[nehalem256]

B- Solid effort, but not quite there. The government recognizing same-sex marriage equally isn't messing in anyone's personal life, the government not recognizing it is.

The whole point of government recognized marriage is to have the government meddle in people's lives. This applies to both same-sex and opposite-sex marriage.

If the government recognition of a marriage did not involve the government meddling in people's lives then no one would bother to get one.

 

[LightPattern]

If the government cannot define marriage how can it grant benefits based off of it?

now there's an interesting question. is treatment of married people under the tax code differently from how single people are treated legal? the answer would almost certainly depend on whether there is invidious discrimination involved (as the feds can do practically anything under rational basis).

feds can't define civil unions either, btw.

Bravo guys.
Adding just a couple words for clarity:

If the Federal government, under the Constitution, cannot legally define marriage how can it grant benefits based off of it?

Get the Federal government out of the marriage business!

Ron Paul back in 2007 saying just that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQkNEcXPAHs&feature=youtu.be

 

[werepossum]

Bravo guys.
Adding just a couple words for clarity:

If the Federal government, under the Constitution, cannot legally define marriage how can it grant benefits based off of it?

Get the Federal government out of the marriage business!

Ron Paul back in 2007 saying just that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQkNEcXPAHs&feature=youtu.be

That is indeed a good question. Michael Savage says one thing (and only one thing) with which I agree - that a nation is defined by borders, language and culture. Having one common set of civil rights certainly seems like a necessary part of culture to me.

 

[fskimospy]

Bravo guys.
Adding just a couple words for clarity:

If the Federal government, under the Constitution, cannot legally define marriage how can it grant benefits based off of it?

Get the Federal government out of the marriage business!

Ron Paul back in 2007 saying just that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQkNEcXPAHs&feature=youtu.be

As is usual with Ron Paul, he hasn't really thought things through. If a federal employee dies and doesn't leave a will, what do you do with his estate? If someone is at a federal hospital in a coma, who has visitation rights? Etc, etc.

Also, the reason given (which may or may not hold sway) is that the feds are encroaching on state power by forcing a definition of marriage on them. Giving benefits does not encroach on this power, so that would be why.

So of course the feds need to have some standards for marriage, the question is just how many.

 

[nehalem256]

As is usual with Ron Paul, he hasn't really thought things through. If a federal employee dies and doesn't leave a will, what do you do with his estate? If someone is at a federal hospital in a coma, who has visitation rights? Etc, etc.

Also, the reason given (which may or may not hold sway) is that the feds are encroaching on state power by forcing a definition of marriage on them. Giving benefits does not encroach on this power, so that would be why.

So of course the feds need to have some standards for marriage, the question is just how many.

That seems to be pretty clear in saying DOMA is constitutional. You may not like DOMA and want to replace it with a Homo-DOMA. But that seems like a matter for Congress not the Courts.

 

[fskimospy]

That seems to be pretty clear in saying DOMA is constitutional. You may not like DOMA and want to replace it with a Homo-DOMA. But that seems like a matter for Congress not the Courts.

No, it in no way says that DOMA is constitutional, as clearly explained in the previous paragraph. Federal standards could be as simple as "legally married in any state", which would avoid the controversy entirely.

 

[nehalem256]

No, it in no way says that DOMA is constitutional, as clearly explained in the previous paragraph. Federal standards could be as simple as "legally married in any state", which would avoid the controversy entirely.

And so if a state started granted inter-species marriages the federal government should be required to recognize it?

 

[xj0hnx]

The whole point of government recognized marriage is to have the government meddle in people's lives. This applies to both same-sex and opposite-sex marriage.

If the government recognition of a marriage did not involve the government meddling in people's lives then no one would bother to get one.

Wrong. If the government recognizes all marriages between consenting adults the same, then they are not meddling, they aren't doing anything unless a couple comes to them and needs that recognition. If they do not recognize them, then the government IS meddling because they are not allowing one group the same protections it affords another. That you can't understand this, actually, I think you understand this just perfectly, but are rather trying to be purposely obtuse about it.

 

[Phokus]

If congress lacks the power to regulate marriage then isn't this also unconstitutional? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Anti-Bigamy_Act

The gay community might legalize plural marriage.

I personally don't see anything wrong with consenting adults, even if it's more than 2, entering into marriage.

However, i think that's a different legal argument, gay marriage is more akin to interracial marriage. They're barred from being married over something they have no control over.

 

[fskimospy]

And so if a state started granted inter-species marriages the federal government should be required to recognize it?

Are you genetically incapable of keeping on topic? Each time a dumb question of yours is answered, instead of admitting you are wrong you just launch a new dumb question.

State marriages between people and animals would not be valid because animals cannot join into contracts.

 

[michal1980]

I personally don't see anything wrong with consenting adults, even if it's more than 2, entering into marriage.

However, i think that's a different legal argument, gay marriage is more akin to interracial marriage. They're barred from being married over something they have no control over.

its not akin to interracial marriage. no matter how much you want to believe that.

 

[thraashman]

Are you genetically incapable of keeping on topic? Each time a dumb question of yours is answered, instead of admitting you are wrong you just launch a new dumb question.

State marriages between people and animals would not be valid because animals cannot join into contracts.

His arguments are so flimsy that he refuses to address the answers because they prove him wrong. But when you're bigoted against a certain group of people, which nehalem is against gay people, then you can't accept any argument that proves your wrong.

 

[LightPattern]

If a federal employee dies and doesn't leave a will, what do you do with his estate? If someone is at a federal hospital in a coma, who has visitation rights? Etc, etc.

Also, the reason given (which may or may not hold sway) is that the feds are encroaching on state power by forcing a definition of marriage on them. Giving benefits does not encroach on this power, so that would be why.

So of course the feds need to have some standards for marriage, the question is just how many.

A stated definition for marriage didn't used to be needed. Everyone interested knew what it was (based on tradition - dirty word to some, I know).
But now that definition has been questioned it brings to light how the government involvement in the first place is suspect.

Regarding estate, visitation rights, etc - in these days of electronic communication, relevant contracts can be easily transferred to those who need them.
You are required at most jobs and even volunteer positions to leave emergency contact numbers, just add a requirement for the parts of a will that are needed.

If two parties want to enter into a state of marriage, they already need to sign a licence. Just alter that slightly to a contract specifying the terms they are entering into.

 

[fskimospy]

A stated definition for marriage didn't used to be needed. Everyone interested knew what it was (based on tradition - dirty word to some, I know).
But now that definition has been questioned it brings to light how the government involvement in the first place is suspect.

Regarding estate, visitation rights, etc - in these days of electronic communication, relevant contracts can be easily transferred to those who need them.
You are required at most jobs and even volunteer positions to leave emergency contact numbers, just add a requirement for the parts of a will that are needed.

If two parties want to enter into a state of marriage, they already need to sign a licence. Just alter that slightly to a contract specifying the terms they are entering into.

Except of course that every state would then have their own marriage contracts which would invariably be different and then you have the feds trying to create rules that govern 50 different types of marriage contracts. That's a logistical nightmare.

Not going to happen.

Far easier for the feds to just accept marriage contracts from states as valid and then design their own policies based on such validity.

 

[nehalem256]

State marriages between people and animals would not be valid because animals cannot join into contracts.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-08-15-pettrust_x.htm



So it sounds to me like you are backing up the point I made. The federal government could choose not to recognize marriages you don't approve of.

You just want to replace DOMA with homo-DOMA.

 

[her209]

If I live in a state that allows me to have multiple spouses and I travel through a state that specifically bans such a practice, can/should I get arrested?

 

[werepossum]

I think the more important question was who the hell decided to roll with BLAG for their group name.

LOL +1

I have no real problem with the House spending money to defend a law in court, although I disagree with the law in question and hope it gets struck down. And I have no problem with Obama's behavior; he has refused to defend it or actively enforce it but has also refused to let it stand passively by not ordering the IRS and Justice to recognize gay marriages. That seems to me to be a reasonable response to a law he believes to be unconstitutional.

 

[nehalem256]

If I live in a state that allows me to have multiple spouses and I travel through a state that specifically bans such a practice, can/should I get arrested?

If you get gay married in a state that allows it and travel through a state that specifically bans gay marriage are you arrested?