One facet of gay marriage

[werepossum]

If you've ever wondered if it really matters to gays if they can legally marry, consider this guy.
http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/loc...use-partners-marriage-not-recognized-20101025

He is legally married to another man in Connecticut. However, the Defense of Marriage act requires the federal government to consider as legal marriage only that between man and woman. Now I don't want to be the guy who says we need yet another gay salsa dance instructor and the guy is probably here illegally anyway, but it doesn't seem right that we pass on deporting people who so richly deserve it, and yet deport this guy who (apparently anyway) would qualify if he had married a woman. If marriage is a state issue, shouldn't immigration laws follow the states' laws on marriage?

 

[bamacre]

If marriage is a state issue, shouldn't immigration laws follow the states' laws on marriage?

Yes. And if a state recognizes a marriage, so should the Federal gov't.

 

[Thump553]

You are ignoring the so-called federal Defense of Marriage Act, which says exactly the opposite. This is one of those situations where GOP authoritarian principles trumped so-called small government/original constitution-teabag/libertarian principles.

The fact of the matter is that there are over 500 federal laws that specifically implement anti-same sex marriage policy even in conflict with applicable state law. Income tax law is one of the most common areas, especially federal inheritance tax laws (no spousal exclusion for legal same sex spouse).

 

[werepossum]

You are ignoring the so-called federal Defense of Marriage Act, which says exactly the opposite. This is one of those situations where GOP authoritarian principles trumped so-called small government/original constitution-teabag/libertarian principles.

The fact of the matter is that there are over 500 federal laws that specifically implement anti-same sex marriage policy even in conflict with applicable state law. Income tax law is one of the most common areas, especially federal inheritance tax laws (no spousal exclusion for legal same sex spouse).

I specifically mentioned the Defense of Marriage Act, but you are correct that this is exclusively a GOP-caused problem.

We need a party that is NOT committed to using the armed might of the federal government to enforce their preferred behaviors. If a behavior is not illegal, then government should be neutral on it unless some pressing national need demands it. And everyone needs to have his or her freedom honored as much as possible; there is no pressing national concern that gays not marry, merely people who find it offensive. There is not, and should not be, a right to not be offended by someone else's behavior.

 

[bamacre]

I specifically mentioned the Defense of Marriage Act, but you are correct that this is exclusively a GOP-caused problem.

We need a party that is NOT committed to using the armed might of the federal government to enforce their preferred behaviors. If a behavior is not illegal, then government should be neutral on it unless some pressing national need demands it. And everyone needs to have his or her freedom honored as much as possible; there is no pressing national concern that gays not marry, merely people who find it offensive. There is not, and should not be, a right to not be offended by someone else's behavior.

Agreed. Social conservatism and "limited government" just don't mix.

 

[GoPackGo]

Why did Bill Clinton sign the DOMA?

 

[werepossum]

Why did Bill Clinton sign the DOMA?

Either because he truly believes in it, or more probably because it was wildly popular and he's a politician who really doesn't care either way. To a politician, voting for or signing the popular things he doesn't particularly care about buys him the cred to push the unpopular things he does care about. There is no difference in this behavior between parties, merely difference in the individual issues about which they care.

Personally I have no dog directly in the fight as I have no gay family or close friends, but the principle of government constraining the behavior of supposedly free individuals just to make other individuals feel better REALLY pisses me off. There is nothing more personal than personal relationships; no government with the power to arbitrarily control these can ever be considered limited, and no one whose right to freely choose another adult as a spouse can truly be considered free. This is as bad as any reduction of freedom the progressives push, it is simply tolerated because it doesn't affect the vast majority of us.

The really ironic thing is that defenders of the Defense of Marriage Act want less marriage and the opponents of DOMA want more marriage. Sadly this is typical for D.C., where crafting a popular name is half the battle.

 

[werepossum]

Agreed. Social conservatism and "limited government" just don't mix.

Quite true. I have no problem with social conservatives in principle - I agree with many of their values - but they almost universally insist on using the armed might of government to control the populace' behavior. No matter how many departments or services or taxes are cut, no government with this power can ever be considered limited.

 

[CallMeJoe]

This is one issue in which we are in complete agreement.

...The really ironic thing is that defenders of the Defense of Marriage Act want less marriage and the opponents of DOMA want more marriage. Sadly this is typical for D.C., where crafting a popular name is half the battle.

How true... one of the strengths of the Republicans is their grasp of this principle. Campaigning against the "Death Tax" is so much easier than defending the "Paris Hilton Inheritance Protection Act", and railing against "Death Panels" trumps supporting counseling for terminally ill patients.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Quite true. I have no problem with social conservatives in principle - I agree with many of their values - but they almost universally insist on using the armed might of government to control the populace' behavior. No matter how many departments or services or taxes are cut, no government with this power can ever be considered limited.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: