SCOTUS struck down DOMA

[nehalem256]

Nothing in the opinion mentioned the capitol of Spain, either, but it's still a fact that it's Madrid. Got any more desperate irrelevancies? Please do keep up your tasty, tasty lamentations and fallacies. They get better with age, I swear. :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

Gender as a protected class was not used as an argument in the majority opinion.

The fact that banning SSM was mean to gay people was.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

And what is the COMPELLING REASON for requiring the consent of a dog?

Yes. Please keep this line of argument up as long as you can. We should get you on a national broadcast. You need to take this argument nation wide. I want every person in the country to know that conservatives think same sex marriage is the same as marrying animals. There is absolutely no way this could harm conservatives on election day. None at all.

 

[nehalem256]

Yes. Please keep this line of argument up as long as you can. We should get you on a national broadcast. You need to take this argument nation wide. I want every person in the country to know that conservatives think same sex marriage is the same as marrying animals. There is absolutely no way this could harm conservatives on election day. None at all.

So I get the sense that you are both a bigot and a hypocrite

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Gender as a protected class was not used as an argument in the majority opinion.

My next door neighbor has three rabbits.

The fact that banning SSM was mean to gay people was.

It's still a fact that gender is a protected class whereas quantity is not. Mentioning separate irrelevant facts will never change that.

 

[dawp]

Doesn't effective trolling usually involve spending less time/effort on the argument than other people?

I didn't say he was an effective troll.


looks like the anti-gay marriage amendment it being trotted out again only to go nowhere again

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/tim-huelskamp-gay-marriage_n_3505465.html

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So I get the sense that you are both a bigot and a hypocrite

Oh God, please continue. Tell us all about it.

 

[dank69]

BS. If the government does not pass a law creating government marriages how can you get a government marriage?



Just like they need a compelling reason to tell me why I cant marry a cow. Given that consent is not required for doing even more extreme things to the cow like say slaughtering and eating it that seems like a pretty flimsy basis for compelling reason.



And what is the COMPELLING REASON for requiring the consent of a dog?

Killing/eating a cow doesn't require the cow to enter into a contract.

 

[sourceninja]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero

That is part of your argument for historical Same-sex marriage?

Also note there is no mention of Pythagroas in the article on Nero.

No, that was my response to the question of why gay people never got married before. I was showing that gay marriage has happened in the past. My argument for gay marriage is simply that there is no compelling argument against gay marriage.

Sounds like human-dog marriage passes your test...

I will indulge your straw man. I'm all for animal human marriage. Animals can not own property, so when you die your property will become award of the state. Animals can not get human rights (they are animals) so you would get the advantages of marriage, but the animal will not. They can't get insurance designed for humans or receive social security. Animals can not have citizenship.

But none of that should keep you from having a marriage.

That said, one of the rights you gave up to your government was the right to be 100% individual. In this one of the rights you lost was the ability to torture animals for your personal pleasure (we call it animal cruelty laws). So married or not, if you live in a state that has those kind of laws you gave up your rights to have sex with animals.

A large question with animal marriage is what constitutes abuse. One right we have given up as we have decided to be a society is the right to force your decisions on another without the power of law. Legally we call this consent. Without the concept of consent you can not make rape illegal (another right you gave up, raping people). So the question is "Is allowing marriage without the consent of both parties considered abuse?" If the answer to this is yes, then you can not be married in states where they have animal abuse laws.

To deepen this question, you have to ask "Are animals property?" If they are property then you can consent for them. So this is also mute. But if they are property, they can you marry a chair? I would think so. People do marry objects, so there is tradition behind this.

http://www.ranker.com/list/13-people-who-married-inanimate-objects/jude-newsome

So this takes us to a deeper question "Do objects have rights?" If objects do not have rights then you can't give them rights. As stated before, the government can not give anything or anyone rights, only take them away. By saying you destroy property, we are not giving property the right to exist, we are removing your right to destroy it.

There are a lot of very complicated questions at the heart of animal/object to person marriage. None of these arguments apply to same sex marriage which is between to people. We have established that people do have rights and people can consent to things. So this is a silly point that is only serving to derail the conversation by using logical fallacies.

 

[nehalem256]

No, that was my response to the question of why gay people never got married before. I was showing that gay marriage has happened in the past.

Castrating a man that looks like you deceased wife and marrying him against all law and custom of society is more like evidence of insanity than gay marriage.

My argument for gay marriage is simply that there is no compelling argument against gay marriage.

I will indulge your straw man. I'm all for animal human marriage. Animals can not own property, so when you die your property will become award of the state. Animals can not get human rights (they are animals) so you would get the advantages of marriage, but the animal will not. They can't get insurance designed for humans or receive social security. Animals can not have citizenship.

But none of that should keep you from having a marriage.

That said, one of the rights you gave up to your government was the right to be 100% individual. In this one of the rights you lost was the ability to torture animals for your personal pleasure (we call it animal cruelty laws). So married or not, if you live in a state that has those kind of laws you gave up your rights to have sex with animals.

A large question with animal marriage is what constitutes abuse. One right we have given up as we have decided to be a society is the right to force your decisions on another without the power of law. Legally we call this consent. Without the concept of consent you can not make rape illegal (another right you gave up, raping people). So the question is "Is allowing marriage without the consent of both parties considered abuse?" If the answer to this is yes, then you can not be married in states where they have animal abuse laws.

To deepen this question, you have to ask "Are animals property?" If they are property then you can consent for them. So this is also mute. But if they are property, they can you marry a chair? I would think so. People do marry objects, so there is tradition behind this.

http://www.ranker.com/list/13-people-who-married-inanimate-objects/jude-newsome

So this takes us to a deeper question "Do objects have rights?" If objects do not have rights then you can't give them rights. As stated before, the government can not give anything or anyone rights, only take them away. By saying you destroy property, we are not giving property the right to exist, we are removing your right to destroy it.

There are a lot of very complicated questions at the heart of animal/object to person marriage. None of these arguments apply to same sex marriage which is between to people. We have established that people do have rights and people can consent to things. So this is a silly point that is only serving to derail the conversation by using logical fallacies.

The questions are not complicated they are excuses for taking away the rights of people who want to marry animals. There is no compelling reason to ban human-animal marriage.

The reason sex with animals is illegal in some states is because people find it icky.

 

[nehalem256]

My next door neighbor has three rabbits.


It's still a fact that gender is a protected class whereas quantity is not. Mentioning separate irrelevant facts will never change that.

Mentioning gender as a protected class is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the court ruling.

The majority opinion was not based on any idea of protected class, but purely on it being mean to gay people.

 

[sourceninja]

Castrating a man that looks like you deceased wife and marrying him against all law and custom of society is more like evidence of insanity than gay marriage.



The questions are not complicated they are excuses for taking away the rights of people who want to marry animals. There is no compelling reason to ban human-animal marriage.

The reason sex with animals is illegal in some states is because people find it icky.

Then you should fight to regain your rights. They were taken away from you. If you truely feel this way, write your congressmen, start a charity, march in the streets. Otherwise, get off my lawn.

Society found a compelling reason to ask the government to take those rights from you. If you can convince enough people in society that those rights are not harmful and should be given back to you then you can have them back. This is what has happened with gay marriage. We have grown as a people and gained more insight into human nature. We have decided that this subject needs to be broached and reconsidered and apparently the highest court in the land has decided the federal government has no standing to take these rights from us. They have left the taking of rights to the state governments (where you have even more say of what rights you will give up).

This is all and all a good thing.

 

[nehalem256]

Then you should fight to regain your rights. They were taken away from you. If you truely feel this way, write your congressmen, start a charity, march in the streets. Otherwise, get off my lawn.

So pretty much you are a hypocrite too like the rest of the lefties and have no problem with taking away people's rights

 

[dawp]

Then you should fight to regain your rights. They were taken away from you. If you truely feel this way, write your congressmen, start a charity, march in the streets. Otherwise, get off my lawn.

it does seem like he is implicating himself with all these arguments for human-animal marriage.

 

[nehalem256]

it does seem like he is implicating himself with all these arguments for human-animal marriage.

So is anyone who supports SSM gay?

 

[dawp]

So is anyone who supports SSM gay?

not only am I for ssm, I don't see anything wrong with plural marriages as long as it's consenting adults.

 

[sourceninja]

So pretty much you are a hypocrite too like the rest of the lefties and have no problem with taking away people's rights

You think I'm left? LOL. I'm a fucking libertarian if I'm anything. You obviously fail and reading comprehension.

I said you need to stand up for your rights. Giving up rights is ALL you can do with your government. You give up the right to keep 100% of your pay, you give up the right drive without a license, you give up the right to shoot people and take their shit. Your only recourse (and the fucking purpose of the constitution) is to stand up for your rights and keep them. Conceding rights is necessary for a stable and functional society, but we have to insure those rights are worth conceding. For me this is well outlined in the constitution. It provides a very nice guideline to us on what rights must always be protected and how to decide if a right should be taken away.

If that power is not granted by the constitution the feds have no business enacting a law to take away more of our rights. The state governments however are given more authority and should have a bit more say in our rights, this increases by locality as it should. The smaller the community the better we are able to come to a consensus on if we should give up our rights.

At the same time, it is important for this country as a whole to protect the rights of those without the voice, money, or power to protect themselves. These few cases (like slavery) require us to break the mold of the constitution and form one that protects even more of our rights for the purpose of being true to our origins as a nation (one based on the concept of freedom). The test is again based on the idea of harm. If we are causing harm we are well within our scope to restrict or deny rights to stop that harm.

In this case we were restricting rights solely because we found them to be distasteful. Society has changed and no longer finds gays as distasteful as we once did. Therefore there was support to remove a unjust denial of our right to marry within the same sex.

This is how change works. This is not a red vs blue discussion, this is not a politics discussion, and it is not a gay marriage discussion. This is a question of state rights. The federal government has never been granted the ability to decide who can be married. The states have always been the ones who decide that. The federal governments decision to inject themselves into this conversation was flawed and unconstitutional. It does not matter why the supreme court came to this decision, but their decision intentionally or unintentionally is doing the right thing from a constitutional standpoint.

So I ask you, do you want your right to fuck dogs? If get out there, fight for your rights and take them back. If you don't then your point is well pointless as there is no group crying out for their right to fuck dogs.

 

[werepossum]

So marriage essentially becomes meaningless, because to make it exclusive to any degree is an infringement on personal liberty. In other words, the very idea of marriage insofar as it is granted to specific types of relationships, is an affront to personal liberty. And thus anyone who defends any limits on marriage (or indeed any definition of marriage) is bigoted and anti-liberty.

I cannot agree with that.

Um, no. What I said was:
"By the way, I agree that the majority opinion makes it difficult to place any bounds on marriage. I think this is a good thing. Government should always be in the position of having to come up with an extraordinarily good reason to disallow personal liberty."
Marriage as it stands today (as I understand this decision) is a social contract between two consenting and mentally competent adults not within prohibited bounds of consanguinity. SCOTUS has made it difficult to place any bounds on marriage, but not impossible; they just set a high bar. If government proposes to tell you that you cannot do something, shouldn't it have to show very good reason?

As to what marriage means, that is largely between the individuals, as always. Government is largely value-neutral, as it should be, and a marriage of convenience is as valid as any other. (The obvious exception being marriage to commit fraud, such as being paid to marry an alien for as a means of that alien remaining in the country.)

As far as "anyone who defends any limits on marriage (or indeed any definition of marriage) is bigoted and anti-liberty", I do not consider you bigoted and anti-liberty if you defend traditional marriage limits. However, I draw a major distinction between on the one hand you thinking that SlickSnake should only marry a woman or telling him that G-d loves him but hates homosexuality, and on the other hand enforcing a governmental restriction that forbids him from marrying as he pleases. The first is entirely appropriate, although the telling might be considered rude. The second is inappropriate and arbitrary. It does not affect you or I one bit whether SlickSnake chooses an innee or an outee, unless we are offended. There is and should be no right to not be offended, else no one could ever do anything.

If government is to restrict personal liberty, it should have a very good reason. The majority enforcing its morality on the minority (except for actions which directly affect others) is not a good reason. "Because it's always been that way" is not a good reason. "Because it's what G-d wants" is not a good reason, for people differ wildly in their interpretation of what G-d wants. As evidence, it's now actually easier to find a Christian church willing to marry a gay couple than to find a state willing to marry a gay couple. (Besides which, how many of us are truly so spiritual as to be ready to move on from what G-d expects of us and turn our attention to what G-d expects of our neighbors?)

The same goes doubly for government discriminating. Why should government or one's neighbors have the right to approve or disapprove one's choice of spouse, assuming both are competent adults? And beyond that, why should government treat people differently under the law? Banning gay marriage will not affect my marriage choices at all, but it will automatically ban any partner that SlickSnake could ever find acceptable. Absent some compelling outside factor such as those whose preference is for children too young to give informed consent, how is that fair?

How is that different from government saying that I may sit anywhere I wish, but others of a particular ethnicity must only sit in the back of the bus? Personally I think the most morally dangerous laws are those that do not affect me.

 

[werepossum]

Killing/eating a cow doesn't require the cow to enter into a contract.

Which is a damned good thing for those of us who like beef . . .

 

[michal1980]

You think I'm left? LOL. I'm a fucking libertarian if I'm anything. You obviously fail and reading comprehension.

I said you need to stand up for your rights. Giving up rights is ALL you can do with your government. You give up the right to keep 100% of your pay, you give up the right drive without a license, you give up the right to shoot people and take their shit. Your only recourse (and the fucking purpose of the constitution) is to stand up for your rights and keep them. Conceding rights is necessary for a stable and functional society, but we have to insure those rights are worth conceding. For me this is well outlined in the constitution. It provides a very nice guideline to us on what rights must always be protected and how to decide if a right should be taken away.

If that power is not granted by the constitution the feds have no business enacting a law to take away more of our rights. The state governments however are given more authority and should have a bit more say in our rights, this increases by locality as it should. The smaller the community the better we are able to come to a consensus on if we should give up our rights.

At the same time, it is important for this country as a whole to protect the rights of those without the voice, money, or power to protect themselves. These few cases (like slavery) require us to break the mold of the constitution and form one that protects even more of our rights for the purpose of being true to our origins as a nation (one based on the concept of freedom). The test is again based on the idea of harm. If we are causing harm we are well within our scope to restrict or deny rights to stop that harm.

In this case we were restricting rights solely because we found them to be distasteful. Society has changed and no longer finds gays as distasteful as we once did. Therefore there was support to remove a unjust denial of our right to marry within the same sex.

This is how change works. This is not a red vs blue discussion, this is not a politics discussion, and it is not a gay marriage discussion. This is a question of state rights. The federal government has never been granted the ability to decide who can be married. The states have always been the ones who decide that. The federal governments decision to inject themselves into this conversation was flawed and unconstitutional. It does not matter why the supreme court came to this decision, but their decision intentionally or unintentionally is doing the right thing from a constitutional standpoint.

So I ask you, do you want your right to fuck dogs? If get out there, fight for your rights and take them back. If you don't then your point is well pointless as there is no group crying out for their right to fuck dogs.

so what happens when someone sues a state because they have a no ssm marriage amendment in their Constitution, and the case ends up in the supreme court?

IMHO, if the justice's are consistent in there states rights logic, that amendment should stand.

But I doubt the supreme court cares about consistancy, and will find some other way of overruling the states. Claiming the federal government does have a right to define marriage.

 

[nehalem256]

Um, no. What I said was:
"By the way, I agree that the majority opinion makes it difficult to place any bounds on marriage. I think this is a good thing. Government should always be in the position of having to come up with an extraordinarily good reason to disallow personal liberty."
Marriage as it stands today (as I understand this decision) is a social contract between two consenting and mentally competent adults not within prohibited bounds of consanguinity. SCOTUS has made it difficult to place any bounds on marriage, but not impossible; they just set a high bar. If government proposes to tell you that you cannot do something, shouldn't it have to show very good reason?

The problem with that definition is that "not within prohibited bounds of consanguinity" only makes sense as a constraint if you embrace a traditional view of marriage being about procreation. A view which also naturally makes SSM nonsensical.

Why should government or one's neighbors have the right to approve or disapprove one's choice of spouse, assuming both are competent adults?

Because part of marriage is about demanding that the government or one's neighbors approve of your relationship.

And beyond that, why should government treat people differently under the law?

That is an argument in favor of eliminating all marriage. Not in favor of SSM.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

...then how were gays never married before if they always had the right to marry?

I went to a same sex wedding when I was young. It was performed in a Unitarian church by a minister between two women. Gay marriage was not legally recognized anywhere in the United States at the time. Did that wedding not happen because it wasn't granted legal status? Those women have introduced themselves as spouses since that time, despite not being granted any legal marital status until a brief time period when gay marriage was legalized in Multnomah County (Portland, Oregon). Are they just deluding themselves? Without Federal recognition, it's not a marriage... or is it just about how the people involved in it see themselves?

So, to recap, I disagree with your claim that gays "never married," they just weren't historically granted government recognition. It's different, and exactly what sourceninja said; the state didn't grant the right to marry, it simply refused to acknowledge certain marriages.

 

[zsdersw]

nehalem's butthurt continues unabated.

It is very amusing.. watching him and his stupid and wholly wrong views on SSM become more and more irrelevant.

 

[nehalem256]

I went to a same sex wedding when I was young. It was performed in a Unitarian church by a minister between two women. Gay marriage was not legally recognized anywhere in the United States at the time. Did that wedding not happen because it wasn't granted legal status? Those women have introduced themselves as spouses since that time, despite not being granted any legal marital status until a brief time period when gay marriage was legalized in Multnomah County (Portland, Oregon). Are they just deluding themselves? Without Federal recognition, it's not a marriage... or is it just about how the people involved in it see themselves?

So, to recap, I disagree with your claim that gays "never married," they just weren't historically granted government recognition. It's different, and exactly what sourceninja said; the state didn't grant the right to marry, it simply refused to acknowledge certain marriages.

So then based on what you said if I find a drunk sea captain and have him marry me to a toaster I am just as legitimately married as anyone else and if the government refuses to recognize it as equal they are violating my rights.

Or if you want an actual historical example we can go back to Nero:

In 67, Nero ordered a young freedman, Sporus, to be castrated and then married him.[64][65][66][67] According to Dion Cassius, Sporus bore an uncanny resemblance to Sabina, and Nero even called him by his dead wife’s name

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero

 

[lopri]

so what happens when someone sues a state because they have a no ssm marriage amendment in their Constitution, and the case ends up in the supreme court?

IMHO, if the justice's are consistent in there states rights logic, that amendment should stand.

But I doubt the supreme court cares about consistancy, and will find some other way of overruling the states. Claiming the federal government does have a right to define marriage.

Unfortunately "State's rights" isn't where the holding in Windsor rests. ^_^ It does seem like one in the beginning, but it becomes clear that it's pretty much a non-sequitur later on. The opinion says the feds' selective treating State's lawful marriages differently raises a red flag, which triggers the court to look deeper to see if there are illegitimate purposes. Then the court finds the equal protection violation (based on the 5th amendment) in Section 3 of DOMA.

So "State's rights" isn't the reason why DOMA was struck down, despite Kennedy's musing over it throughout the opinion. Justice Scalia (understandably) can't stand the smoke and mirror and barks in horror.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Mentioning gender as a protected class is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the court ruling.

1.) I wasn't talking about the court's ruling.

2.) That the words "protected class" did not appear verbatim in the published opinion does not make the idea irrelevant.

But please, do not let these facts get in the way of your beautiful butthurt. Let it flow through you.

The majority opinion was not based on any idea of protected class, but purely on it being mean to gay people.

So what did Kennedy mean when he said "DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government."

?