SCOTUS struck down DOMA

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
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.

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

That is an argument in favor of eliminating all marriage. Not in favor of SSM.
That first is a good point. I'd have no objection to removing consanguinity restrictions for same-sex couples who cannot procreate normally.

You are not required to approve of others' marriages, merely to recognize them and not discriminate against them.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,639
15,828
146
pQQp5iH.jpg


G77r3T5.jpg
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,327
32,829
136
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.

Sounds just like the same justifications in Loving v Virginia
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
I hope that the Republicans and Tea Party Tards go nuts and make gay marriage a huge campaign issue (along with abortion) in the 2014 and 2016 elections and that we can hear more about their thoughts on homosexuality and rape.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
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.

What compelling argument is there against any marriage at all? Why should we disallow marriage to, say, 4 adult siblings who have no intent of committing incest?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
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.



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."

?

Gay people are not a protected class.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
What compelling argument is there against any marriage at all?

More importantly since marriage by its very nature and intent creates discrimination and inequality between married and non-married couples. What compelling argument is there for marriage at all.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
What compelling argument is there against any marriage at all? Why should we disallow marriage to, say, 4 adult siblings who have no intent of committing incest?

Find a large portion of the population that are interested, create a tax code/marriage laws/divorce laws involving it... and then, sure, why not?
 

sourceninja

Diamond Member
Mar 8, 2005
8,805
65
91
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.

The bill of rights has long been held to state laws and constitutions. If the courts find the law violates the 14th amendment then and causing undo burden on gays then so be it. I personally don't think the supreme court should hear a case like that as I don't think there is grounds to say that legally recognized marriage equality is not states right.

I also think that there is no stopping gay marriage and it will become the norm in all 50 states in my lifetime. I'm glad for people who stand up and take back the rights they feel are stolen from them. I support their crusade because everyone should have the right to crusade. Just like I have no interest in dope but I support the legalization of it. There is no grounds for the loss of that right. Interestingly I don't think the federal government should be able to override state law in regards to drugs either.
 

sourceninja

Diamond Member
Mar 8, 2005
8,805
65
91
What compelling argument is there against any marriage at all? Why should we disallow marriage to, say, 4 adult siblings who have no intent of committing incest?

Undo burden on the state in regards to benefits? Needing a proper legal structure to deal with issues regarding to ownership, divorce, death, and decision?

Right now if I'm on life support my wife can pull the plug. What if I had 3 wives? Who decides to pull the plug?

I'm not against it, but the compelling reason at the moment is that there is no framework. I'm all for making a legal framework to allow for this if there is enough outcry to make this issue worth our tax money.
 

sourceninja

Diamond Member
Mar 8, 2005
8,805
65
91
More importantly since marriage by its very nature and intent creates discrimination and inequality between married and non-married couples. What compelling argument is there for marriage at all.

Marriage is a system to promote work force growth, economic growth, and prosperity. Married people are easier to control (they don't want to risk their families), then tend to produce children (adoption or otherwise) and take the burden off the state in regards to raising those kids, and they tend to be more stable civilly.

There are two ways the government can influence your behavior; the carrot and the stick. This is an example of the carrot.

Honestly, I got married for the legal protections it provides me. In this way I can trust my wife to make the right decisions for me fiscally and medically if I am unable to do so and have not planned for the event in question. Beyond that I have no use for marriage.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Marriage is a system to promote work force growth, economic growth, and prosperity.

Find me a source from 40+ years ago that said so.

Married people are easier to control (they don't want to risk their families), then tend to produce children (adoption or otherwise) and take the burden off the state in regards to raising those kids, and they tend to be more stable civilly.

Gay couples cannot produce children.

And if we were back in the times where 95+% of children were born to married couples how many children do you think there would be to adopt?
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Undo burden on the state in regards to benefits? Needing a proper legal structure to deal with issues regarding to ownership, divorce, death, and decision?

Right now if I'm on life support my wife can pull the plug. What if I had 3 wives? Who decides to pull the plug?

I'm not against it, but the compelling reason at the moment is that there is no framework. I'm all for making a legal framework to allow for this if there is enough outcry to make this issue worth our tax money.

And where in Kennedy's logic does any restriction exist based on the state's interest? People have argued repeatedly that gay marriage puts an undue burden on the state due to the inherent inability to procreate. But that's unimportant to gay marriage proponents.

The driving logic behind gay marriage, which Kennedy codified in his opinion, has been the perceived inequality, not that the state has as much to gain from gay marriage as it does from straight.

According to most gay marriage proponents I've spoken to, the complications and legal hurdles to be crossed to sanction gay marriage are as unimportant as those necessary to sanction interracial marriage. It's about rights, not practicality.

Therefore, if it's a question of equal rights, we have no more right to disallow polygamous and inter-family marriages than we do to disallow gay marriages.
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
The driving logic behind gay marriage, which Kennedy codified in his opinion, has been the perceived inequality, not that the state has as much to gain from gay marriage as it does from straight.

His logic appears to have been at least in part that not recognizing gay marriage will make gay people feel bad.

According to most gay marriage proponents I've spoken to, the complications and legal hurdles to be crossed to sanction gay marriage are as unimportant as those necessary to sanction interracial marriage. It's about rights, not practicality.

Therefore, if it's a question of equal rights, we have no more right to disallow polygamous and inter-family marriages than to disallow gay marriages.

Well apparently the question, according to Kennedy, is no longer about equal rights, but about whether it makes gay people feel bad.

Which explains a lot. Liberals apparently think if you have gay friends you will support gay marriage, because you will feel bad for friends not being able to marry.

Since liberals are not say commonly friends with fundamentalist Mormons, they just don't give a shit about their rights. And since bringing up the fact that there logic for SSM equally supports such unions, which most people don't support, they would rather sweep it under the rug.
 

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
13,314
690
126
Well apparently the question, according to Kennedy, is no longer about equal rights, but about whether it makes gay people feel bad.

Which explains a lot. Liberals apparently think if you have gay friends you will support gay marriage, because you will feel bad for friends not being able to marry.

Did you read the opinion? :confused:

By seeking to injure the very class New York seeks to protect,DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government. The Constitution’s guarantee of equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534–535. DOMA cannot survive under these principles. Its unusual deviation from the tradition of recognizing and acceptingstate definitions of marriage operates to deprive same-sex couples ofthe benefits and responsibilities that come with federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of a class recognized and protected by statelaw. DOMA’s avowed purpose and practical effect are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enterinto same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States (emphasis added)

And since when Kennedy has been liberal? He is conservative to the core. (though his brand of conservatism does differ from those of Roberts/Alito/Scalia's)
 
Last edited:

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
His logic appears to have been at least in part that not recognizing gay marriage will make gay people feel bad.



Well apparently the question, according to Kennedy, is no longer about equal rights, but about whether it makes gay people feel bad.

Which explains a lot. Liberals apparently think if you have gay friends you will support gay marriage, because you will feel bad for friends not being able to marry.

Since liberals are not say commonly friends with fundamentalist Mormons, they just don't give a shit about their rights. And since bringing up the fact that there logic for SSM equally supports such unions, which most people don't support, they would rather sweep it under the rug.

Well, Kennedy's opinion notwithstanding, SSM proponents have often laughed at the claim that SSM is the death knell of the institution of marriage. Since it has essentially been redefined to imply that the very idea of marriage as an exclusive institution is an infringement on personal liberty and civil rights, I'd say this claim is entirely justified.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,958
55,346
136
And where in Kennedy's logic does any restriction exist based on the state's interest? People have argued repeatedly that gay marriage puts an undue burden on the state due to the inherent inability to procreate. But that's unimportant to gay marriage proponents.

The driving logic behind gay marriage, which Kennedy codified in his opinion, has been the perceived inequality, not that the state has as much to gain from gay marriage as it does from straight.

According to most gay marriage proponents I've spoken to, the complications and legal hurdles to be crossed to sanction gay marriage are as unimportant as those necessary to sanction interracial marriage. It's about rights, not practicality.

Therefore, if it's a question of equal rights, we have no more right to disallow polygamous and inter-family marriages than we do to disallow gay marriages.

It is about equality. I for one have no problem with polygamous marriages so long as they are entered into by consenting adults. I feel the same way about intrafamily marriages. (I assume you meant intra, not inter) It certainly seems like the state should be able to put some limits on incestual procreation considering that after a few generations you really do start to manifest problems, but outside of that who cares?
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
This thread has succeeded in convincing one person of exactly one thing. It's convinced me that social conservatives are the stupidest fucking pieces of human excrement on the planet.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Did you read the opinion? :confused:

And since when Kennedy has been liberal? He is conservative to the core. (though his brand of conservatism does differ from those of Roberts/Alito/Scalia's)

"The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples."
-http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/doma-decision-quotes-supreme-court-kennedy.html

It makes gays feel bad.

"must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot"

No evidence that DOMA was passed because congress desired to harm a politically unpopular group.

DOMA’s avowed purpose and practical effect are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enterinto same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States (emphasis added)

Which means if we are to follow Kennedy's logic any thing that a state calls marriage, no matter how absurd, must be treated equally by the government.

So if a state recognizes polygamy or human-animal marriage the federal government must defer to the unquestioned authority of the state.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
It is about equality. I for one have no problem with polygamous marriages so long as they are entered into by consenting adults. I feel the same way about intrafamily marriages. (I assume you meant intra, not inter) It certainly seems like the state should be able to put some limits on incestual procreation considering that after a few generations you really do start to manifest problems, but outside of that who cares?

But given that there is no connection between marriage and procreation certainly there is no reason to forbid incestual-marriages.