SCOTUS struck down DOMA

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,857
31,346
146
Yea, because it's not like it wasn't veto proof : p

the reality is that it was widely supported. Calling it a "Democrat" bill is blatantly stupid; just as is calling it a "Republican" Bill.

This is one of Clinton's concessions to the repubs that angered his base, and one of those decisions that he claims to regret.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,857
31,346
146
Since the decision on Prop 8 still basically leaves it up to the states, do you think any state will try to ban gay marriage all things considered?

most likely. Though, I think the punting today was more an issue of CA refusing to mount a defense against the proposition.

If something similar is soon passed in anotehr state, or a current ban brings about a similar lawsuit and the supporters of the ban (meaning the legislators) provide an actual defense of the bill, I think it might go back to SCOTUS and result in a more solid ruling.
 

AyashiKaibutsu

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2004
9,306
4
81
the reality is that it was widely supported. Calling it a "Democrat" bill is blatantly stupid; just as is calling it a "Republican" Bill.

This is one of Clinton's concessions to the repubs that angered his base, and one of those decisions that he claims to regret.

While there was democratic support (more so than opposition), the only opposition for it was democratic. Republicans were completely missing there. So you could at least say they weren't as bad although I'm not sure that really makes a difference.

It was done at a time when Republicans had a large amount of clout and attempting to appease them on one front to get other objectives done (especially on potentially inevitable bills) was probably very enticing.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,964
55,355
136
Actually I said it is not required for marriage.

But it is a good thing for society to require it for humans entering into a marriage

And you are wrong. Consent is ALWAYS required for marriage in the United States.

Adding this to the increasingly long list of things you don't know about marriage, the parents/guardians are not consenting FOR the minor to be able to enter into a marriage contract, their endorsement is required in order to ENABLE the minor to consent to the marriage contract. In such a situation minors can absolutely legally consent, and it is THEIR contract, not their parents'.

This is again basic.... basic information. I love how you went from being hilariously wrong in claiming that marriage wasn't a contract to being hilariously wrong about how people enter into that contract.

I've asked this before but I'll ask it again. How can you know so little about something you spend so much time arguing about?
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,452
2
0
I support gay marriage in that it is a legal definition and a civil union from the states perspective. I agree with the ruling on its face, though I have yet to read the judges comments . .

If they find a church that wants to marry them then that's great, but i fearful that it may open the door to lawsuits against churches that refuse to marry gays because it violates their religious beliefs. That's pushing one persons beliefs on another and is not right. In this case it's a 'protected class' but there still needs to be respect for people who hold their own interpretatoin of their religion, regardless of how fscked it may seem. There are many churches that will gladly marry a gay couple, but if the pastor doesn't see fit, i don't think he/she should be forced to complete the ceremony. .. then again being such a highly personal thing, you're generally going to want a pastor you can 'connect' with and have a relationship with. . . or i'd imagine.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,580
982
126
the reality is that it was widely supported. Calling it a "Democrat" bill is blatantly stupid; just as is calling it a "Republican" Bill.

This is one of Clinton's concessions to the repubs that angered his base, and one of those decisions that he claims to regret.

He did more than that. He wrote a very eloquent article for the Washington Post about it.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...oma-defense-of-marriage-act-marriage-equality

It’s time to overturn DOMA


By Bill Clinton,March 07, 2013
The writer is the 42nd president of the United States.
In 1996, I signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Although that was only 17 years ago, it was a very different time. In no state in the union was same-sex marriage recognized, much less available as a legal right, but some were moving in that direction. Washington, as a result, was swirling with all manner of possible responses, some quite draconian. As a bipartisan group of former senators stated in their March 1 amicus brief to the Supreme Court, many supporters of the bill known as DOMA believed that its passage “would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or more.” It was under these circumstances that DOMA came to my desk, opposed by only 81 of the 535 members of Congress.

On March 27, DOMA will come before the Supreme Court, and the justices must decide whether it is consistent with the principles of a nation that honors freedom, equality and justice above all, and is therefore constitutional. As the president who signed the act into law, I have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and, in fact, incompatible with our Constitution.

Because Section 3 of the act defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, same-sex couples who are legally married in nine states and the District of Columbia are denied the benefits of more than a thousand federal statutes and programs available to other married couples. Among other things, these couples cannot file their taxes jointly, take unpaid leave to care for a sick or injured spouse or receive equal family health and pension benefits as federal civilian employees. Yet they pay taxes, contribute to their communities and, like all couples, aspire to live in committed, loving relationships, recognized and respected by our laws.

When I signed the bill, I included a statement with the admonition that “enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination.” Reading those words today, I know now that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law is itself discriminatory. It should be overturned.

We are still a young country, and many of our landmark civil rights decisions are fresh enough that the voices of their champions still echo, even as the world that preceded them becomes less and less familiar. We have yet to celebrate the centennial of the 19th Amendment, but a society that denied women the vote would seem to us now not unusual or old-fashioned but alien. I believe that in 2013 DOMA and opposition to marriage equality are vestiges of just such an unfamiliar society.

Americans have been at this sort of a crossroads often enough to recognize the right path. We understand that, while our laws may at times lag behind our best natures, in the end they catch up to our core values. One hundred fifty years ago, in the midst of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln concluded a message to Congress by posing the very question we face today: “It is not ‘Can any of us imagine better?’ but ‘Can we all do better?’ ”
The answer is of course and always yes. In that spirit, I join with the Obama administration, the petitioner Edith Windsor, and the many other dedicated men and women who have engaged in this struggle for decades in urging the Supreme Court to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
I support gay marriage in that it is a legal definition and a civil union from the states perspective. I agree with the ruling on its face, though I have yet to read the judges comments . .

If they find a church that wants to marry them then that's great, but i fearful that it may open the door to lawsuits against churches that refuse to marry gays because it violates their religious beliefs. That's pushing one persons beliefs on another and is not right. In this case it's a 'protected class' but there still needs to be respect for people who hold their own interpretatoin of their religion, regardless of how fscked it may seem. There are many churches that will gladly marry a gay couple, but if the pastor doesn't see fit, i don't think he/she should be forced to complete the ceremony. .. then again being such a highly personal thing, you're generally going to want a pastor you can 'connect' with and have a relationship with. . . or i'd imagine.

I can't see that happening... I mean, has a divorced couple ever sued the Catholic Church because they won't marry them?

private organizations generally have a lot of leeway in that, like the Salvation Army's refusal to hire gay employees.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
And you are wrong. Consent is ALWAYS required for marriage in the United States.

Adding this to the increasingly long list of things you don't know about marriage, the parents/guardians are not consenting FOR the minor to be able to enter into a marriage contract, their endorsement is required in order to ENABLE the minor to consent to the marriage contract. In such a situation minors can absolutely legally consent, and it is THEIR contract, not their parents'.

This is again basic.... basic information. I love how you went from being hilariously wrong in claiming that marriage wasn't a contract to being hilariously wrong about how people enter into that contract.

I've asked this before but I'll ask it again. How can you know so little about something you spend so much time arguing about?

We need to make a collective effort to stop responding to him. First off, his arguments are so completely without merit that people who are themselves against gay marriage still look at what he writes and have to distance themselves for fear of catching second-hand stupid. Second, he cannot change his mind. There is not one single thing that you could write on this forum that would convince him to change his line of reasoning. When you are so far removed from logical thought that "gay marriage" can be associated with "I'm marrying my dog AND my toaster," you are no longer capable of having a rational discussion. Third, every single thread that he gets involved in devolves into a cadre of people attempting to explain the most basic of things to someone who has expressed exactly zero interest in understanding those explanations rather than a conversation about the very legitimate OP. We have a thread for a very significant Supreme Court case, and you're spending all your energy arguing with a mental defective who sees no difference between a 16-year-old human and an appliance. Stop wasting your time.

Supreme Court made the right call on DOMA. But let's see how it plays out with regards to state's rights. Federal benefits are not the be-all, end-all of marriage.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,964
55,355
136
We need to make a collective effort to stop responding to him. First off, his arguments are so completely without merit that people who are themselves against gay marriage still look at what he writes and have to distance themselves for fear of catching second-hand stupid. Second, he cannot change his mind. There is not one single thing that you could write on this forum that would convince him to change his line of reasoning. When you are so far removed from logical thought that "gay marriage" can be associated with "I'm marrying my dog AND my toaster," you are no longer capable of having a rational discussion. Third, every single thread that he gets involved in devolves into a cadre of people attempting to explain the most basic of things to someone who has expressed exactly zero interest in understanding those explanations rather than a conversation about the very legitimate OP. We have a thread for a very significant Supreme Court case, and you're spending all your energy arguing with a mental defective who sees no difference between a 16-year-old human and an appliance. Stop wasting your time.

Supreme Court made the right call on DOMA. But let's see how it plays out with regards to state's rights. Federal benefits are not the be-all, end-all of marriage.

Really, he just needs to be banned and be done with it.

Sigh.
 

Bill Brasky

Diamond Member
May 18, 2006
4,324
1
0
I'm happy for today's ruling however I wish I could witness the same level of activism on facebook and anywhere else in regards to 100% of america's right to privacy being trampled by the nsa.

Off topic for this thread, but yeah, that would be amazing.

I honestly can't believe that lawful discrimination like this has lasted so long. It's pretty incredible.

We need to make a collective effort to stop responding to him. First off, his arguments are so completely without merit that people who are themselves against gay marriage still look at what he writes and have to distance themselves for fear of catching second-hand stupid. Second, he cannot change his mind. There is not one single thing that you could write on this forum that would convince him to change his line of reasoning. When you are so far removed from logical thought that "gay marriage" can be associated with "I'm marrying my dog AND my toaster," you are no longer capable of having a rational discussion. Third, every single thread that he gets involved in devolves into a cadre of people attempting to explain the most basic of things to someone who has expressed exactly zero interest in understanding those explanations rather than a conversation about the very legitimate OP. We have a thread for a very significant Supreme Court case, and you're spending all your energy arguing with a mental defective who sees no difference between a 16-year-old human and an appliance. Stop wasting your time.

Supreme Court made the right call on DOMA. But let's see how it plays out with regards to state's rights. Federal benefits are not the be-all, end-all of marriage.

Slow_Clap_ITS_A_GIF_PARTY_RE_Rebecca_Black_Friday-s420x315-140048-580.gif
 

obidamnkenobi

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2010
1,407
423
136
most likely. Though, I think the punting today was more an issue of CA refusing to mount a defense against the proposition.

If something similar is soon passed in anotehr state, or a current ban brings about a similar lawsuit and the supporters of the ban (meaning the legislators) provide an actual defense of the bill, I think it might go back to SCOTUS and result in a more solid ruling.

I read in the ruling that they let the lower court's opinion stand because the defendants could not show damage. Thereby effectively taking away the argument that gay marriage somehow damage "straight" marriage. (which should be pretty obvious to anyone).

I would think this would mean states can still ban gay marriage, but I don't know if SCOTUS would rule it unconstitutional under equal protection as they did DOMA?

Gay couples can clearly argue damage, and if opponents now cannot I find it hard to see how they could let gay marriage bans stand.
 

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,901
4,927
136
A great victory for Liberals that relish having even more people on the social security teat.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
Really, he just needs to be banned and be done with it.

Sigh.

I agree. At this point, and after everything that has been explained to him, his willfull displays of ignorance cannot be ignored. He will come into a thread next week about this very same issue and lay out all of the same BS arguments all over again.

He knows what he is saying/doing is illogical and full of fallacy but he continues to do it.

The definition of a troll.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
A great victory for Liberals that relish having even more people on the social security teat.

And how is that.

Most SSM couples work; they will draw benefits based on their own income except at the very end.

SSDI more often will not apply - see above

Where do you see SSM putting more people on the teat?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
We need to make a collective effort to stop responding to him. First off, his arguments are so completely without merit that people who are themselves against gay marriage still look at what he writes and have to distance themselves for fear of catching second-hand stupid.

You do realize that my arguments are IDENTICAL to the ones used for SSM. I am just applying them to a form of marriage you disagree with. And then magically they become with a merit :confused:
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
I can't wait for dogs to march on Washington in 10 years demanding the right to marry their humans.

it's going to be the cutest and creepiest protest ever.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
And 10 years ago a man and a woman was ALWAYS required for a marriage.

Are you trying to argue that definitions cannot change?

you have mischaracterized what marriage was like "10 years ago" in order to make an argument

another fallacy (strawman) argument