SCOTUS struck down DOMA

[nehalem256]

I wanted to point out, again, how butthurt you are that SSM is gaining more and more ground... and your view is losing more and more.

You are the one that keeps resorting to name calling. I think you might want to check the mirror to see the butthurt.

 

[zsdersw]

You may not realize this, but you can have sex outside of marriage.

But it is interesting that you appear to be a drawing a connection between marriage and sex. I thought it was just a contract to get government benefits?

You obviously don't realize this, but your comment that I was responding to (and hence my reply) has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with human sexuality.

The connection between marriage and having children is blindingly obvious to anyone not pushing a homosexual agenda.

Marriage wasn't created as a tax shelter for rich people.

For a lot of married people there is no connection between marriage and having children. Sorry that doesn't fit your 1950s view of the world. Here's a clue: it's not the 1950s anymore, and it never will be again. Get used to it.

 

[nehalem256]

For a lot of married people there is no connection between marriage and having children. Sorry that doesn't fit your 1950s view of the world. Here's a clue: it's not the 1950s anymore, and it never will be again. Get used to it.

Sounds to me like there are a lot of people that shouldn't be getting married.

 

[zsdersw]

You are the one that keeps resorting to name calling. I think you might want to check the mirror to see the butthurt.

Aww, poor baby whining about name-calling. I'm the exact opposite of butthurt... I'm gloating. And I couldn't be happier to see you losing.

 

[zsdersw]

Sounds to me like there are a lot of people that shouldn't be getting married.

Too bad. You don't have the right to say they can't get married.

 

[Retro Rob]

Yes, I have regularly said it. Sexual attraction is not a matter of choice, acting on that attraction always is.

I don't believe being gay is soley based on attraction -- I'd say its a combination of both.

I'm not heterosexual only because I am attracted to women, its also because I date women too, or how else could anyone know what my sexual preference is? What would we call guy married to another guy? Gay right? Based on his actions. We don't know if he's bisexual just by looking. So attraction can't be the only factor.

 

[zsdersw]

I don't believe being gay is soley based on attraction -- I'd say its a combination of both.

I'm not heterosexual only because I am attracted to women, its also because I date women too, or how else could anyone know what my sexual preference is? What would we call guy married to another guy? Gay right? Based on his actions. We don't know if he's bisexual just by looking. So attraction can't be the only factor.

Acting on the attraction isn't just "having sex", it also includes everything that surrounds it... like dating, courtship, etc.

 

[Retro Rob]

Too bad. You don't have the right to say they can't get married.

In fairness to him, you seem to only propose change for the sake of change -- your only qualifying statement to marriage not being about children (which in my opinion, isn't the sole purpose anyway) is "it ain't 19xx anymore".

It's not the 1960s anymore, those civil rights are outdated!!! Time for a change!!!

But in all seriousness, that isn't a valid reason to changed.

 

[zsdersw]

In fairness to him, you seem to only propose change for the sake of change -- your only qualifying statement to marriage not being about children (which in my opinion, isn't the sole purpose anyway) is "it ain't 19xx anymore".

It's not the 1960s anymore, those civil rights are outdated!!! Time for a change!!!

But in all seriousness, that isn't a valid reason to changed.

No, my statement about marrying not being necessarily related to having children is rooted in the fact that many married people are not and never were interested in having children and didn't get married for that reason. In the 1950s marriage was almost always about and because of children, but that's not how it is today. His statement about children being the primary purpose for marriage is wrong for that reason, not simply because it's not the 1950s anymore. The 1950s thing was a metaphor for how things used to be as opposed to how things currently are.

 

[nehalem256]

No, my statement about marrying not being necessarily related to having children is rooted in the fact that many married people are not and never were interested in having children and didn't get married for that reason. In the 1950s marriage was almost always about and because of children, but that's not how it is today. His statement about children being the primary purpose for marriage is wrong for that reason, not simply because it's not the 1950s anymore. The 1950s thing was a metaphor for how things used to be as opposed to how things currently are.

Sounds like what you are saying is that your version of "marriage" isnt really marriage. You are just reusing the word to refer to get government benefits.

And they screaming "BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT" at anyone that points it out to you.

 

[zsdersw]

Sounds like what you are saying is that your version of "marriage" isnt really marriage. You are just reusing the word to refer to get government benefits.

And they screaming "BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT" at anyone that points it out to you.

You keep saying what isn't really marriage as if you're the authority. You're not. And you never will be.

 

[werepossum]

There is no basic human right to have other people recognize your relationship just because you say so.

Historically how would you tell if someone was able to procreate beforehand?

And as you said historically it would be grounds for divorce afterward, which was on a practical level the only way to tell. There is ample evidence showing the connection between a couple procreating and marriage.

What magic science allows a baby to be made from 2 sperms?

I do believe that there is a basic human right to the pursuit of happiness as a basic human right to be treated equally the law. While government may infringe on those rights, it should always be required to show a compelling societal interest requiring that infringement to do so. This is about government, not people recognizing one's marriage. As long as you do not unlawfully discriminate, you are still free to not recognize the validity of a gay marriage or an interracial marriage or fat people or whomever you hate.

No menses, no baby. No testes, no baby. Neither of these conditions were ever grounds to prohibit marriage.

From two sperm, no. From an egg and a donor sperm, or from a sperm and a donor egg and surrogate womb, yes. Unless you propose denying these things to couples with fertility problems, I see no reason to not characterize this as procreation for gays. In any case, unless you propose barring infertile straights or penalizing those who marry but choose to not have children, I see no reason this applies specially to gay people.

 

[nehalem256]

You keep saying what isn't really marriage as if you're the authority. You're not. And you never will be.

You don't have to be this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harrison_(ice_cream_taster)

To figure out that shit in a bowl ain't ice cream.

I do believe that there is a basic human right to the pursuit of happiness as a basic human right to be treated equally the law. While government may infringe on those rights, it should always be required to show a compelling societal interest requiring that infringement to do so.

How is anyone's right to pursue happiness being infringed by the government not recognizing their relationship?

No one is suggesting we stone homosexuals.

This is about government, not people recognizing one's marriage. As long as you do not unlawfully discriminate, you are still free to not recognize the validity of a gay marriage or an interracial marriage or fat people or whomever you hate.

On its most basic level marriage is society recognizing a relationship as special. In the modern world government is the primary agent of society.

And the bolded is a bit of a joke considering that liberals have demonstrated they have no issue with forcing people to recognize SSM.

No menses, no baby. No testes, no baby. Neither of these conditions were ever grounds to prohibit marriage.

I don't think it was common for eunuchs to marry

From two sperm, no. From an egg and a donor sperm, or from a sperm and a donor egg and surrogate womb, yes. Unless you propose denying these things to couples with fertility problems, I see no reason to not characterize this as procreation for gays.

I could hire a surrogate myself. Doesn't mean I should be allowed to marry myself

In any case, unless you propose barring infertile straights or penalizing those who marry but choose to not have children, I see no reason this applies specially to gay people.

And unless you are going to propose violating people's medical privacy before allowing a marriage is a pointless issue(assuming it was even possible to reliably determine fertility before marriage) It is immediately obvious that 2 men cannot create a child together.

I have no object to preventing say men who have had vasectomies from getting married.

 

[zsdersw]

You don't have to be this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harrison_(ice_cream_taster)

To figure out that shit in a bowl ain't ice cream.

You're not the authority on marriage. You're nobody.

 

[zsdersw]

I have no object to preventing say men who have had vasectomies from getting married.

I'm sure you don't have any objections to that. Fortunately for everyone, you and your ilk are not and never will be in the driver's seat. You're a part of a shrinking minority. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

 

[zinfamous]

You don't have to be this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harrison_(ice_cream_taster)

To figure out that shit in a bowl ain't ice cream.

How cute. This type of colloquial banter will certainly help you get elected in any number of small southern states that eat this up, but it doesn't do much for you if you want to pass yourself off as someone capable of providing meaningful discourse.

 

[nehalem256]

I'm sure you don't have any objections to that. Fortunately for everyone, you and your ilk are not and never will be in the driver's seat. You're a part of a shrinking minority. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Because obviously seeing "marriage" as nothing more than a contract to get government is soooooo much better

Well except for when gays want to throw a fit about old ladies refusing to support their marriage. Then suddenly it becomes something other than "just a contract".

How cute. This type of colloquial banter will certainly help you get elected in any number of small southern states that eat this up, but it doesn't do much for you if you want to pass yourself off as someone capable of providing meaningful discourse.

I suggest reading zsdersw posts to me if you want to see someone incapable of meaningful discourse.

 

[Bird222]

It seems most christians forgot what principles this country was founded on.

Amen!

 

[zsdersw]

Because obviously seeing "marriage" as nothing more than a contract to get government is soooooo much better

It is preferable to more restrictions imposed by government and law, yes.

I suggest reading zsdersw posts to me if you want to see someone incapable of meaningful discourse.

Meaningful discourse with you on this issue is not possible, so I don't bother trying most of the time. I respond in kind to whatever is said to me. If it's meaningful discourse, I respond with meaningful discourse.

 

[lopri]

Originally Posted by soulcougher73

It seems most christians forgot what principles this country was founded on.

Amen!

And it seems many regulars here forget what the topic at hand is. I tried to remind them in my previous post (#445), but apparently it's of no help. The case wasn't about "what is marriage" but whether the fed can pick and choose state's marriage licenses on the basis of sex/sexual orientation. These people are/were already married in 12 states.

 

[werepossum]

And it seems many regulars here forget what the topic at hand is. I tried to remind them in my previous post (#445), but apparently it's of no help. The case wasn't about "what is marriage" but whether the fed can pick and choose state's marriage licenses on the basis of sex/sexual orientation. These people are/were already married in 12 states.

Given the majority opinion, it seems to me that SCOTUS actually went beyond that. By giving an equal protection opinion rather than pointing out the glaringly obvious 10th Amendment violation, didn't the justices prevent Congress (and by extension the states) from making any arbitrary law restricting marriage rights, including traditional definitions? Seems to me that SCOTUS really did three things here:
1. Force the Federal government into recognizing marriages sanctioned in states.
2. Force the states into recognizing marriages sanctioned in other states.
3. Prevent the Federal government from placing restrictions on marriage rights without a compelling societal reason to do so.

Am I wrong? If not, doesn't the third thing also prevent states from using such arbitrary definitions? States have no greater latitude in violating the equal protection than does the federal government.

 

[sportage]

NO BODY or GROUP "OWNS" marriage.
As I said in another thread, SS marriage is the new "traditional" marriage, or is on track to becoming.
Marriage is like soft clay.
Nothing with marriage is or was ever written in stone, but rather molded and re molded as needed to suit.
And YES, even polygamy could someday become an addition to "traditional" marriage.
All that would take is a push from Mormonism in states, and a successful court challenge on the matter.
Kinda makes all the hoopla about SS marriage lost in the smoke?
Just wait till the Mormon's want their turn in the courts.
And after that?
It doesn't matter BECAUSE no one or no one group "OWNS" marriage.
Sorry if that puts a cramp in your civil liberties step.

 

[nehalem256]

It is preferable to more restrictions imposed by government and law, yes.

So you support marrying dogs and toasters?

Oh wait you don't. Sounds like you are hypocritical bigot who has no problems imposing restrictions on marriage by the law and government when it suits your purpose.

NO BODY or GROUP "OWNS" marriage.
As I said in another thread, SS marriage is the new "traditional" marriage, or is on track to becoming.
Marriage is like soft clay.
Nothing with marriage is or was ever written in stone, but rather molded and re molded as needed to suit.
And YES, even polygamy could someday become an addition to "traditional" marriage.
All that would take is a push from Mormonism in states, and a successful court challenge on the matter.
Kinda makes all the hoopla about SS marriage lost in the smoke?
Just wait till the Mormon's want their turn in the courts.
And after that?
It doesn't matter BECAUSE no one or no one group "OWNS" marriage.
Sorry if that puts a cramp in your civil liberties step.

So could marrying dogs or toasters.

The only thing standing in the way is liberal bigotry.

 

[nehalem256]

Given the majority opinion, it seems to me that SCOTUS actually went beyond that. By giving an equal protection opinion rather than pointing out the glaringly obvious 10th Amendment violation, didn't the justices prevent Congress (and by extension the states) from making any arbitrary law restricting marriage rights, including traditional definitions? Seems to me that SCOTUS really did three things here:
1. Force the Federal government into recognizing marriages sanctioned in states.
2. Force the states into recognizing marriages sanctioned in other states.
3. Prevent the Federal government from placing restrictions on marriage rights without a compelling societal reason to do so.

Am I wrong? If not, doesn't the third thing also prevent states from using such arbitrary definitions? States have no greater latitude in violating the equal protection than does the federal government.

I don't think the 3rd is true. For instance see this article

He then vaguely invokes both due process and equal protection, without explaining how he overcomes the limits on those doctrines that I describe above. He does not, for example, declare homosexuals a suspect class, nor does he (or could he) claim that same-sex marriage has roots in history and tradition. In the end, he seems to hold DOMA unconstitutional because he is convinced that the purpose of the statute was to stigmatize gay people, and indeed there is some precedent for the idea that statutes based on animus are unconstitutional. But he does not provide a very convincing account of the motives of the legislators. Isn’t it possible to oppose same-sex marriage without hating gay people?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...constitutional.html?google_editors_picks=true

Basically, DOMA was struck down because Kennedy said it was mean to gay people. Which when you think about is really what the liberal argument for SSM boils down to.

 

[sourceninja]

Basically, DOMA was struck down because Kennedy said it was mean to gay people. Which when you think about is really what the liberal argument for SSM boils down to.

Which honestly is a good enough reason. The onus is on the people who want to take away a right to show it is in the best public interest. That by removing this right we make us safer, more secure, and prevent harm to others. If they can't do that then we deserve to keep that right.