DOMA IS GONE! YES! And gay marriage in CA is legal!

[tranquility]

I understand that and they just made a lot of lawyers a bunch of money in handling divorces, and estates but if you do not think that homosexuals and minorities hold high positions with power in this government then you are kidding yourself. The only reason this was passed at this time was due to the orientation of specific legislatures, senators and supreme court justices. Bill Clinton signed the law into effect for protective measures with state rights, I do not think his agenda was to infringe on states rights and the states population has a right to pass their own legislation. So, not only could all the immigrants here illegally get citizenship, their partners get citizenship as well whether they are homosexual or heterosexual, so now you just over loaded an already tilted welfare and social benefits systems from groups of people who never paid taxes in this country to begin with. I guess they are counting their votes and hoping they get jobs that pay taxes but I figure they will be like most sit at home and take government checks and be a bigger burden on the system than it is now.

The DOMA case had to do with an estate. A same-sex married couple in NY had one die. They were rich and the surviving spouse used the marital exemption on the wealth transfer. The government, citing DOMA, did not issue a refund.

But, no matter the specific issue you have with "the gheys" they make up a small percentage of the population. (Recognizing that defining what gay is can be a problem. If anyone who ever had a single gay experience is considered gay, the percentage is much higher.) If such a small percentage of the population rise to the power of specific legislatures, senators and supreme court justices (Have you got a cite for that?) that far outstrips the percentage of population--doesn't that make them more productive than the average joe/jane? I assume homosexuals did not decide to take over the government and are generally represented in all industries almost equally. If they rose to such heights there, as a group, they must be fairly hard working and well educated--don't you think? How terrible....

 

[RedemptionMan]

The DOMA case had to do with an estate. A same-sex married couple in NY had one die. They were rich and the surviving spouse used the marital exemption on the wealth transfer. The government, citing DOMA, did not issue a refund.

But, no matter the specific issue you have with "the gheys" they make up a small percentage of the population. (Recognizing that defining what gay is can be a problem. If anyone who ever had a single gay experience is considered gay, the percentage is much higher.) If such a small percentage of the population rise to the power of specific legislatures, senators and supreme court justices (Have you got a cite for that?) that far outstrips the percentage of population--doesn't that make them more productive than the average joe/jane? I assume homosexuals did not decide to take over the government and are generally represented in all industries almost equally. If they rose to such heights there, as a group, they must be fairly hard working and well educated--don't you think? How terrible....

Most of them are well educated and wealthy but here is you cite

http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2013/06/26/rainbow-flag-flies-at-governors-residence/

I could care less about UN-natural things but since we allow homosexuals to marry might as well allow people to marry their cars, dogs, buildings or whatever. Has the same principle if all we care about is making sure people are happy. Although once you give them nothing left to fight for then it is awesome to see how quickly they want more or get upset that they no longer have anything to fight for.

 

[tranquility]

Your right, I want to marry my dog, do I qualify for benefits and a civil union? It after all is what makes me happy.

Such is why discussions as this get to be hot so fast. Nothing is accomplished and we harden our positions.

For me, I would say you don't have a "right" to marry who/what/the-one*s* you love. Marriage, while based on ancient concepts that promoted societal values and success, is statutory. As such, democracy should decide the statutes. As a rule, the vast majority of the population do not find great societal value from a marriage of the type you propose. However, if marrying the one you love is a right, I don't see how such can not be included in the right. Why discriminate against those who do not feel loving their dog should not include "loving" their dog? Why discriminate against religions who think multiple wives are God's way? Why discriminate against Applephiles who think the fifth iteration of the phone is the perfect partner? Or, discriminate against daddies who really love their little girls?

I suppose the "right" is:

One can marry the one human they love as long as the human is not so closely related that any joint offspring will not have a material chance of birth defects unless either of the parties is infertile and agree no dna sequencing will create offspring.

 

[Bali Hai]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Nationwide
Two huge decisions -- but Doma will impact everyone in some way shape or form as legal marriages must be recognized.

This will really confuse the hell out of judges when awarding alimony.

 

[tranquility]

Most of them are well educated and wealthy but here is you cite

http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2013/06/26/rainbow-flag-flies-at-governors-residence/

I could care less about UN-natural things but since we allow homosexuals to marry might as well allow people to marry their cars, dogs, buildings or whatever. Has the same principle if all we care about is making sure people are happy. Although once you give them nothing left to fight for then it is awesome to see how quickly they want more or get upset that they no longer have anything to fight for.

You said supreme court justice. Cite it. I recognize there are many gays in government--maybe to a greater extent than population would suggest. That does not mean they hold enough rungs of power to suggest these decisions are guided solely by self interest, but by a genuine desire to make society better.

 

[RedemptionMan]

You said supreme court justice. Cite it. I recognize there are many gays in government--maybe to a greater extent than population would suggest. That does not mean they hold enough rungs of power to suggest these decisions are guided solely by self interest, but by a genuine desire to make society better.

I do not know if there currently is a supreme court justice ruling on this case that is openly gay but read this for yourself.

Lovin those agendas.


http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/08/1560921/obama-nominee-would-be-first-openly-gay-federal-court-of-appeals-judge/?mobile=nc

 

[Mnemosyne]

Your right, I want to marry my dog, do I qualify for benefits and a civil union? It after all is what makes me happy.

That's a specious argument. Your dog cannot give its consent to marry.

 

[tranquility]

That's a specious argument. Your dog cannot give its consent to marry.

Beastaphobe.

 

[Mnemosyne]

Beastaphobe.

You got me.

Would a tearful apology allow me to keep my hosting gig on Animal Planet and my PetCo endorsement deal?

 

[RedemptionMan]

You got me.

Would a tearful apology allow me to keep my hosting gig on Animal Planet and my PetCo endorsement deal?

Nope, the damage control was not enough. Here comes Matt Lauer to save the situation.

 

[tranquility]

You got me.

Would a tearful apology allow me to keep my hosting gig on Animal Planet and my PetCo endorsement deal?

I don't know. You'll have to speak to the ones your hateful statement harmed.

http://www.lolpix.com/pictures/7/Funny_Pictures_1471.htm

 

[single317dad]

I suppose the "right" is:

One can marry the one human they love as long as the human is not so closely related that any joint offspring will not have a material chance of birth defects unless either of the parties is infertile and agree no dna sequencing will create offspring.

If I were to author the "right" as a Constitutional Amendment, I'd include bigamy. I know I'll lose a lot of people there (I'm used to it; I'm equally dismissed by Democrats and Republicans), but I don't see a problem with plural marriages as long as all parties consent, and are held to the same standards as traditional married couples. Granted, those standards are somewhat diminished recently, but they should apply equally to everyone, if they apply to anyone. Fair and equal treatment. Of course the earliest spouse (let's call them the "first leinholder" ) would not be bound to future contracts entered into by the spouse, so the litigation could get pretty complicated.

"The right of any person, of sufficient age and mental capacity to consent to binding contract, to enter a government-sanctioned civil union (hereinafter referred to as marriage) with another person, regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, political persuasion, physical handicap, previous or current marital status, shall not be infringed." Modify as you see fit, because I'm sure it would end up butchered by the Congress and further dissected by the courts.

I wouldn't even address the family issue, for two reasons: I can personally attest that laws against marriage don't stop cousins from reproducing, so the intent of the law is easily circumvented, and states pass laws all the time limiting rights given by the Constitution (e.g. limits on provocative speech, slander, limits on certain types of firearms, requiring permits to assemble, etc), so those limits could be handled at a state level.

Self-marriage would be ruled out because marriage should be treated as a contract, and one cannot be contractually obligated to oneself. Ditto with the dogs and donkeys.

I got this far, realized there was SO much more to say, and much clarification needed, and decided it would never be perfect and would just have to be decided by decades or centuries of legislation and litigation anyway, so what's the point.

 

[RedemptionMan]

If I were to author the "right" as a Constitutional Amendment, I'd include bigamy. I know I'll lose a lot of people there (I'm used to it; I'm equally dismissed by Democrats and Republicans), but I don't see a problem with plural marriages as long as all parties consent, and are held to the same standards as traditional married couples. Granted, those standards are somewhat diminished recently, but they should apply equally to everyone, if they apply to anyone. Fair and equal treatment. Of course the earliest spouse (let's call them the "first leinholder" ) would not be bound to future contracts entered into by the spouse, so the litigation could get pretty complicated.

"The right of any person, of sufficient age and mental capacity to consent to binding contract, to enter a government-sanctioned civil union (hereinafter referred to as marriage) with another person, regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, political persuasion, physical handicap, previous or current marital status, shall not be infringed." Modify as you see fit, because I'm sure it would end up butchered by the Congress and further dissected by the courts.

I wouldn't even address the family issue, for two reasons: I can personally attest that laws against marriage don't stop cousins from reproducing, so the intent of the law is easily circumvented, and states pass laws all the time limiting rights given by the Constitution (e.g. limits on provocative speech, slander, limits on certain types of firearms, requiring permits to assemble, etc), so those limits could be handled at a state level.

Self-marriage would be ruled out because marriage should be treated as a contract, and one cannot be contractually obligated to oneself. Ditto with the dogs and donkeys.

I got this far, realized there was SO much more to say, and much clarification needed, and decided it would never be perfect and would just have to be decided by decades or centuries of legislation and litigation anyway, so what's the point.

A un- natural union is an un natural union whether it is with dog, a donkey or even someone of the same sex. I am solid with the Texas Senator on this subject and support his views. I would expect petitions, more succession requests and more alienation from people who do not support these views/ ideas. Whatever victory was gained from this agenda seeking legislation, it will be short lived.

 

[tranquility]

If I were to author the "right" as a Constitutional Amendment, I'd include bigamy. I know I'll lose a lot of people there (I'm used to it; I'm equally dismissed by Democrats and Republicans), but I don't see a problem with plural marriages as long as all parties consent, and are held to the same standards as traditional married couples. Granted, those standards are somewhat diminished recently, but they should apply equally to everyone, if they apply to anyone. Fair and equal treatment. Of course the earliest spouse (let's call them the "first leinholder" ) would not be bound to future contracts entered into by the spouse, so the litigation could get pretty complicated.

"The right of any person, of sufficient age and mental capacity to consent to binding contract, to enter a government-sanctioned civil union (hereinafter referred to as marriage) with another person, regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, political persuasion, physical handicap, previous or current marital status, shall not be infringed." Modify as you see fit, because I'm sure it would end up butchered by the Congress and further dissected by the courts.

I wouldn't even address the family issue, for two reasons: I can personally attest that laws against marriage don't stop cousins from reproducing, so the intent of the law is easily circumvented, and states pass laws all the time limiting rights given by the Constitution (e.g. limits on provocative speech, slander, limits on certain types of firearms, requiring permits to assemble, etc), so those limits could be handled at a state level.

Self-marriage would be ruled out because marriage should be treated as a contract, and one cannot be contractually obligated to oneself. Ditto with the dogs and donkeys.

I got this far, realized there was SO much more to say, and much clarification needed, and decided it would never be perfect and would just have to be decided by decades or centuries of legislation and litigation anyway, so what's the point.

Can you think of any other "right" so complex to state?

What if a current spouse wants to be sole spouse but the other wants another partner? What is the "contract" again? Can I treat one spouse better than the other? If the poorly treated spouse wants to divorce, but I can only afford enough to take care of one house (along with food, clothing and the like for all inside), does that mean the poorly treated spouse doesn't get alimony? (I think I just got Bali on board!)

would just have to be decided by decades or centuries of legislation and litigation anyway, so what's the point.

The court seems to want to reject centuries of legislation and litigation and millennia of history in the next round.

Looking at the history of moral/sexual decisions having to do with contraception, abortion, non-missionary sex, or gay sex had to do with the penumbra of the Constitution having to do with privacy. As was said in Lawrence v. Texas:

� These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one�s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.�

Saying also:

The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. �It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.� Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

That privacy is no longer the claim. Now, it is public approval as a right. Scalia dissented. The key he focused on (in addition to stare decisis) was the courts lack of claiming sodomy was a fundamental right (requiring strict scrutiny to overcome) but an exercise of liberty that he found was a rather made up category only needing rational basis. On that argument there was no "rational basis" as held by the majority opinion he said:

Justice O�Connor simply decrees application of �a more searching form of rational basis review� to the Texas statute. Ante, at 2. The cases she cites do not recognize such a standard, and reach their conclusions only after finding, as required by conventional rational-basis analysis, that no conceivable legitimate state interest supports the classification at issue. See Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S., at 635; Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 448�450 (1985); Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534�538 (1973). Nor does Justice O�Connor explain precisely what her �more searching form� of rational-basis review consists of. It must at least mean, however, that laws exhibiting � �a � desire to harm a politically unpopular group,� � ante, at 2, are invalid even though there may be a conceivable rational basis to support them.

This reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Justice O�Connor seeks to preserve them by the conclusory statement that �preserving the traditional institution of marriage� is a legitimate state interest. Ante, at 7. But �preserving the traditional institution of marriage� is just a kinder way of describing the State�s moral disapproval of same-sex couples. Texas�s interest in �21.06 could be recast in similarly euphemistic terms: �preserving the traditional sexual mores of our society.� In the jurisprudence Justice O�Connor has seemingly created, judges can validate laws by characterizing them as �preserving the traditions of society� (good); or invalidate them by characterizing them as �expressing moral disapproval� (bad).

That was a decade ago and many laughed at the justice for being such a worry wort. Imagine. ( http://www.pennumbra.com/issues/pdfs/153-3/Sternglantz.pdf )

 

[LdiJ]

I understand that and they just made a lot of lawyers a bunch of money in handling divorces, and estates but if you do not think that homosexuals and minorities hold high positions with power in this government then you are kidding yourself. The only reason this was passed at this time was due to the orientation of specific legislatures, senators and supreme court justices. Bill Clinton signed the law into effect for protective measures with state rights, I do not think his agenda was to infringe on states rights and the states population has a right to pass their own legislation. So, not only could all the immigrants here illegally get citizenship, their partners get citizenship as well whether they are homosexual or heterosexual, so now you just over loaded an already tilted welfare and social benefits systems from groups of people who never paid taxes in this country to begin with. I guess they are counting their votes and hoping they get jobs that pay taxes but I figure they will be like most sit at home and take government checks and be a bigger burden on the system than it is now.

Wow...hate much?

Any people of homosexual orientation or of an ethnic minority group who has any "power" in this country is certainly making a lot more money than you are and paying a lot more in taxes than you are.

In fact, people of homosexual orientation tend to have a greater level of wealth than their heterosexual counterparts and tend in general to pay more in taxes than their heterosexual counterparts. They have fewer children (and therefore less cost in raising children) and receive fewer tax breaks than their counterparts and rarely qualify for any kind of welfare benefits because they rarely have children as the "working poor". I have clients of homosexual orientation who make 25k and pay a significant amount of taxes and I have heterosexual clients with children, who make 25k and not only do not pay a penny of tax, but receive thousands of dollars of refundable credits due to their children.

And lets not forget all of those undocumented immigrants who faithfully file tax returns and pay taxes, again without getting any of the tax breaks that legal residents and citizens receive. Lets not forget that any of them who are W2 employees (which is most of them) are paying into social security and medicare even though they will never be eligible for any benefits from either of those systems. That's free money into social security and medicare.

You are completely clueless about who does or doesn't contribute actual tax dollars to our system of government.

Of course however they provide MUCH less benefit to the country that the millions of American citizens, with multiple children, who receive high levels of earned income credit, food stamps, tanif, section 8 housing etc., etc.