and DOMA is...

[drew89]

But would simple equal division be enough? Would a first wife, perhaps of 30 years standing who produced half a dozen kids, 'deserve' more than a recent wife of 5 years standing, who had no children with the deceased? This is assuming, of course, that the women don't equally own the property that they hold with their husbands.

Sure, in the absence of a will. All partners consent, after all. Of course they could always have a will.

 

[KitKatMatt]

I know what the law says. All I said was I disagree with the law. If a business really doesn't want you there they can simply ask you to leave for no reason, or make up an unrelated reason. But if they're not going to be allowed to discriminate against blacks, homosexuals, etc, then they shouldn't be able to discriminate against anyone. They shouldn't be able to discriminate against me for legally carrying a firearm into their place of business either.

(Emph added)

There are state and local laws that affect the carrying of an unconcealed or concealed firearm in public.

Open carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Weapons are inherently dangerous, especially guns. Don't tell me you'd be carrying this gun unloaded, either (What would be the point of having it with you, then?). If you are carrying it out in the open, and open carrying is not allowed in the area, then a business has the right to ask you to leave.

Same if you are concealed carrying, in the case that concealed carry is not allowed (though probably easier to get away with... it being concealed and all.)

That aside...

Anti-discrimination laws are put into place to protect people from being discriminated against based on personal and sometimes immutable traits such as race, religion, political alignment, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc.

Carrying a gun is not a personal or immutable trait. It is your body with a gun held or strapped next to it in some fashion.

 

[Cute Tink]

...what? No, really, please show me where that's legal.

Here is a link to the map of the US

29 states.

34 can fire you for being trans.

In 29 U.S. states there are no protections for LGBT people written into the states’ non-discrimination laws. Without the passage of the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), there are currently no federal protections, either, meaning that you can in fact get fired for being LGBT.

Source

 

[super animator]

Here is a link to the map of the US

29 states.

34 can fire you for being trans.



Source

But how many actually did get fired though?

 

[Hetta]

Interesting article on workplace discrimination.

 

[Cute Tink]

But how many actually did get fired though?

I don't know. I'm not going to research the stats on 29 or 34 states and see if there are even stats on that issue. People have been fired for being gay in the past (the military is one example that has gotten lots of attention). People can still be fired now. I see that as an issue because I think it's crap that someone would fire an employee, not for job performance issues, not for budgetary issues, but for something completely unrelated to his/her job.

Edit: changed my mind.

Stats

 

[Rion]

Here is a link to the map of the US

29 states.

34 can fire you for being trans.

I see another unsubstantiated claim, but no laws. Interestingly, that map almost completely matches up with "right to work" states... which might suggest most of this "fired for being gay" comes from the fact that people are hired at will? So is it people actually being fired for being gay, or is it simply what's claimed?

 

[NotreDame]

But did DOMA do that for the actual purpose of regulating the tax code, or was it an excuse? I thought that was the whole point here.

Don't get me wrong, I believe homosexuality is a sin, and I do not think God recognizes such unions, but I don't think the Federal Gov't should have any right telling anyone who they can marry. I think it belongs with the states.

Does the motive matter? What matters is the written law and what the written law accomplishes, not the motivation for the written law. The motivation for the law isn't law. The text of the law is the law, the text of the law regulates behavior, creates privileges, and has results, effects, but not the motivation for the law. The fact is section 3 of DOMA was written for federal tax laws and regulations and not for any state laws, state taxes, or state regulations. Relying upon the motivation for the law is a very poor reason to rule against a law. The motivation for the law has no effect but the law itself has results and it is the law itself which is paramount, not the motivations for passage of the law.

The law itself does not interfere with any state power, none, and the motivation for the law does not change this fact. DOMA section 3 defined the meaning of marriage for federal law and only for federal law, leaving the states complete and absolute discretion to define marriage under state law.

 

[Cute Tink]

I see another unsubstantiated claim, but no laws. Interestingly, that map almost completely matches up with "right to work" states... which might suggest most of this "fired for being gay" comes from the fact that people are hired at will? So is it people actually being fired for being gay, or is it simply what's claimed?

I have no way of independently verifying claims made about reasons for firing.

That, as noted in my second link that I must have edited in after you quoted me, are all states with no laws against discrimination in the workforce for LGBT workers.

Utah is one of those 29 states. Utah does have discrimination protections in their employment law. Not totally "at will":

Unlawful discrimination. An employer cannot fire you because of your race, color, national origin, religion, gender, pregnancy, age (if over 40) or disability. An employer also cannot fire you for asking for a reasonable accommodation, for complaining about unlawful discrimination, or for participating in an employment discrimination investigation.

Source

 

[OathKeeper99]

Does the motive matter? What matters is the written law and what the written law accomplishes, not the motivation for the written law. The motivation for the law isn't law. The text of the law is the law, the text of the law regulates behavior, creates privileges, and has results, effects, but not the motivation for the law. The fact is section 3 of DOMA was written for federal tax laws and regulations and not for any state laws, state taxes, or state regulations. Relying upon the motivation for the law is a very poor reason to rule against a law. The motivation for the law has no effect but the law itself has results and it is the law itself which is paramount, not the motivations for passage of the law.

The law itself does not interfere with any state power, none, and the motivation for the law does not change this fact. DOMA section 3 defined the meaning of marriage for federal law and only for federal law, leaving the states complete and absolute discretion to define marriage under state law.

DOMA was inacted in defense of Marriage.

 

[dies-l]

So ... does this clear the way for multi-partner marriage?

No.

 

[OathKeeper99]

No.

Nor same sex marriage.

 

[dies-l]

DOMA was inacted in defense of Marriage.

And, now that a major portion of it has been invalidated, is my marriage somehow in jeopardy?

 

[dies-l]

Nor same sex marriage.

True, but it does remove a major obstacle for SSM. In fact, the States' right to disregard legally valid marriages performed in other states remains unaffected by this holding. However, the writing is on the wall and that aspect of DOMA will likely be invalidated in a year or two. The bigger question is whether state laws prohibiting SSM are unconstitutional. And, supposing that they are, as would be suggested by a common sense reading of the 14th Amendment, this still has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on polygamy.

 

[Hetta]

And, now that a major portion of it has been invalidated, is my marriage somehow in jeopardy?

Exactly.

 

[OathKeeper99]

And, now that a major portion of it has been invalidated, is my marriage somehow in jeopardy?

Only if you are married to a woman.

 

[hollyda]

And, now that a major portion of it has been invalidated, is my marriage somehow in jeopardy?

The only marriages in need of a defense are those that aren't secure to begin with. Something lost on the majority of SSM opponents.

 

[dies-l]

Only if you are married to a woman.

Yes. I am married to a woman. So, can you explain what effect this will have on my hetero marriage?

 

[NotreDame]

DOMA was inacted in defense of Marriage.

Thanks for stating the obvious. I am not sure any of us would have perceived of this blatant and conspicuous fact unless you were here to inform of us this fact. Thanks. What else are you going to tell me, that there is a 24 hour day, divided into daylight and night?

 

[spartacus1984]

if you see members of the Supreme Court walking down the street trying to eat bananas by sticking them in their ears, wouldn't you think that was abnormal or just that they are all mentally ill?

the emperor's new clothes.