and DOMA is...

Lucy Stulz · Jun 26, 2013

Creech said:
I think reform was needed, but the quest to end segregation actually took away liberty and freedom from ALL Americans. So yes, we should have not forced an end to segregation totally. In some areas, yes. In most areas, the government overreached.

So reform was needed but not really needed so we shouldn't have undertaken any reform? All just "voluntary"?

Well, of course we only let the Jim Crow Experiment run for about 100 years with no POSITIVE results, so we should probably have let it run on for another 100 or so.

In the end you are right. MANY Americans lost the right to disenfranchise certain Americans and the right to treat as sub-human a big portion of our population.

Those days will be missed by some people I suppose.

Rion · Jun 26, 2013

NotreDame said:
You do realize the "constitutional standards" you invoke in this post were judicially created? There isn't any "constitutional standards" in the plain text of the U.S. Constitution precluding Congress from defining the term "marriage" for purposes of its tax code. Furthermore, there does not exist any "constitutional standards" in the original meaning of any provision in the U.S. Constitution prohibiting Congress from defining the term "marriage" for purposes of the tax code. The "constitutional standards" were conjured up by the Court rather than the text or original meaning of the U.S. Constitution serving as the genesis or impetus for the "constitutional standards."

Actually, I wasn't even thinking about what they used to cite their reason. The 5th is a very odd choice, I agree. However, there's nothing in the Constitution giving Congress the power to define marriage for any reason. They can tax marriage, but they cannot define it. That power should be retained by the states.

Thunder Peel · Jun 26, 2013

Lucy Stulz said:
Joan Rivers? Johnny Rivers? Rivers Cuomo? THOSE Rivers with a capital R?

But generally, yeah, it's probably highly likely that NOT allowing laws that relegate certain portions of the US population to SUB-HUMAN status is going to bring down the government.

And I'm sure Satan is pleased with this recent move away from treating part of our population like non-humans.

It's appalling how evil we are becoming when we fail to treat some people as sub-human!

How are they being treated as non-human? Are they being denied jobs, homes, clothing, food, shelter, or being forced to work as slaves? None of the gays I know have it bad or are dying in the street.

Lucy Stulz · Jun 26, 2013

Touma said:
Guys, I was originally for this but now I am not!!

They Secret Obama Police are at my front door demanding I get into a gay marriage with my fish! Why didn't I listen to you people?! WHY???

Bwahahaha! Yup. That was the plan all along!

Actually the Gay-Liberal Illuminati had planned to make it mandatory to gay marry your DOG, but your fish will do nicely.

The next step: GAY MARRY YOUR LAWN MOWER OR RISK LOSING ALL RIGHTS!

Bwa, bwaha, bwahahahahaha!

EdwinWillers · Jun 26, 2013

[serious];63420306 said:
Scalia is apparently giving a long bench statement

Here's some of it:

But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con- demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to "dis- parage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue herewhen what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress's hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will "confine" the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with.

Evil in this nation has unfurled its wings.

NotreDame · Jun 26, 2013

Lucy Stulz said:
I'd say treating millions of Americans as equals and generally being decent people toward each other brings the Bible to light.

If heaven isn't "down" with that then I have wonder what heaven is like.

This is a poetic modern view of Heaven but possibly not a perception based on the Bible. After all, Heaven is a discriminatory place, the righteous have eternal life, the unrighteous enjoy the eternal lake of fire. I am dubious the individual who sits on the throne between the cherubim would condone the degradation of a God created institution under the human ruse of equality.

NotreDame · Jun 26, 2013

Rion said:
Actually, I wasn't even thinking about what they used to cite their reason. The 5th is a very odd choice, I agree. However, there's nothing in the Constitution giving Congress the power to define marriage for any reason. They can tax marriage, but they cannot define it. That power should be retained by the states.

They can define the term "marriage" for purposes of federal tax law. The federal government has the authority to define terms for purposes of its tax law. The federal government, for purposes of its federal tax code, defines a plethora of terms, such as household, property, contract, all of which are terms typically defined by the states. The federal government, defining these terms pursuant to its power to tax and for purposes of federal tax law, is permissible by the U.S. Constitution, and such defining does not prohibit or preclude the state governments from defining those terms differently.

KitKatMatt · Jun 26, 2013

drew89 said:
Laws should not discriminate, but private businesses should be able to discriminate against whoever they want. If you don't like it go somewhere else.

First, when did I say anything about private businesses?

Second, ah yes, what is freedom without being able to put a sign in your restaurant window to keep people who make you uncomfortable out?

But that happened so long ago! What about recent examples?

Don't like the idea of war? Simply deny military veterans a room in your apartment building!

Anti-War Activist Refuses To Rent Apartment To Iraq-Afghanistan Vet « CBS Boston

Own a gun ranch and have a license to teach concealed handgun classes? Well, better keep those danged Muslims and Obama supporters out, they're about as useless as a sack of rocks.

Texas gun instructor won't train Muslims, Obama supporters - latimes.com

Good news, someone wants to rent your banquet hall! That'll give you a nice financial boost in this economy! Oh wait, they're gay. We can't have that!

Same-sex couple banned from renting Moline reception hall | WQAD.com

It's revolting that these things have happened, and will inevitably continue to happen. I sure as heck don't think private businesses have the right to discriminate against anyone. And guess what? Both Federal and State anti-discrimination laws are on my side.

Private business means privately owned, not "it's mine so anything goes". You still have to abide by the law.

Cute Tink · Jun 26, 2013

Creech said:
Wouldn't that be an example of "shoving your definition of marriage down another person's throat?"

Nope. Because non-human animals lack the legal ability to enter into a legal contract. Same as children.

Skaloop · Jun 26, 2013

JamieRedhead said:
Satan is laughing with this decision. The earth will shake and the Rivers will flood. The government will crumble....

This is all very true. Canada legalized SSM nation wide back in 2005. In response to this, in the fall of 2012, there was an earthquake off the west coast of British Columbia. Seven years in the making was this earthquake, of such massive scale that a small island of population ~5000 was affected as part of God's wrath on the entire nation.

And just recently, there have been floods in Alberta this summer. Just as there have been floods of varying degrees throughout the prairies pretty much every year since forever. That is the power of God; knowing what 2005 would bring, he was preemptively flooding Canada. To the same degree that he is flooding Canada now. But only in low-lying areas. That are near large rivers. At this specific time of year.

Also, the mayors of our two largest cities (Toronto and Montreal) have each been embroiled in a scandal. Senators are resigning because of scandals they were involved in. Such things have never, ever, happened before. At this pace, and if the rate is exponential, the government will crumble in mere weeks. Everyone will be out due to a scandal. It is God that created the video of Rob Ford (allegedly) smoking crack cocaine. God was right when he had Wright write that cheque to Duffy. And it was in 2006 (so clearly in response to the SSM legalization in 2005, just one year prior) that God had currently disgraced Montreal mayor Michael Applebaum start committing the fraud that would be his downfall a mere seven years later.

This is what awaits you, America.

drew89 · Jun 26, 2013

KitKatMatt said:
First, when did I say anything about private businesses?

Second, ah yes, what is freedom without being able to put a sign in your restaurant window to keep people who make you uncomfortable out?

But that happened so long ago! What about recent examples?

Don't like the idea of war? Simply deny military veterans a room in your apartment building!

Anti-War Activist Refuses To Rent Apartment To Iraq-Afghanistan Vet « CBS Boston

Own a gun ranch and have a license to teach concealed handgun classes? Well, better keep those danged Muslims and Obama supporters out, they're about as useless as a sack of rocks.

Texas gun instructor won't train Muslims, Obama supporters - latimes.com

Good news, someone wants to rent your banquet hall! That'll give you a nice financial boost in this economy! Oh wait, they're gay. We can't have that!

Same-sex couple banned from renting Moline reception hall | WQAD.com

It's revolting that these things have happened, and will inevitably continue to happen. I sure as heck don't think private businesses have the right to discriminate against anyone. And guess what? Both Federal and State anti-discrimination laws are on my side.

Private business means privately owned, not "it's mine so anything goes". You still have to abide by the law.

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.

Cute Tink · Jun 26, 2013

Thunder Peel said:
How are they being treated as non-human? Are they being denied jobs, homes, clothing, food, shelter, or being forced to work as slaves? None of the gays I know have it bad or are dying in the street.

Gays can be denied jobs or fired in parts of the country simply for being homosexual. Some areas do try to deny housing.

Hetta · Jun 26, 2013

NightHawkeye said:
Countdown to polygamy.

Ten ... nine ... eight ...

Oh, just on my say so. I'm so flattered to know I have so much power. :SMH:

Also, btw, polygamous relationships already exist all over the world. There's nothing to actually stop people from having polygamous relationships. I have my doubts whether it would ever become lawful because there are so many issues - I'm just thinking of those related to inheritance right away - never mind all the other minefields. But it will never be on my say so.

OathKeeper99 · Jun 26, 2013

Still no such thing as same sex marriage.

Rion · Jun 26, 2013

NotreDame said:
They can define the term "marriage" for purposes of federal tax law. The federal government has the authority to define terms for purposes of its tax law. The federal government, for purposes of its federal tax code, defines a plethora of terms, such as household, property, contract, all of which are terms typically defined by the states. The federal government, defining these terms pursuant to its power to tax and for purposes of federal tax law, is permissible by the U.S. Constitution, and such defining does not prohibit or preclude the state governments from defining those terms differently.

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.

drew89 · Jun 26, 2013

Hetta said:
Oh, just on my say so. I'm so flattered to know I have so much power. :SMH:

Also, btw, polygamous relationships already exist all over the world. There's nothing to actually stop people from having polygamous relationships. I have my doubts whether it would ever become lawful because there are so many issues - I'm just thinking of those related to inheritance right away - never mind all the other minefields. But it will never be on my say so.

I don't see how inheritance would get complicated with polygamy. In the absence of a will it could just be split equally among spouses, or all children if there are no remaining spouses.

Hetta · Jun 26, 2013

Skaloop said:
Most people I know who support gay marriage are not opposed to polygamy in principle. The opposition comes in regarding forced or coerced polygamous marriages between older men and girls, that sort of thing. But not polygamy on the whole.

I agree with this. The main problem that I have with polygmay is with the risk of coercion. BUT, if polygamy was moved into the mainstream, perhaps there would be less of a 'cult' aspect to it, and those older men who do coerce young women into marriage (and the older women who also take part in that) may have less power to use coercion. Maybe.

Hetta · Jun 26, 2013

drew89 said:
I don't see how inheritance would get complicated with polygamy. In the absence of a will it could just be split equally among spouses, or all children if there are no remaining spouses.

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.

OathKeeper99 · Jun 26, 2013

EdwinWillers said:
Here's some of it: Evil in this nation has unfurled its wings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TE1lifYefsM

Rion · Jun 26, 2013

Cute Tink said:
Gays can be denied jobs or fired in parts of the country simply for being homosexual. Some areas do try to deny housing.

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

and DOMA is...

Well-Known Member

Annuit Cœptis

You don't eat a peacock until it's cooked.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Domer

Domer

stupid bleeding heart feminist liberal

Blah

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Newbie

Blah

I'll find my way home

OathKeeper99

Guest

Annuit Cœptis

Newbie

I'll find my way home

I'll find my way home

OathKeeper99

Guest

Annuit Cœptis

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency