Federal Judge Rules Portion of DOMA (gay marriage ban statute) Unconstitutional

[SnyderShrugged]

Get the States out of it too... It's a sacrament of the Church.

I agree completely (though I'd be happy with Feds out as a start)

[twa]

Many people get married because they love each other, not for anything else. Marriage happens all over the globe, across nations, cultures, religions, and people who just want to spend the rest of their lives with someone (or more) else.

How that affects anyone else is beyond me.

Against gay marriage? Then don't marry someone of your sex. The rest is none of your business.

It is the govt intrusion that makes it effect others,as the case in the op demonstrates to a degree.

Get them out of the marriage business and into strictly civil unions for all.

Anything related to my tax dollars is my business.

[NewCliche21]

I agree completely (though I'd be happy with Feds out as a start)

It is the govt intrusion that makes it effect others,as the case in the op demonstrates to a degree.

Get them out of the marriage business and into strictly civil unions for all.

Anything related to my tax dollars is my business.

Why can't they just be married? I still don't see how it affects you. Tax breaks maybe? If so, then why should you or I, people who are/will be in heterosexual marriages sanctioned by religions, get paid for it?

[NavyDave]

I'm sick of so many people acting like they care about marriage.

Me too especially those who make a mockery out of traditional marriage.

I wondered what took a liberal judge in Mass so long to make such a ruling.

[NewCliche21]

Me too especially those who make a mockery out of traditional marriage.

I wondered what took a liberal judge in Mass so long to make such a ruling.

Who's making a mockery out of traditional marriage?

[NavyDave]

Why can't they just be married?

Because marriage is between a man and a woman. And trying to normalize their lifestyle in this way is seen by the majority of people world wide as another example of lowering moral standards, Defining Deviancy Down.

[twa]

Why can't they just be married? I still don't see how it affects you. Tax breaks maybe? If so, then why should you or I, people who are/will be in heterosexual marriages sanctioned by religions, get paid for it?

It doesn't unless you want my vote,money or support.

Strange ...I've married for decades and seen more of a marriage tax penalty than a tax break....could ya point that out to me so I can get on the gravy train?

added

yet another expansion of entitlements?....who is gonna pay for it

[NewCliche21]

Because marriage is between a man and a woman. And trying to normalize their lifestyle in this way is seen by the majority of people world wide as another example of lowering moral standards, Defining Deviancy Down.

It's an archaic standard. Land owners are white males. The Church runs the world. Women are subservient to men and aren't allowed to vote, should stay home, and raise the kids. Protestants are sinners. The King is in charge. Homosexuality is a disorder.

If you're going to say that same-sex marriage is lowering moral standards, then all of the above are still true, right?

There's nothing wrong with a person having affection for another person. Your narrow definition is not the way that society, American or global, is headed. DADT is being repealed because people don't care about it anymore and have become educated on the topic. Gay culture has become an intrinsic part of television, theater, and other art forms because people appreciate it.

To deny people freedoms based on a religion is un-American. On race it's un-American. On religion it's un-American. On gender it's un-American. On any other demographic it's un-American, and that's how America has ALWAYS progressed. Why is discrimination based on sexuality American?

It doesn't unless you want my vote,money or support.

Strange ...I've married for decades and seen more of a marriage tax penalty than a tax break....could ya point that out to me so I can get on the gravy train?

added

yet another expansion of entitlements?....who is gonna pay for it

Eh, not married yet, so I don't know the full extent of tax effects, so I'll defer to you here. You are, however, mentioning entitlements. Could you elaborate on that and why you deserve them just for being in love but a gay neighbor doesn't?

[twa]

Eh, not married yet, so I don't know the full extent of tax effects, so I'll defer to you here. You are, however, mentioning entitlements. Could you elaborate on that and why you deserve them just for being in love but a gay neighbor doesn't?

They were designed to support the family structure on the old model of the man being the breadwinner.(as are many of our child support rules ect)

Going to civil unions for all will allow needed reform in that area to be simplified.

I don't think I deserve them....I'm odd

Can you tell me why gays do?...and who is gonna pay?

[NewCliche21]

They were designed to support the family structure on the old model of the man being the breadwinner.(as are many of our child support rules ect)

Going to civil unions for all will allow needed reform in that area to be simplified.

I don't think I deserve them....I'm odd

Can you tell me why gays do?...and who is gonna pay?

None of our child support rules agree with you in the least. Child support is paid by absent parents who do not qualify for exemption under certain means testing. It's usually the woman who has the child because, well, the child is physically there with the woman; it's hard for her to run. There are child support cases wherein the woman is paying. So that notion isn't true.

If you want civil unions for all, which I disagree with, then you're changing the name, and that's fine. Just no discrimination.

Why gays deserve marriages? Can you tell me why they don't? Everyone deserves everything unless they actually commit harm against another.

[NewCliche21]

Let me pose something for you:

I abhor most of religion. I think that it's a way for people to justify arrogance and discrimination. I blame it for almost every (if not every) war ever fought, the Holocaust, 9/11, Iran being douchebags, stifling of other groups (if not flat out ethnic cleansing), and other atrocities, and I don't think it's possible to have a valid argument to deny that.

It's killed eight figures worth of people, but do I think that people shouldn't celebrate and practice their religions even though they DO impact me directly? Of course not; that's discrimination and a limit of freedom.

Among many positive things, religion has brought the deaths of millions upon millions. Among many positive things, homosexuality has brought us "Will & Grace." Yet one is looked highly upon and the other is a terrible, unacceptable thing.

Do you see where that baffles me? I'm open to explanations.

[greenspandan]

Get the States out of it too... It's a sacrament of the Church.

and yet i'm willing to bet you have no problem with my athiest marriage. it's only the GAYS who somehow encroach on your viewpoint that marriage is a god-ordained sacred thing. i will never be able to reconcile the hipocracy there.

[twa]

None of our child support rules agree with you in the least. Child support is paid by absent parents who do not qualify for exemption under certain means testing. It's usually the woman who has the child because, well, the child is physically there with the woman; it's hard for her to run. There are child support cases wherein the woman is paying. So that notion isn't true.

If you want civil unions for all, which I disagree with, then you're changing the name, and that's fine. Just no discrimination.

Why gays deserve marriages? Can you tell me why they don't? Everyone deserves everything unless they actually commit harm against another.

In real life those rules behave a little differently from what I've seen over the yrs(Can I get a Hell Yeah HH?:pfft:)

Marriage is much more than a name to me....which is the reason for our disconnect there.

Evading the question doesn't help your case (if you want my vote or support),and NO everyone doesn't deserve everything imo (wtf kind of theology is that?)

[The Evil Genius]

Wish they had struck down the entire act.

Sigh.

[Bang]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "

Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

Sounds to me Jefferson is quoting his Creator and explaining that it is self evident truth (meaning even a moron can see the truth in it) that he endowed ALL men with this unalienable right to puruse happiness. And it seems to me that no one put in an asterisk that says "except homos" before they signed it.

All men.

Unalienable right.

~Bang

[twa]

Marriage in and of itself does not bring happiness,as I'm sure you know

[karmacop]

I wondered what took a liberal judge in Mass so long to make such a ruling.

The judge is in Massachusetts, but you'd be hard-pressed to label him as liberal. He was appointed by Nixon.

[karmacop]

NO everyone doesn't deserve everything imo (wtf kind of theology is that?)

I think the point is that if you're going to be giving out a benefit (like tax breaks for married couples), then you can't give it to some married couples (opposite sex) but not others (same sex). That a violation of the constitution's equal protection guarantees.

The debate about whether to have a tax break for married couples is a different argument. But assuming there is a tax break (and a bunch of other benefits arising out of marriage), then the federal government shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

[NewCliche21]

In real life those rules behave a little differently from what I've seen over the yrs(Can I get a Hell Yeah HH?:pfft:)

Marriage is much more than a name to me....which is the reason for our disconnect there.

Evading the question doesn't help your case (if you want my vote or support),and NO everyone doesn't deserve everything imo (wtf kind of theology is that?)

Evading what question? I missed it.

Are you talking about the child support rules in your first line? I'm confused.

And yes, everyone deserves equal rights unless they have violated someone else's. That's what America is based on.

Marriage in and of itself does not bring happiness,as I'm sure you know

"Pursuit of happiness" and "happiness" are two different things.

[karmacop]

It doesn't unless you want my vote,money or support.

So, you seem to be admitting that gay marriage doesn't affect you, but then you also say that it affects you so much that you withhold votes, money, support, etc. for any politician who's position is that it's bad to discriminate against gays. I don't get it.

[greenspandan]

the war is over, the homophobes lost. the gay rights advocates successfully cast the argument as a civil rights issue, and celebrity homosexuals and positive portrayals of homosexuals on tv have mainstreamed that lifestyle to the point where only a curmugeonly minority find them odious. history will not be kind to these holdouts. homophobia is already as socially unacceptable as racism in many social circles.

really, it's amazing how far we've come in the last 20 years or so on this issue.

[twa]

So, you seem to be admitting that gay marriage doesn't affect you, but then you also say that it affects you so much that you withhold votes, money, support, etc. for any politician who's position is that it's bad to discriminate against gays. I don't get it.

That's quite a reach ya got there pardner

[Ax]

I agree with the states rights issue here.

Now, if the states will only put the question to a vote, by the people, not the legislatures, gay marriage will be banned in every state.

Right?

[The Evil Genius]

I agree with the states rights issue here.

Now, if the states will only put the question to a vote, by the people, not the legislatures, gay marriage will be banned in every state.

Right?

Maybe they can put interracial marriage up to for vote too. That way, some of the the red staters and some of the south can keep the darkies away from their women.

[Ax]

Maybe they can put interracial marriage up to for vote too. That way, some of the the red staters and some of the south can keep the darkies away from their women.

Naw, our women are too smart to let that happen.