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

[NewCliche21]

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.

Don't forget inter-religious marriage. Or Redskins-Cowboys fan marriage. Or Yankee/Dixie marriage. Or any other type.

[Bliz]

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

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that facts matter to ND.

You must be new around here...

[karmacop]

That's quite a reach ya got there pardner

No, I'm genuinely confused by your arguments. Yet you show no inclination to further explain. If you are interested in explaining, you can start by simply saying whether or not you are against same-sex marriage, and why you are against it (if you are).

The floor is yours.

[karmacop]

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that facts matter to ND.

You must be new around here...

Not new, and definitely familiar with ND. I simply cannot leave a clearly erroneous statement alone without correcting it. Call it a weakness, I guess...

[ACW]

Well I'm not gonna speak for anyone else, but I think marriage in a religious sense has no business in government or vice versa. Let the religions decide who to and to not marry in the eyes of god. If you want recognition in the eyes of the law (why you would want that is beyond me ) then get a civil union performed by a judge or something along those lines. Gay, straight, or perhaps even a multiple-partner union.

Pretty much yeah. Civil union (benefits) for any CONESNTING, ADULTS. Marriage for the church/synagogue.

[wskin44]

The way I see it:

The division between state powers and federal powers for the most part is settled law, but in the areas where the division is being tested (immigration is the latest hot button) cases tend to get elevated to higher courts relatively quickly. Most legal relationships are defined by state law even though they have federal tax consequences. I'm not a lawyer but I believe that most corporate and partnership relationships are defined at the state level. The courts have agreed that marriage laws come under state province. This latest ruling seems to uphold that precedent. It doesn't matter if the legal relationship was performed in a church or in front of a justice of the peace, the civil paperwork legalizing the relationship is the same. The federal government has no jurisdiction over the states here. The feds can eliminate the federal tax break for married couples, or they can shift the tax break to couples with children if they want, but they don't have the authority to define the legal relationships that are defined by states, whether they be corporations, partnerships or civil unions.

[ACW]

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.

Then NavyDave wouldn't be able to get married (isn't he black)?

[Bliz]

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?

If women's suffrage had been put to a vote by the people (men only, of course) it would have been delayed 50 years or more.

If miscegenation laws had been put to a vote by the people, they would probably still be in place in a lot of states.

People are generally ignorant of the constitution, and they don't really care. A system of laws based only on personal preference of the majority would be disastrous. Social achievements are rarely if ever reached by will of the majority

[twa]

No, I'm genuinely confused by your arguments. Yet you show no inclination to further explain. If you are interested in explaining, you can start by simply saying whether or not you are against same-sex marriage, and why you are against it (if you are).

The floor is yours.

I am against it because it goes against what I believe is God's will and design(man and woman)....and cannot support SS marriagesince marriage is to me the most fundamental bond and special relationship short of my direct relationship to God.

Thru the separation of church/state I have no problem with civil unions as a solution to equal rights issues and basic fairness...and that avoids the religion issue I have.

Marriage imo is a religious ceremony between the couple and God that was co-opted into secular government,thus confusing the two.

I cannot deny what I believe,nor see any other workable compromise.(aside from the courts settling US law,which takes it out of my hands)

People are free to do as they will(free will) ,but I believe I answer for me and mine.

hope that clears things up

[karmacop]

I am against it because it goes against what I believe is God's will and design(man and woman)....and cannot support SS marriagesince marriage is to me the most fundamental bond and special relationship short of my direct relationship to God.

Thru the separation of church/state I have no problem with civil unions as a solution to equal rights issues and basic fairness...and that avoids the religion issue I have.

Marriage imo is a religious ceremony between the couple and God that was co-opted into secular government,thus confusing the two.

I cannot deny what I believe,nor see any other workable compromise.(aside from the courts settling US law,which takes it out of my hands)

People are free to do as they will(free will) ,but I believe I answer for me and mine.

hope that clears things up

It does clear things up, thank you.

You say you see no compromise, but based on your answer, wouldn't one solution be to have everyone (both same sex and opposite sex) get civil unions, and the government can confer benefits based on civil union status instead of marriage status (if the government wants to continue giving such benefits). Then, each couple can decide whether or not they also get officially "married" with their own church. Maybe you already say that in your answer, but that seems like a way around the whole issue.

[twa]

It does clear things up, thank you.

You say you see no compromise, but based on your answer, wouldn't one solution be to have everyone (both same sex and opposite sex) get civil unions, and the government can confer benefits based on civil union status instead of marriage status (if the government wants to continue giving such benefits). Then, each couple can decide whether or not they also get officially "married" with their own church. Maybe you already say that in your answer, but that seems like a way around the whole issue.

I have suggested that very thing many times before,I have no problem with changing the governments recognition of my union and everyone elses to civil unions.

Strangely many gays I know object to that solution.

[wskin44]

I have suggested that very thing many times before,I have no problem with changing the governments recognition of my union and everyone elses to civil unions.

Strangely many gays I know object to that solution.

I wonder why?

So if the federal and state governments only recognized civil unions and churches decided who could get married or not you would be happy?

Marriage would not be a legal status it would be a religious status. Either that or accept the term marriage as a legal civil union (so that all current "married" couples wouldn't have to change anything) and give religious unions another name. Would that work?

[Bang]

Marriage is made in the heart anyway. How many of you felt married before you actually got married?

Didn't your commitment start before you took your vows? WEhen you stand there and the Preacher or Justice of the Peace says "Do you take this man or woman...".. are you really just making up your mind then, or do you already know the answer? In fact, isn't the answer such a foregone conclusion that the question is just redundancy for the benefit of the audience?

Other than the tax benefits, marriage itself is just a concept that affirms publicly the decisions you and your partner have already made.

Considering that, it baffles me why anyone thinks anyone else's marriage is any business of theirs.

~Bang

[Bliz]

I have suggested that very thing many times before,I have no problem with changing the governments recognition of my union and everyone elses to civil unions.

Strangely many gays I know object to that solution.

This one I happen to agree with strongly. Terminology is a big problem in this debate, and that's ridiculous when you think about it. (not ridiculous that people ascribe meaning and importance to the word "marriage", ridiculous that it's put a stranglehold on progress for so long...)

Though I don't think I know any gay people who object to that solution.

[NewCliche21]

This one I happen to agree with strongly. Terminology is a big problem in this debate, and that's ridiculous when you think about it. (not ridiculous that people ascribe meaning and importance to the word "marriage", ridiculous that it's put a stranglehold on progress for so long...)

Though I don't think I know any gay people who object to that solution.

Because instead of giving EVERYONE the title, some people feel that it is necessary to get rid of it all together.

That's inherently wrong.

[Larry]

Strangely many gays I know object to that solution.

Granted, I have a very small sample (like: zero) upon which to base my conclusion, but I doubt that.

I suspect that many of the people who you have listed as "objecting", are people who, when you mention "civil unions", hear "special gay-only, not quite marriage, but we'll claim that it is, recognition".

I know that's what I heard, many times, when you mentioned them. The "civil union" thing has for some time been used as a "we won't let the gays get married, but we'll give them something different and claim it isn't different". (OK, so maybe that means my sample size is one.)

At least here on ES, I haven't heard a single person object to civil unions once it's been explained that you mean civil unions for everybody.

[NewCliche21]

Granted, I have a very small sample (like: zero) upon which to base my conclusion, but I doubt that.

I suspect that many of the people who you have listed as "objecting", are people who, when you mention "civil unions", hear "special gay-only, not quite marriage, but we'll claim that it is, recognition".

I know that's what I heard, many times, when you mentioned them. The "civil union" thing has for some time been used as a "we won't let the gays get married, but we'll give them something different and claim it isn't different". (OK, so maybe that means my sample size is one.)

At least here on ES, I haven't heard a single person object to civil unions once it's been explained that you mean civil unions for everybody.

I went to theater school for two years and met quite a few individuals who are openly gay. All of them oppose civil unions as a slap in the face, similar to the "separate but equal" water fountains, restaurants, schools, and the rest of the segregation that the black population experienced prior to the Civil Rights Act.

Even if every single right is the same, word-for-word, giving it a title of "civil union" just says, "You can't call it marriage because you're not good enough." That's coming from homosexuals, bisexuals, and allies alike.

[twa]

Marriage is made in the heart anyway. How many of you felt married before you actually got married?

Didn't your commitment start before you took your vows? WEhen you stand there and the Preacher or Justice of the Peace says "Do you take this man or woman...".. are you really just making up your mind then, or do you already know the answer? In fact, isn't the answer such a foregone conclusion that the question is just redundancy for the benefit of the audience?

Other than the tax benefits, marriage itself is just a concept that affirms publicly the decisions you and your partner have already made.

Considering that, it baffles me why anyone thinks anyone else's marriage is any business of theirs.

~Bang

I agree....so why the fuss over someone not attending a ceremony?

I didn't attend my daughters wedding,yet still consider her as married as I am.

Cliche...I have heard that refrain a time or two dozen:silly:

But,But,but equality is more than equal treatment under the law:violin:

[The Evil Genius]

Our crazy cousins to the north (Canada) officially allowed for nationwide same sex marriage back in 2005.

As far as I know, no opposite sex marriages have been threatened up there, since then.

[NewCliche21]

I agree....so why the fuss over someone not attending a ceremony?

I didn't attend my daughters wedding,yet still consider her as married as I am.

Cliche...I have heard that refrain a time or two dozen:silly:

But,But,but equality is more than equal treatment under the law:violin:

I don't see how you can't attend your daughter's wedding out of choice.

And I've heard that two and two equals four quite a few times, too. It doesn't change the truth of it.

[wskin44]

Granted, I have a very small sample (like: zero) upon which to base my conclusion, but I doubt that.

I suspect that many of the people who you have listed as "objecting", are people who, when you mention "civil unions", hear "special gay-only, not quite marriage, but we'll claim that it is, recognition".

I know that's what I heard, many times, when you mentioned them. The "civil union" thing has for some time been used as a "we won't let the gays get married, but we'll give them something different and claim it isn't different". (OK, so maybe that means my sample size is one.)

At least here on ES, I haven't heard a single person object to civil unions once it's been explained that you mean civil unions for everybody.

I wonder if there would be objections from any quarter if government just got out of the marriage business entirely. Every couple who meet the state determined qualifications of a civil union are free to register for that legal designation. The tax tables would read "Civil Union filing jointly" and "Civil Union filing seperately". All legal rights currently reserved for married couples would now be assigned to all couples with legal Civil Unions. Marriages, and the qualifications necessary for marriage would be handled by the churches. No additional legal rights accrue to people who are married in a church.

[twa]

I don't see how you can't attend your daughter's wedding out of choice.

And I've heard that two and two equals four quite a few times, too. It doesn't change the truth of it.

Who said I had a choice?...**** happens(wife's health and their tight separate schedules)

The truth of it?...the truth is many want acceptance of a lifestyle rather than simply equality under the law....which cannot be legislated,nor demanded..

[NewCliche21]

Who said I had a choice?...**** happens(wife's health and their tight separate schedules)

The truth of it?...the truth is many want acceptance of a lifestyle rather than simply equality under the law....which cannot be legislated,nor demanded..

Sorry, I meant to clarify, "I can't believe that you would not go out of choice" as in, if it were out of choice, then I can't believe it. Syntax and diciton fail.

I don't care what someone's favorite band is; he should be able to get married. I don't care what his favorite team is; he should be able to get married. I don't care what his sexuality is; he should be able to get married.

It's not an acceptance of a lifestyle (which, unless it's your life, doesn't impact you); it's being an American and understanding that all [wo]men are created equal and thusly deserve to be treated as such.

[Larry]

I went to theater school for two years and met quite a few individuals who are openly gay. All of them oppose civil unions as a slap in the face, similar to the "separate but equal" water fountains, restaurants, schools, and the rest of the segregation that the black population experienced prior to the Civil Rights Act.

Even if every single right is the same, word-for-word, giving it a title of "civil union" just says, "You can't call it marriage because you're not good enough." That's coming from homosexuals, bisexuals, and allies alike.

Which part of "he's proposing civil unions for everybody" don't you get?

(At least, that's the way I read his proposal, now that he's amplified.)

See, twa, this is what I mean. "Civil Unions" has been the term that the "separate but claim it's equal, even when it isn't" crowd has been pushing for years,

to apply to gay marriages only

.

You're making a different proposal, but using the same terminology which people are applying to a different position.

If white kids get a "Birth Certificate", but black kids get a "Certificate of Live Birth", then that's "separate but equal".

If everybody gets a "Certificate of Live Birth", then it is, by definition, equal.

[twa]

Which part of "he's proposing civil unions for everybody" don't you get?

In many peoples eyes that is not far enough and there is no compromise.

I found it a bit shocking myself at first,now I'm bored with it and the games.

Let the courts play with it.