Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

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

karmacop

By karmacop
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
Again it's not a civil rights issue, never will be and never has been.

Again, it always has been and always will be.

As much as people would like it to be, no one has been able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt with science that it's NOT a choice.

And as much as the pro-apartheid people search for some feeble attempt to claim that this legislated discrimination is different from all of the other kinds of legislated discrimination, "it's a choice" will still be both untrue and irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wskin44

wskin44

Posted
Posted
Currently, marriage is exclusive to heterosexuals (for the most part). It is denied to homosexuals. If we change "marriage" to "civil unions", then marriage is still denied to them and it means that the battle is lost. The title means a lot to a lot of people.

The suggestion that I and others are making is that state governments determine the qualifications for civil unions and that for legal purposes all current "marriages" are considered civil unions. Governments would not have anything to do with the term marriage (it's none of their business). Churches would determine within their spiritual realm what constitutes a marriage.

Thus if two folks of any gender mix wanted to expand their civil union to a marriage then they just need to find a church that accepts their relationship. Render unto God/Ceasar, etc. I am not suggesting that marriage be denied to anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wskin44

wskin44

Posted
Posted
As much as people would like it to be, no one has been able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt with science that it's NOT a choice.

Does it make any difference if it is a choice? Doesn't the Constitution guarantee our right to choose our own path to the pursuit of happiness?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ljs

ljs

Posted
Posted
There are definitely things that need to be worked out legally for multiple partners because it does change things a bit, but I see no reason why 3 or more consenting adults can't form together like that.

On a somewhat related note, I don't understand why married couples get tax breaks for being married.

I think creating an LLC would give the multiple partners just as much benefit as marriage. My dad brought that up to me once, and honestly I really don't know much about it-but sounds like it would work.

Who's making a mockery out of traditional marriage?

Every man and woman who commits adultery and beats their spouse, beats their children and the over 50% of people who get divorced...oh- and Hollywood:silly:

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.

I can speak for what I see in the gay community- that its pretty split on the terminology. Many just want the same rights (hosp visitation, tax things, benefits etc) and don't care what they call it. Others are demanding it be called marriage. Me and my gf- we don't give a **** b.c we have no desire to "get married". I don't need a word, or a ceremony to know I'm in a monogamous, committed and life long relationship. The only thing that would cause me to leave this relationship is if she cheated, and I'm pretty sure that's not gonna happen.

I have a states vs fed question about marriage. It is just a hypothetical question.

Lets say, a gay couple gets married in a state that allows it. They decide to take a roadtrip for the holidays to a relative's house in a state where gay marriage is not allowed. They get into a car crash in the destination state, one is injured in a car wreck severely.

Now how would that work if they wanted to visit them in a hospital or if they had "decision making to do" how does that work because they are technically in a state that doesn't recognize their marriage.

great question- in my situation, we are on each others life insurance, we are on each others health benefits, and we have living wills that give power of attorney to each of us to make those medical type decisions. We are also in the process of completing regular wills for property issues in case one of us dies. I really can't think of anything else we need to have the same "rights" as a straight married couple. And since I've never been "married" to man, I honestly have no idea if I'm missing out on any cool tax breaks that straight married people get, if any. And we don't have kids, but if so, we would still be able to claim that child as a dependent (or one of us anyway.)

I'm curious, do you think they will get what they truly want even if they get the specific terminology they desire?

It just seems like yet another branch of fanaticism in many I have known and I feel it will do their cause more harm than good.

It is entertaining trying to reason with true believers of any stripe.:)

I agree twa- but I think I'm a minority gay person on this issue, but I'm also much more conservative than most gay people. My gf and I are on the same page with this.

Again, I don't need a word, or someone's approval to know what kind of relationship I'm in. And considering that pretty much everyone I know who is married is miserable, or have had adultery issues, or divorced- why does anyone want to actually get married anyway is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
81artmonk

81artmonk

Posted
Posted
Again, it always has been and always will be.

And as much as the pro-apartheid people search for some feeble attempt to claim that this legislated discrimination is different from all of the other kinds of legislated discrimination, "it's a choice" will still be both untrue and irrelevant.

It hate to say your wrong, but you're wrong. oops I said it didn't I?

As I pointed out to another poster, show me the evidence in science that has found without a shadow of doubt that homosexuality is genetic?

So far anything I have gotten from anyone else is "they can't choose that lifestyle" as proof.

The govt legislates a lot of things with regard to personal choice, why is this one so taboo yet it's ok for drugs, and other issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
81artmonk

81artmonk

Posted
Posted

I mean, now that 81artmonk says it, who has no background in anything related to the subject, then the case is settled. It doesn't matter that trying to prove a negative is impossible (prove to me that little invisible gnomes aren't running around in your head) and that he has nothing to support himself and that he's trying to be the Lorax and speak for the trees.

:doh:

I like how you did nothing to support your side. Not only that, you pointed out that I have no background (thus assuming that I am not gay nor am I scientist who has studied it) yet you who knows about as much as me have a better grasp on this subject.

I've proposed a very sensible arguement. There isn't any scientific proof. And all you can come up with is insult and childish arguements. How about you disprove my point and come at me with some proof in science that has shown conclusively that homosexuality is genetic.

Until than, we'll just leave it at the gnome comment made me laugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wskin44

wskin44

Posted
Posted
Marriage is only denied to them by the religions/priests that deny it. I'm sure there's one out there willing to do it and it will have as much meaning as any other marriage.

Exactly. It appears that the real obstacle to this solution (civil unions for all, marriage for those who want an official religious/spiritual aspect to their commitment), is that a certain number of straight folks want ownership of the word marriage. Almost every religion and church in the world has some form of ceremony celebrating what we call marriage, and each has its own definitions of what marriage means and who can participate. The straight folks who want control of the word marriage want to use the government to do it for them so they invent justifications for the right of government to do so. I'm saying that it is not the government's role to interject itself into our spiritual lives, and it is not one groups' right to dictate to everyone else what form our spirituality takes. Stop trying to use the government to tell me what I can and can't do in my church and in my bedroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
Exactly. It appears that the real obstacle to this solution (civil unions for all, marriage for those who want an official religious/spiritual aspect to their commitment), is that a certain number of straight folks want ownership of the word marriage.

The feedback Cliche and and I get(and ljs I think) would point to the real obstacle being proponents of SSM insistence on the word rather than the exact same legal status.

This straight religious guy has no problem with civil unions for all,nor leaving religions to determine the conditions for recognizing their own granting of marriage and recognition.

Get the govt out of religion and focused on individuals rights where it belongs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wskin44

wskin44

Posted
Posted
The feedback Cliche and and I get(and ljs I think) would point to the real obstacle being proponents of SSM insistence on the word rather than the exact same legal status.

I don't know many gay people and have never had this conversation with those that I do know. This goes back to Larry's insight that gays may see this solution as another version of "separate but equal" because we are using what appears to be the same formula of differentiating civil unions from marriage. There is no separate but equal aspect to this solution though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Evil Genius

The Evil Genius

Posted
Posted

81,

Let me ask you another hypothetical.

Suppose the state of Utah (sorry Utahans) legislates that interracial marriages are no longer allowed. They do so based on the states rights agenda.

Since the people affected are choosing to marriage interracially, do you think the state should have the power to ban these marriages?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
81artmonk

81artmonk

Posted
Posted
81,

Let me ask you another hypothetical.

Suppose the state of Utah (sorry Utahans) legislates that interracial marriages are no longer allowed. They do so based on the states rights agenda.

Since the people affected are choosing to marriage interracially, do you think the state should have the power to ban these marriages?

No, because marrying someone of a different skin color isn't a sin. on top of that, you can't legislate something someone already has a right to do which is marry.

You can't discriminate against a group of people who don't have those rights to begin with. Souly based off the definition of marriage, gays cannot marry and don't have that right.

You are trying to use the black rights issue, which doesn't work since minorities were born that way and gays were not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Evil Genius

The Evil Genius

Posted
Posted
No, because marrying someone of a different skin color isn't a sin. on top of that, you can't legislate something someone already has a right to do which is marry.

You can't discriminate against a group of people who don't have those rights to begin with. Souly based off the definition of marriage, gays cannot marry and don't have that right.

You are trying to use the black rights issue, which doesn't work since minorities were born that way and gays were not.

How about first cousins then? Immediate relations? They have those (unidentified) rights to marry, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
How about first cousins then? Immediate relations? They have those (unidentified) rights to marry, right?

If you look solely at the science of it ,there is little support for forbidding it.

It is a moral construct,much the same as the SSM ban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ACW

ACW

Posted
Posted
No, because marrying someone of a different skin color isn't a sin.
Neither is being gay. And 81, you've never shaved?

Leviticus 19:19 says, "Do not wear clothing of different kinds of material." But surely you have worn a polyester shirt before. This sin is the same as homosexuality, and is even on the same page as Leviticus 20:13, the quote about homosexuality.

Leviticus 19:27 says, "Do not cut your hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." Have you ever cut your hair or shaved your beard? This sin is as bad or worse than homosexuality.

Leviticus 19:33 says, "When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born." But aren't many good Christians against immigration?

Leviticus 21:13 says "The woman he (a man) marries must be a virgin. He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman..." But surely in our culture, a widow or divorced woman is still okay to be loved

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

Cue the "well, but some of those aren't really sins, they're just laws, and they only apply in Israel" argument.

"They're more like . . . guidelines"

(That's why I prefer to stick to the "keep your religion off of my civil rights" argument.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...
gbear

gbear

Posted
Posted

Dag nabbit ACW, I was looking for a thread on this when I posted that article. I wonder this thread doesn't come up at all when searching "defense of marriage." Thanks for posting it in a more relevant thread. So what happens with the 2 other cases mentioned in the article currently before the courts? Is it a "no contest" plea, and what would that mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...