[Unknown Member]

I never understood how the same people who scream when government reaches into your bank account to collect taxes have no problem with the government telling us whom we can and can not marry.
 
I happen to be a heterosexual man married to a woman.
 
But if I had wanted to marry another man because I happened to be gay, it’s none of the government’s business, and it’s no one else’s business either.
 
These alleged conservatives who support alleged limited government should be the strongest defenders of gay rights.
 

[drmaryamgh]

Or how about those who want the government to stay out of their bedroom but insist that the government borrow money from my kids to pay for their birth control (likely also related to their bedroom) at 9 dollars a month?
Hypocrisy, no?

[btomba_77]

Quote from radmike

Or how about those who want the government to stay out of their bedroom but insist that the government borrow money from my kids to pay for their birth control (likely also related to their bedroom) at 9 dollars a month?
Hypocrisy, no?

 
[b]All[/b] citizens will disapprove of some use of their tax dollars. 
 
Many pacifists are opposed to military spending.  Many vegans are opposed to the USDA inspecting meat.  The fact that the goverment might spend some money on something that some citizen might find objectionable does not rise to the level of a violation of rights.
 
“My taxes have to pay for something of which I disapprove” — I find this a dismissable argument.

[Unknown Member]

radmike,
 
I happen to agree with you on the birth control thing. 
 
I can’t believe I actually find myself agreeing with Rush Limbaugh on something, but I do agree with Rush on this one.
 
Although Limbaugh had a very crude uncultured way of putting it, his basic argument was that one person should not have to pay for another person’s birth control – I agree with him.

[kayla.meyer_144]

I also can’t help but notice that when one speaks of birth control somehow condoms don’t seem to be the birth control one is talking about? I can’t help but notice that responsibility for “failed” birth control always falls on one partner. I can’t help but notice that one partner in this discussion can be so freely called “slut” for wanting birth control while the other is left out of the responsibility issue?
 
Just sayin.

[drmaryamgh]

Well Dergon, then anything is fair game for the government to provide or not provide, no?  It only matters as to who is in control of government at that time.  Tyranny is thy name.
 

[btomba_77]

What I am saying is that it is a false eqivalency from
 
“The government directly violates my constitutional rights” (DOMA) to “The government uses money it taxed from me and all other citizens to take actions that I feel are morally objectionable” (Contraceptives in the ACA, the Defence budget, etc)
 

[btomba_77]

More gaiety

[link=http://m.washingtonpost.com/politics/kentucky-must-recognize-gay-marriages-from-other-states-federal-judge-rules/2014/02/12/8ec79508-9410-11e3-b46a-5a3d0d2130da_story.html]http://m.washingtonpost.c…a3d0d2130da_story.html[/link]

A federal judge in Kentucky ruled Wednesday that the commonwealth must recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where the unions are legal.

It is the latest in a string of judicial victories for proponents of same-sex marriage following the U.S. Supreme Courts ruling last June in United States v. Windsor. The court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act and said the federal government must recognize legal marriages between those of the same sex.

In Wednesdays ruling, U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II was not asked to decide whether Kentucky itself must issue marriage licenses to gay couples. But he said there is no doubt that Windsor and this courts analysis suggest a possible result to that question.

[kaldridgewv2211]

Quote from dergon

More gaiety

[link=http://m.washingtonpost.com/politics/kentucky-must-recognize-gay-marriages-from-other-states-federal-judge-rules/2014/02/12/8ec79508-9410-11e3-b46a-5a3d0d2130da_story.html]http://m.washingtonpost.c…a3d0d2130da_story.html[/link]

A federal judge in Kentucky ruled Wednesday that the commonwealth must recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where the unions are legal.

It is the latest in a string of judicial victories for proponents of same-sex marriage following the U.S. Supreme Courts ruling last June in United States v. Windsor. The court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act and said the federal government must recognize legal marriages between those of the same sex.

In Wednesdays ruling, U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II was not asked to decide whether Kentucky itself must issue marriage licenses to gay couples. But he said there is no doubt that Windsor and this courts analysis suggest a possible result to that question.

 
Interesting.  If you’re gay in Kentucky go get hitched somewhere else, come back, and they have to recognize your marriage.  If they’d just allow gay marriage they could at least rake in some dough on marriage licenses.

[Unknown Member]

Quote from DICOM_Dan

If you’re gay in Kentucky go get hitched somewhere else, come back, and they have to recognize your marriage.

I assume that’s what Heyburn meant by “this courts analysis suggest a possible result to that question.

At this point, any state that legislate’s against gay marriage is only being theatric. If only one state allows gay marriage than the rest of the nation must recognize it. Period.

Sorry, homophobes. Looks like it’s time to make amends with your deep fear.

[Unknown Member]

[b]”Sorry, homophobes. Looks like it’s time to make amends with your deep fear.” [/b]
 
Soapy, that is so g@%.

[Unknown Member]

Calling Dr. Freud!…

[kaldridgewv2211]

Quote from Lux

Sorry, homophobes. Looks like it’s time to make amends with your deep fear.

 
Now it’s 2014, homophobic or not, I can’t really understand why anyone cares what other people do as long as it’s not harming anyone else.  My viewpoint is I don’t care if some dudes want to get hitched or some ladies want to get together, it has no bearing on me. 

[btomba_77]

[link=http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-virginia-gay-marriage-20140213,0,5553408.story#axzz2tIDNwgRv]http://www.latimes.com/na…08.story#axzz2tIDNwgRv[/link]
 
This story is so gay –
 
[b]Virginia’s gay marriage ban struck down by federal judge[/b]

It was the latest victory for advocates of gay marriage: A day earlier, a federal judge struck down part of [link=http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-kentucky-same-sex-marriage-20140212,0,6005147.story]Kentucky’s same-sex marriage ban[/link], joining a string of similar rulings in conservative states that have put the future of the country’s remaining bans in doubt.
 
U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen in Norfolk ruled that same-sex marriage was a matter of fundamental fairness. She struck down the state’s ban as unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
“The court is compelled to conclude that Virginia’s Marriage Laws unconstitutionally deny Virginia’s gay and lesbian citizens the fundamental freedom to choose to marry,” she wrote.
 
In a nod to the words of [link=http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/presidents-of-the-united-states/abraham-lincoln-PEHST002241.topic]President Lincoln[/link], Wright Allen wrote: “The men and women, and the children too, whose voices join in noble harmony with plaintiffs today, also ask for fairness, and fairness only. This, so far as it is in this court’s power, they and all others shall have.” 

[Unknown Member]

Quote from dergon

[link=http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-virginia-gay-marriage-20140213,0,5553408.story#axzz2tIDNwgRv]http://www.latimes.com/na…08.story#axzz2tIDNwgRv[/link]

This story is so gay –

[b]Virginia’s gay marriage ban struck down by federal judge[/b]

It was the latest victory for advocates of gay marriage: A day earlier, a federal judge struck down part of [link=http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-kentucky-same-sex-marriage-20140212,0,6005147.story]Kentucky’s same-sex marriage ban[/link], joining a string of similar rulings in conservative states that have put the future of the country’s remaining bans in doubt.

U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen in Norfolk ruled that same-sex marriage was a matter of fundamental fairness. She struck down the state’s ban as unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
“The court is compelled to conclude that Virginia’s Marriage Laws unconstitutionally deny Virginia’s gay and lesbian citizens the fundamental freedom to choose to marry,” she wrote.

In a nod to the words of [link=http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/presidents-of-the-united-states/abraham-lincoln-PEHST002241.topic]President Lincoln[/link], Wright Allen wrote: “The men and women, and the children too, whose voices join in noble harmony with plaintiffs today, also ask for fairness, and fairness only. This, so far as it is in this court’s power, they and all others shall have.” 

Freaks of nature……..man, could we ever use someone Putin-like now.

[drmaryamgh]

There is no “right to marriage”
If there is please show it to me.

[mario.mtz30_447]

Quote from radmike

There is no “right to marriage”
If there is please show it to me.

There is no “right to breed.”  But that’s what people do best and it’s ucking up the world. 

[btomba_77]

Quote from radmike

There is no “right to marriage”
If there is please show it to me.

The government of the United States recognizes “marriage” as a legal contract for many purposes (financial beneficiaries, surivor benefits, end of life decisions, etc).  Under the constitution of the United States it is a violation of constitutional rights for those laws to be applied in a discriminatory fashion, as covered under the equal protection clause of the 14th Ammendment.  Therefore, if the government is to recognize a “marriage” as a legal contract of the union of heterosexuals, it would be discriminatory and a violation of constitutional rights to deny that same right to homosexuals seeking the same legal contract.
 
That  is the legal argument behind the *right* to marriage.
 
Now, I personally would prefer that the US government got out of the marriage business entirely.  Legal “unions” between consenting adults should be entierely separate from any concept of a “marriage” as sanctioned by some religious authority.

[drmaryamgh]

The equal protection clause is continually violated so I don’t  buy that argument.  If the government is to recognize marriage as a contract then there can be no limitations based on age, sex, family relation, or number of parties.  Otherwise there is discrimination, no?

[kayla.meyer_144]

Quote from radmike

The equal protection clause is continually violated so I don’t  buy that argument.  If the government is to recognize marriage as a contract then there can be no limitations based on age, sex, family relation, or number of parties.  Otherwise there is discrimination, no?

Interesting back-door way to argue that an adult should therefore be able to marry a 5 year old. Or a parent. Or children. Or “inter-species” for that matter. But that’s not the question.
 
What exactly is your point? Marriage is not a contract? Then what is it? It certainly is not limited to religious since there are inter-religious marriages. Not to mention marriage between atheists. I don’t recall a bar to marriage unless the marriage partners believe in a Supreme Being or beings. Or the same Being(s). How about Buddhists?
 
What’s your point? What is marriage if not a contract? & why bar same sex couples? If you want to argue what you should be able to marry your child then argue it, but later. The immediate question is why bar same sex couples?

[btomba_77]

Quote from radmike

The equal protection clause is continually violated so I don’t  buy that argument.  If the government is to recognize marriage as a contract then there can be no limitations based on age, sex, family relation, or number of parties.  Otherwise there is discrimination, no?

 

Quote from 14th Ammendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 
The courts hold a strict scrutiny on laws that might abridge the constitutional rights of individuals. 
The equal protection clause applies unless there is a “compelling state interest” to deny the right. In the case of children this right is denied out an interest to protect a weaker party from entering a contract of which, by their nature as not fully informed adults, they lack the ability to wholly understand.
 
Thus far the appeals courts ruling on DOMA  have found [b]no[/b] such compelling to restrict the legal rights of same sex couples that are afforded to heterosexuals.
 
Also the ruling found that “homosexuals are not in a position to adequately protect themselves from the discriminatory wishes of the majoritarian public,”  which sets the fulfillment of  the suspect classification for homosexual couples.
 
This case holds many legal parallels to court rulings (and the eventual unanimous supreme court decsion) against laws barring interracial marriage.
 
Here is a nice passage from the court ruling. Just change “racial” to “sexual orientation” and you have a nice fit.
[i]

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” …….. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.[/i]
[i][i] [/i][/i]
[i][i]There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.[/i]

[/i]
[i] [/i]
DOMA is going down.
 

[drmaryamgh]

Yet I can’t marry my sister or two people for that matter.  What happened to equal protection under the law?  Why am I treated differently by the IRS than someone who makes more than me?  Again selective enforcement by the government.  Just because someone writes a court opinion citing “marriage as a right” does not enshrine it in the constitution.  If you want it then go through the process rather than trying to shortcut the will of the people.  If you feel that a majority support it then get an amendment, otherwise it is not a constitutional right.  And don’t tell me that “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” makes gay marriage constitutional.  It does not.  If you want it, go for it.  But do it right.  Don’t do it on the cheap.

[Unknown Member]

Correct.

If three consenting adults of whatever genders want to form a legal and financial union, the government should respect their right to do so IMhO.

I believe in legalizing gay marriage everywhere and in legalizing polygamy everywhere.

It’s called personal freedom and the freedom to conduct your personal life as you see fit without government interference.

[Unknown Member]

Quote from SadRad

I believe in legalizing gay marriage everywhere and in legalizing polygamy everywhere. It’s called personal freedom and the freedom to conduct your personal life as you see fit without government interference.

Totally agree. I never understood why polygamy is illegal. If a woman does’t mind a guy multiplexing, and if a guy does’t like a woman multiplexing they can always get a divorce later one. It’s not like any religion has shown any practical aversion to divorce. And let’s not forget that if the Bible teaches us anything about marriage, it’s that polygamy if alive and well and better serves the basic be-fruitful-and-multiply tenet throughout the Good Book. There is nothing in the Bible that mandates monogamy. In fact, is there anything in the Bible that requires marriage to be restricted to a man and a woman at all?

[Unknown Member]

Once again, as in the previous discussion on this topic. It is not a simple matter of the government saying “you are married” and hence it’s none of the governments business who you marry or how many. There are a whole host of rights and responsibilities that go with marriage. Rights that you are entitled to as a spouse, that the government is obliged to enforce, that the companies you work for are obliged to honor, benefits that society is obliged to provide, etc. etc. As Frumious said it is a contract. But it is not just a simple contract between two people, it includes society as well.
 
Do people really believe that there is little more to marriage than who you decide to shack up with for the night?

[Unknown Member]

Quote from PostCall

Do people really believe that there is little more to marriage than who you decide to shack up with for the night?

Considering that about half of all marriages end up in divorce these days, I’d say the answer to your question is unquestionably “Yes”.
 
But that’s irrelevant to your point. And the argument that equal protection doesn’t apply is equally absurd. The drinking age is 18-to-21 in most states because there are strong statistics that show the public safety risks of drinking under that age. But even THAT law applies to every citizen and does not discriminate between various ethnicities, life styles, or demographics. In fact, about half the states in the USA allow kids to get married at the age of 16 with parental consent. Kansas, Mississippi, New York, Missouri and several others let you get married at 14. New Hampshire allows brides to be [b][u]13 years old[/u][/b]!!! How on earth can you possibly claim that such a marriage between kids in their mid-teens is between “responsible adults”, and yet prohibit gay marriage on a federal level?
 
And so what’s your point about there being are other rights and privileges associated with marriage? On what basis should gay marriage be discriminated against such that gays are prohibited from enjoying the same benefits as other legally responsible adults. 
 
[link=http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/teen_marriage_laws/index.shtml]http://www.usmarriagelaws…riage_laws/index.shtml[/link]
 
 

[Unknown Member]

“And the argument that equal protection doesn’t apply is equally absurd.”
 
I made no such argument, are you directing that comment to someone else maybe?
 
MY POINT is that there is much more to marriage than the government simply acknowleging that you are married, and as such is it absolutely the governments business to decide under what circumstances those “rights and responsibilities of marriage” will be honored and enforced. Now personally, I have no problem with gay marriage. I do have a problem with the misconception (IMHO) that it’s nobodies business who gets marired to who or how many when “we the people” are obliged to provide and legally enforce benefits based upon that status.

[Unknown Member]

 
Yes, the reference to “equal protection” was a sidebar remark to radmike’s earlier comment. Sorry for the confusion.
 
 

[Unknown Member]

My point is that the government may very well have a financial interest in regulating marriage, but it must do so with equal protection. You can’t say “Too many people are collecting financial benefits from getting married, and so let’s not allow gays to get married”. That’s unconstitutional discrimination. The feds can certainly transfer some of the financial burden to each state as a way to encourage states to raise the minimum age to a level that demonstrates financial responsibility, etc., but you can’t discriminate between population segments that are imbued with equal protection by the U.S. Constitution.

SCOTUS knows this all too well. Bringing DOMA to SCOTUS is the kiss of death for DOMA.
 
 

[odayjassim1978_476]

Brian has not sent you a note yet on the TOS..

Quote from Point Man

Let’s redirect this back to that “gay” thing.  Can’t wait to see the outcome of this one.  No way the Conservative SCOTUS will let this one go the bummers way.  Old Ellen, your lib Rachel and Barney should all be sent up the river.  No!!! better yet, send them all to California.  Let the berkenstock and limp wrist gaiety begin.

[btomba_77]

Quote from PostCall

 
But it is not just a simple contract between two people, it includes society as well.

Do people really believe that there is little more to marriage than who you decide to shack up with for the night?

 
I’d like to hear you elaborate further on the role of society in the marital contract.
 
As for what constitutes a marriage, whether just “shacking up” or something different…. does the government act in any way to test the fidelity or stability of any heterosexual marriages?  There are married couples that have not shared the same bed nor even lived in the same home for decades, yet the government recognizes their union fully.
 
Whatever is made law the same application must be made to all and that application must be constitutional.

[Unknown Member]

“I’d like to hear you elaborate further on the role of society in the marital contract.”
 
Basically societies role is guaranteeing everything on this list plus a lot more not listed. [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States[/link]

[btomba_77]

Ahh… I see. I misunderstood you.  I thought you were arguing that the role society plays in marriage was a justification for preventing same sex union.

[Unknown Member]

If I may be so bold, I would contend that the difference between marriage and a union is arbitrarily contrived due to the religious influences on society during the early days of America. Since it was basically against the religion to have intimate relations with someone out of wedlock, the religious cermony of marriage became synonymous with politically legal civil unions. Other than that blatant influence of religion on our laws, there really should be no defensible difference between marriage and civil unions, or at least there should be no defensible difference between which gender or lifestyle are granted the right to engage in marriage.

If Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are sincerly true to the U.S. Constitution, it’s inconceivable they will be able to justify discriminating bewteen hetero- and homosexuality in the legal definition of marriage. To invoke a moral or religious distinction goes against the basic tenet of freedom in this country and the First Amendment mandate that no law shall be enacted that respects any religion. Otherwise, SCOTUS would then also need to outlaw getting drunk, divorce, lying, infidelity, sex out of wedlock, and a whole host of other activities that are currently totally embraced by the very hypocrites who decry gay marriage and yet contradict the principles of their religion!

[Unknown Member]

This could be an interesting decision based on what approach the court takes. Do conservatives such as Scalia argue that this isn’t Federal issue and should be left to states or do they approach it as civl rights case. I really have no idea on how they will rule. It could come down to something as allowing banning of gay mariage but not allowing banning of civil unions with all the same rights. They could say marriage is a religious act and civil unions are a governmental act. That way they could split it. I’m not sure what logic they can use on legal grounds to say it is legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

[Unknown Member]

Do you know if the lawsuit document is publicly available yet? The wording would reveal what the court is actually being asked to rule on. We may be making a wrong assumption about what’s really at stake here. 
 
I would think that it would not be Constitutional (e.g., equal protection) to make it a state decision if the financial benefits are federally legislated (e.g., IRS tax code). Not sure where hospital visitations fall, though. I just think we’d be right back in the Mississippi Burning days of the ’60s if SCOTUS actually discriminates against gays on this issue. 
 
 

[btomba_77]

This is a pretty good summary from the ABA:
[link=http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/aba_health_esource_home/aba_health_law_esource_0812_mcgarrity.html]http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/aba_health_esource_home/aba_health_law_esource_0812_mcgarrity.html[/link]
 
[b][b]Understanding DOMA[/b][/b]
[b]

DOMA, which was enacted by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996, provides that the federal government defines marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman, and spouse as a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, there are over 1,000 federal laws under which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or under which marital status is a factor.[sup]4[/sup] While DOMA does not directly outlaw same-sex marriage, it does deny access to such federal benefits as Social Security survivor benefits, health insurance for federal workers spouses, and other medical benefits, as well as barring same-sex couples from filing joint federal tax returns and enjoying income and estate tax benefits applicable to spouses.

[/b]
[b] [/b]
[b] [/b]
[b][b] [/b][b]The First Circuits Ruling[/b][/b]
[b]In [i]Gill[/i], the plaintiffs, legally married in Massachusetts, alleged that they had been denied certain federal marriage-based benefits as a result of DOMA and sought to enjoin federal agencies and officials from enforcing DOMA.[/b]
In a unanimous three-judge panel ruling, the Circuit Court took a cautious approach that was based on recent Supreme Court precedents outlawing discrimination against historically disadvantaged or unpopular minority groups.[sup]9[/sup] The Circuit Court said that it could not use the easy-to-satisfy rational basis review, but rather must examine the differing treatment, the burden imposed, and the failings in the justifications offered by lawmakers more closely in each case.[sup]10[/sup]
The Circuit Court also cited federalism principles that defer to states powers in areas traditionally reserved to state regulation (that is, domestic relations) in finding DOMA unconstitutional. Although Congress has an interest in who is considered to be legally married, the Circuit Court noted that the denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples burdens the choice of states to regulate marriage. The Circuit Court went on to examine, and to reject, the justifications put forward for Section 3, such as preserving scarce government resources, support[ing] child-rearing in the context of stable marriage, moral disapproval of homosexuality, and a desire to freeze the issue pending changes in state marriage laws.[sup]11[/sup]
The Circuit Court ruled that the denial of federal benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples had not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest and, consequently, affirmed the judgment of the U.S. District Court.[sup]12[/sup] Expecting the decision to be appealed and heard by the Supreme Court, the Circuit Court stayed the implementation of its decision pending such appeal.
[b] [/b]
[b][b][b]Other Recent DOMA Challenges[/b][/b][/b]
[b][b] [/b][/b]
In [i]Windsor v. U.S.[/i], 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79454 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff, who filed suit to recoup more than $350,000 in federal estate taxes she was forced to pay on the assets she inherited from her same-sex spouse in a marriage recognized by New York state. The court cited the First Circuits ruling in [i]Gill[/i] and found that the plaintiff was denied equal protection of the laws.
 
In Connecticut, the case of [i]Pedersen, et al. v. Office of Personnel Management[/i], 3:10-CV-01750 (D.C. Connecticut, Nov. 9, 2010), the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut ruled DOMA unconstitutional on the basis that the plaintiffs, all same-sex couples from Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire, were denied legal protections afforded to similarly-situated residents in opposite-sex marriages. 
  
[b] [/b] [b]Second Circuit Strikes Down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act[/b]
[b] [/b] We conclude that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional.
[T]he Second Circuit held that laws that classify people based on sexual orientation, like DOMA, should be subjected to a heightened form of scrutiny when courts examine the governments claimed reasons for such laws. The holding that intermediate scrutiny applies makes the Second Circuit the first federal appeals court to do so. The First Circuit did not apply any heightened scrutiny in its earlier decision striking down DOMA.
 

[Unknown Member]

After reading that, it’s hard to understand how the silly thing was signed into law in the first place. 
 
Just as I suspected, DOMA is a pure and simple violation of the equal protection granted by the US Constitution. 
 
 

[btomba_77]

An interesting article talking about the (speculated significantly likely)  possibility that DOMA is struck but Prop 8 upheld.
[link=http://prospect.org/article/down-doma-prop-8]http://prospect.org/article/down-doma-prop-8[/link]
 

In the end, the conservatives are willing to lose Kennedy on DOMA if he stays in the fold on Prop. 8, and Kennedys personality could lead him to split the baby in exactly that way. I can practically hear him now, announcing the opinion in both cases that the question of marriage should be left to the states, and the courts and Congress should both stay out. Kennedy could well be the only justice who thinks the two cases should come out differently, but because his vote will be the fifth for both sides, his solitary view will become the law.
Such an outcome would be a disaster, since the DOMA victory would pale in comparison to the Prop. 8 defeat. If the federal constitutional arguments are shut down, marriage equality would depend almost entirely on results at the ballot box. That might be a winning strategy in some of the nation, but it would doom it as a real possibility in most states for years to come. (One reference point: Tennessees state senate passed a bill last year banning teachers and students from [i]talking[/i] about gay marriage in schools. I would think the real thing is a way off yet.) A Prop. 8 failure could end up as the functional equivalent of [i]Plessy v. Ferguson[/i], the 19[sup]th[/sup] Century case where the Court said it wasnt its place to enforce equality between the races. States were left to enact Jim Crow, and [i]Plessy[/i] stayed on the books for almost 60 years.
There is hope, however. Planted in the Courts Prop. 8 order from Friday is an instruction that the parties brief and argue a procedural question, namely whether the case should be heard by the Court at all. California Attorney General Kamala Harris, a Democrat, has refused to defend Prop. 8, so the lower courts allowed the initiatives proponents to stand in on appeal. But the Supreme Court has expressed doubts in the past as to whether such advocates would have standingthe right to appear in court.
The upshot is that if Kennedy can be persuaded that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the Prop. 8 appeal, then the four to his political left will almost certainly join him. That will mean that the original trial court decision striking down Prop. 8 would be reinstated. California would get gay marriage, but the ruling would have no applicability elsewhere. No one would be satisfied.
I would take it anyway. It would certainly not be [i]Brown. [/i]But it wouldnt be [i]Plessy[/i], either.

[btomba_77]

Paul Clement argues that gays are too powerful to deserve equal protection:
 
[link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/paul-clement-doma-gays-powerful-judicial-protection_n_2533971.html]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/paul-clement-doma-gays-powerful-judicial-protection_n_2533971.html[/link]
His brief

In short, gays and lesbians are one of the most influential, best-connected, best-funded, and best-organized interest groups in modern politics, and have attained more legislative victories, political power, and popular favor in less time than virtually any other group in American history … There is absolutely no reason to think that gays and lesbians are shut out of the political process to a degree that would justify judicial intervention on an issue as divisive and fastmoving as same-sex marriage.

And rebuttals (already echoing Obama’s second inaugural) are flying:

Political victories do not cancel out Americans constitutional rights, they augment them, and Clement is simply wrong to suggest otherwise. Ultimately, the sheer absurdity of Clements argument exposes why his claims must not prevail at the Supreme Court. The Constitution of Seneca Falls and Selma is also the Constitution of Stonewall. Clements argument would deny all three.

[odayjassim1978_476]

Thanks for the article. The Plessy analogy..very interesting

Quote from dergon

An interesting article talking about the (speculated significantly likely)  possibility that DOMA is struck but Prop 8 upheld.
[link=http://prospect.org/article/down-doma-prop-8]http://prospect.org/article/down-doma-prop-8[/link]

In the end, the conservatives are willing to lose Kennedy on DOMA if he stays in the fold on Prop. 8, and Kennedys personality could lead him to split the baby in exactly that way. I can practically hear him now, announcing the opinion in both cases that the question of marriage should be left to the states, and the courts and Congress should both stay out. Kennedy could well be the only justice who thinks the two cases should come out differently, but because his vote will be the fifth for both sides, his solitary view will become the law.
Such an outcome would be a disaster, since the DOMA victory would pale in comparison to the Prop. 8 defeat. If the federal constitutional arguments are shut down, marriage equality would depend almost entirely on results at the ballot box. That might be a winning strategy in some of the nation, but it would doom it as a real possibility in most states for years to come. (One reference point: Tennessees state senate passed a bill last year banning teachers and students from [i]talking[/i] about gay marriage in schools. I would think the real thing is a way off yet.) A Prop. 8 failure could end up as the functional equivalent of [i]Plessy v. Ferguson[/i], the 19[sup]th[/sup] Century case where the Court said it wasnt its place to enforce equality between the races. States were left to enact Jim Crow, and [i]Plessy[/i] stayed on the books for almost 60 years.
There is hope, however. Planted in the Courts Prop. 8 order from Friday is an instruction that the parties brief and argue a procedural question, namely whether the case should be heard by the Court at all. California Attorney General Kamala Harris, a Democrat, has refused to defend Prop. 8, so the lower courts allowed the initiatives proponents to stand in on appeal. But the Supreme Court has expressed doubts in the past as to whether such advocates would have standingthe right to appear in court.
The upshot is that if Kennedy can be persuaded that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the Prop. 8 appeal, then the four to his political left will almost certainly join him. That will mean that the original trial court decision striking down Prop. 8 would be reinstated. California would get gay marriage, but the ruling would have no applicability elsewhere. No one would be satisfied.
I would take it anyway. It would certainly not be [i]Brown. [/i]But it wouldnt be [i]Plessy[/i], either.

[btomba_77]

[link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2013/02/26/republicans-gay-marriage-supreme-court_n_2764743.html.]http://www.huffingtonpost…-court_n_2764743.html.[/link] Republicans opposing prop 8. Times changing fast

[raallen]

More wishful thinking. Federalizing the legal definition and perverting the very idea of ‘marriage’ isnt going to happen anytime soon. There will be a few enclaves were expanded notions of coupling are tolerated. However it is obvious not normative behavior and SCOTUS isnt going to make carve out for strange human coupling and call it marriage.

[Unknown Member]

Quote from RVU

it is obvious not normative behavior and SCOTUS isnt going to make carve out for strange human coupling and call it marriage.

By your definition, being a [u]physician[/u] is not “normative” since most people aren’t physicians. Likewise for an income in excess of $250,000. In case you hadn’t noticed, neither is illegal.
 
Actually, physicians exhibit less “normative behavior” than gays since there are fewer of them. In fact, being a physician is about as normative as being a transgender.

God, being a D.O. must be like some rare disease that warrants institutionalization.
 
Grow up.
 

[btomba_77]

Quote from RVU

More wishful thinking. Federalizing the legal definition and perverting the very idea of ‘marriage’ isnt going to happen anytime soon. There will be a few enclaves were expanded notions of coupling are tolerated. However it is obvious not normative behavior and SCOTUS isnt going to make carve out for strange human coupling and call it marriage.

WHile it’s possible that 5 justices will vote uphold DOMA and Prop 8, I think there is a better than 50/50 chance that at least DOMA goes down under the equal protection clause.
 
We’ll have to wait and see.

[Unknown Member]

Quote from dergon

Quote from RVU

More wishful thinking. Federalizing the legal definition and perverting the very idea of ‘marriage’ isnt going to happen anytime soon. There will be a few enclaves were expanded notions of coupling are tolerated. However it is obvious not normative behavior and SCOTUS isnt going to make carve out for strange human coupling and call it marriage.

WHile it’s possible that 5 justices will vote uphold DOMA and Prop 8, I think there is a better than 50/50 chance that at least DOMA goes down under the equal protection clause.

We’ll have to wait and see.

Is there any precedent for enacting a law that restricts a person’s rights without proof — and not just [i]unfounded phobia[/i] — that what’s being restricted is harmful to society? I mean, on what legal precedent would SCOTUS base a decision to uphold DOMA?
 
 

[mattsimon]

Quote from Lux

Is there any precedent for enacting a law that restricts a person’s rights without proof — and not just [i]unfounded phobia[/i] — that what’s being restricted is harmful to society? I mean, on what legal precedent would SCOTUS base a decision to uphold DOMA?

 
How about the polygamy laws?  I could see that used as a precedent that the federal government has the right to determine the definition of “marriage”.  Or I could see polygamy brought to question should DOMA get thrown out.
 
EDIT:  I just discovered that polygamy laws in Utah are currently under attack with a court case claiming that anti-polygamy laws are unconstitutional, as well as lobbying in their state legislature on both sides of the issue.

[Unknown Member]

You are correct. 
 
I think polygamy laws are antiquated. If the parties agree, why should it be illegal? But you’re right, it’s a contention. I only hope the court sees it like it is; the same way they look at laws that make it illegal to watch two rabbits mating. They’re old puritan laws that have no relevance in the modern world. 
 
 

[btomba_77]

[h1][size=”2″]Obama to support gay couples’ supreme court challenge to California’s Prop 8[/size][/h1] [size=”2″]Conservatives and business organisations also join forces in urging court to rule against law that bans same-sex marriage[/size]
[size=”2″][link=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/28/conservatives-supreme-court-doma-unconstitutional]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/28/conservatives-supreme-court-doma-unconstitutional[/link][/size]
 
[size=”2″]

[/size]
The [link=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/obama-administration]Obama administration[/link] is to make its strongest declaration yet in support of same-sex marriage, filing an eleventh-hour brief in support of a supreme court challenge to [link=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/california]California[/link]’s law banning such unions.
Advocates for marriage equality have been urging the president to support the two gay couples who are bringing the case, and an administration confirmed on Thursday that it would file a “friend of the court” brief before the deadline at the end of the day.
The case, due to be argued on 26 March, will hear whether California’s 2008 law, known as Proposition 8, is constitutional.
Briefs in support of the case have already been filed by a diverse group of Republican and conservative leaders, some of America’s leading businesses, 15 states and equality groups.
The Obama administration is not required to file a brief, and earlier indications suggested that he would not, despite speaking in his inaugural last month of gay men and lesbians being treated equally “under the law”.
 
Among the companies that have signed a brief supporting the plaintiffs in the case are Apple, Nike, Facebook, Morgan Stanley, Hewlett Packard and Google.
The list of 100 [link=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/republicans]Republicans[/link] and conservative signatures of a brief, organized by Former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, includes Paul Wolfowitz, former president of the World Bank, Jon Huntsman, former governor of Utah and 2012 presidential hopeful, Beth Myers, former Romney for President campaign manager, Jim Comey, former US deputy attorney general. Some of them have opposed same-sex marriage in the past, [link=http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/26/republicans-support-gay-marriage-supreme-court]including Meg Whitman[/link], the Hewlett Packard CEO, and Huntsman.

[Unknown Member]

I have no problem with polygamy, as long as everyone is of legal age and consenting.  It’s none of my business what other people want to do in their bedrooms (as long as everyone is of legal age and consenting).  If people want to form financial partnerships, linking their possessions etc., to one or more other persons, they should be free to do so without having to involve some religious concept of “marriage.”

[btomba_77]

Quote from Back in the Saddle

I have no problem with polygamy, as long as everyone is of legal age and consenting.  It’s none of my business what other people want to do in their bedrooms (as long as everyone is of legal age and consenting).  If people want to form financial partnerships, linking their possessions etc., to one or more other persons, they should be free to do so without having to involve some religious concept of “marriage.”

 
Canada has been out in front of wrestiling with the legalities around polygamy.  Saskatchewan has essentially legal polygamy despite it being illegal by federal statute (kind of like a state ignoring DOMA).
 
It is being hashed out slowly, all caught up in religion, linkage with sharia, etc. 
 
Polygamy is even  less likely to get broad popular support in the US than gay marriage in the short/medium term because the majority of its practitioners are either rural isolated religious sects that are viewed as wierdos even by the religious right, or by muslims.  The question of “consent” in these cases is a real problem in both of these cases.
 
 
 
 
 

 

[odayjassim1978_476]

Sanford just won a place for runoff in SC

Quote from Back in the Saddle

I have no problem with polygamy, as long as everyone is of legal age and consenting.  It’s none of my business what other people want to do in their bedrooms (as long as everyone is of legal age and consenting).  If people want to form financial partnerships, linking their possessions etc., to one or more other persons, they should be free to do so without having to involve some religious concept of “marriage.”

[eyoab2011_711]

I think the key is [b]consenting adults[/b].  If that condition is met, I don’t see how it is a state or federal issue (and yes I think you can apply that to polygamy and consensual incest).  At least that should also cover the libertarian crowd too

[btomba_77]

[blockquote][i]Quote from [b]radmike[/b][/i]

The equal protection clause is continually violated so I don’t buy that argument. If the government is to recognize marriage as a contract then there can be no limitations based on age, sex, family relation, or number of parties. Otherwise there is discrimination, no?
[/blockquote]

[blockquote][i]Quote from [b]14th Ammendment[/b][/i]
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[/blockquote]

The courts hold a strict scrutiny on laws that might abridge the constitutional rights of individuals.
The equal protection clause applies unless there is a “compelling state interest” to deny the right. In the case of children this right is denied out an interest to protect a weaker party from entering a contract of which, by their nature as not fully informed adults, they lack the ability to wholly understand.

Thus far the appeals courts ruling on DOMA have found [b]no[/b] such compelling to restrict the legal rights of same sex couples that are afforded to heterosexuals.

Also the ruling found that “homosexuals are not in a position to adequately protect themselves from the discriminatory wishes of the majoritarian public,” which sets the fulfillment of the suspect classification for homosexual couples.

This case holds many legal parallels to court rulings (and the eventual unanimous supreme court decsion) against laws barring interracial marriage.

Here is a nice passage from the court ruling. Just change “racial” to “sexual orientation” and you have a nice fit.
[i] [/i]
[i][i] [/i][/i]
[i][i]There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.[/i][/i]
[i] [/i]
 
 

[b]DOMA is going down. [/b]

  
[i] [/i] 
[i] [/i] 
[i] [/i] 
[i] [/i]
There! That’s the self-referential quote post I was looking for. 🙂
[i] [/i]
[i] [/i]

[kayla.meyer_144]

Pretty sweet story.

[link=http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/justice-kagan-and-justice-scalia-are-hunting-buddies-really/277401/]http://www.theatlantic.co…buddies-really/277401/[/link]

[ka.amirzadeh]

The problem I have is slightly more philosophical. Marriage is by definition 1 man/1 woman. Anything else isn’t marriage. I get that, unlike me, a lot of people seek no higher diety or go to church. I got no problem with that. I didn’t for over a decade. Still marriage is what it is and other arrangements aren’t marriage. The civil union arrangement that a lot of people are fightling for makes for an interesting arguement, but I think it will fail. Otherwise two perfectly heterosexual roomates could “marry” to split costs and each practice an open marriage with as many woman as they want. If you see what I mean.

[btomba_77]

Quote from HuggyBear

 Marriage is by definition 1 man/1 woman. Anything else isn’t marriage.

 
Your “problem” is that your definition is wrong.

[ruszja]

Quote from HuggyBear

Marriage is by definition 1 man/1 woman. Anything else isn’t marriage.

 
If you had asked my great-grandfather, his definition would have been 1 man, several women. Monogamous heterosexual marriage is one way things can work, certainly not the only one.

[Unknown Member]

Quote from HuggyBear

Otherwise two perfectly heterosexual roomates could “marry” to split costs and each practice an open marriage with as many woman as they want. If you see what I mean.

That already goes on every day of the week, just as infidelity does. Among “Christians”. What on earth is your point?

And “two perfectly heterosexual roommates” does not imply gender at all, so your reference to “as many woman [sic] as they want” is very telling about how myopic your perspective is. Contrary to your claim, that’s not very “philosophical” at all.

Furthermore, the Bible, itself, supports polygamy, so your reference to God is curious.

It’s as though you deliberately intended everything in that post to be wrong.

[btomba_77]

Quote from Lux

Quote from dergon

Quote from RVU

More wishful thinking. Federalizing the legal definition and perverting the very idea of ‘marriage’ isnt going to happen anytime soon. There will be a few enclaves were expanded notions of coupling are tolerated. However it is obvious not normative behavior and SCOTUS isnt going to make carve out for strange human coupling and call it marriage.

WHile it’s possible that 5 justices will vote uphold DOMA and Prop 8, I think there is a better than 50/50 chance that at least DOMA goes down under the equal protection clause.

We’ll have to wait and see.

Is there any precedent for enacting a law that restricts a person’s rights without proof — and not just [i]unfounded phobia[/i] — that what’s being restricted is harmful to society? I mean, on what legal precedent would SCOTUS base a decision to uphold DOMA?

 
Ithink 4 justices would simply cite a historical deifintionof marriage as adequate and be fine with upholding DOMA.  I am betting 5 agrees with the appeals court ruling
 
“The Circuit Court went on to examine, and to reject, the justifications put forward for Section 3, such as preserving scarce government resources, support[ing] child-rearing in the context of stable marriage, moral disapproval of homosexuality, and a desire to freeze the issue pending changes in state marriage laws.
The Circuit Court ruled that the denial of federal benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples had not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest and, consequently, affirmed the judgment of the U.S. District Court.[sup]  [/sup]Expecting the decision to be appealed and heard by the Supreme Court, the Circuit Court stayed the implementation of its decision pending such appeal. ”

[suyanebenevides_151]

Quote from Lux

Quote from dergon

Quote from RVU

More wishful thinking. Federalizing the legal definition and perverting the very idea of ‘marriage’ isnt going to happen anytime soon. There will be a few enclaves were expanded notions of coupling are tolerated. However it is obvious not normative behavior and SCOTUS isnt going to make carve out for strange human coupling and call it marriage.

WHile it’s possible that 5 justices will vote uphold DOMA and Prop 8, I think there is a better than 50/50 chance that at least DOMA goes down under the equal protection clause.

We’ll have to wait and see.

Is there any precedent for enacting a law that restricts a person’s rights without proof — and not just [i]unfounded phobia[/i] — that what’s being restricted is harmful to society? I mean, on what legal precedent would SCOTUS base a decision to uphold DOMA?

 
Yes. Gays as individuals are equal under the law. Period. Also, there is no phobia, throw that onto the mountainhill of  misused terms in order to obfuscate issues, generally used by so-called progressives in the modern day. The state has a vested interest in heterosexual coupling for manifold reasons – genetic diversity, stable family structure and identity, children who know who their biological parents are (a universally sought aspect of life) and finally to lessen confusion or problems with gene pools. Marriage to a particular cousin in terms of relation (or sister, brother, etc) is regulated and has been considered also, let’s say, not in the state’s interest for similar reasons.
 
The denial of the facts of life, history, science and common sense is rather surprising, especially with doctors. These are the same doctors that lament ignorance of science, ironically, on other issues.

[btomba_77]

The state has a vested interest in heterosexual coupling for manifold reasons – genetic diversity, stable family structure and identity, children who know who their biological parents are (a universally sought aspect of life) and finally to lessen confusion or problems with gene pools. Marriage to a particular cousin in terms of relation (or sister, brother, etc) is regulated and has been considered also, let’s say, not in the state’s interest for similar reasons.

 
I think that the Supreme Court was more than a tad skeptical of the arguments that there was some net societal benefit to favoring heterosexual marriage.
 
The lower court held (unanimously) that there was [b]no[/b] compelling federal interest in favoring heterosexual unions.
 
 
 

[suyanebenevides_151]

Quote from dergon

The state has a vested interest in heterosexual coupling for manifold reasons – genetic diversity, stable family structure and identity, children who know who their biological parents are (a universally sought aspect of life) and finally to lessen confusion or problems with gene pools. Marriage to a particular cousin in terms of relation (or sister, brother, etc) is regulated and has been considered also, let’s say, not in the state’s interest for similar reasons.

I think that the Supreme Court was more than a tad skeptical of the arguments that there was some net societal benefit to favoring heterosexual marriage.

The lower court held (unanimously) that there was [b]no[/b] compelling federal interest in favoring heterosexual unions.

 
Lower courts (and the Supreme, for that matter) make foolish holdings rather frequently. You don’t even have to be “on one side” to see that.
 
I don’t see why you can’t just leave it up to the States given that marriage infringes in no way whatsoever on individual rights under the law. The argument is about things above and beyond “equality”. If we’re honest, those who are on the left here want to impose their will on the society by force to make it seem like these things are normal. We’ll see if it works.

[kayla.meyer_144]

You think only of sex (male & male) & procreation. There’s more about marriage than that & forbidding it does infringe on personal liberty. There’s relationship, personal & economic, & taking responsibility for the other as well as extended family. And maybe there are children involved.

[Unknown Member]

Quote from Frumious

You think only of sex (male & male) & procreation. There’s more about marriage than that & forbidding it does infringe on personal liberty. There’s relationship, personal & economic, & taking responsibility for the other as well as extended family. And maybe there are children involved.

When gay marriages outnumber heterosexual marriages, then anti-gay marriage people might have something to argue about. But there are many more heterosexual marriages today that either cannot, or have deliberately decide not to, have kids. So marriages is simply NOT all about giving birth to kids.
   
The argument that gay marriage is bad because kids should know who their parents are is totally bogus. In that case, let’s make the entire industry of child adoption illegal. 
 
And the argument that gay marriage degrades the family unit is hypocritical. The divorce rate among gays is currently a tiny fraction of the divorce rate of hetero marriages. If anything, gays will set a MODEL for a binding family unit against which all hetero marriages will be compared. 
 
 
 

[suyanebenevides_151]

The answer to your first paragraph is you can’t know these details. Implicitly you admit that the homo marriage is off, but just not “now” because of numbers.
 
Paragraph 2 was a likely response, but again not a good argument. Because there are kids to be adopted does not affect the debate of marriage. Think about it.
 
Your assertion that gays will set a model is totally unfounded AND lacks any common sense or scientific basis. Unlike you are calling gays un or in this case super-human, it’s an absolutely ridiculous argument.
 
Check check check

[kayla.meyer_144]

But you argue gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed, why? You argument is the absence of a right (the right for gays to marry like everyone else) is that it “infringes” on no one’s rights. The rest of it, I’m sorry, makes little sense to me. Procreation? Genetic diversity? Stable family life?
 
You make no argument of why the different treatment. That is the point of the Supreme’s question, States’ rights (which already have a very bad history regarding someone’s rights) vs a right that cannot be explained away.

[Unknown Member]

Quote from Cigar

The answer to your first paragraph is you can’t know these details. Implicitly you admit that the homo marriage is off, but just not “now” because of numbers.

Paragraph 2 was a likely response, but again not a good argument. Because there are kids to be adopted does not affect the debate of marriage. Think about it.

Your assertion that gays will set a model is totally unfounded AND lacks any common sense or scientific basis. Unlike you are calling gays un or in this case super-human, it’s an absolutely ridiculous argument.

Check check check

Listen to yourself. As Frumious already hinted, if you are so sure about there not being any conclusive data, then what is the basis for YOUR argument AGAINST gay marriage?
 
Well I can tell you that the ONLY basis you have is unfounded fear and homophobia. You have no facts to back up your claims whatsoever.
 
First, I have not at all admitted “homo marriage is off”, and I resent your homophobic characterization. I only said it’s senseless to argue your point until the number of gay marriages is high enough to make any significant differences in the stat. I have no problem with gay marriage whatsoever.The point is that we are under zero threat of a drop in population, and there is no data to support any hypothesis that would attribute such a threat to gay marriages.
 
My paragraph 2 most certainly does stand on its own merits. Whether children know who their biological parents are or not has nothing to do with the gender of their foster parents.
 
And now let me show you how to provide support to a point of view by adding facts from credible sources, like the US Census Bureau and the Center for Disease Control. Regarding my comment on marriage stability of hetero- vs. homo-sexual couples:
 
[ul][*]There are 2 million marriages PER YEAR in the USA[*]10% (200,000 PER YEAR) of those marriages will remain childless.[*]There is a [u]TOTAL[/u] of 57,000,000 married couples in the USA[*]There is a [u]TOTAL[/u] of 200,000 married gay couples in the USA (i.e., 0.35% of all marriages in the USA)[*]50% = divorce rate among heterosexual couples.[*]1% = divorce rate among gay couples. [/ul] This is the kind of “common sense or scientific basis” that adds strength to a discussion, not your homophobic drivel, scare tactics, and lack of interest in the facts.
 
And please don’t lecture me on how to conduct a professional discussion.

 
 

[btomba_77]

Quote from Cigar

Quote from dergon

The state has a vested interest in heterosexual coupling for manifold reasons – genetic diversity, stable family structure and identity, children who know who their biological parents are (a universally sought aspect of life) and finally to lessen confusion or problems with gene pools. Marriage to a particular cousin in terms of relation (or sister, brother, etc) is regulated and has been considered also, let’s say, not in the state’s interest for similar reasons.

I think that the Supreme Court was more than a tad skeptical of the arguments that there was some net societal benefit to favoring heterosexual marriage.

The lower court held (unanimously) that there was [b]no[/b] compelling federal interest in favoring heterosexual unions.

Lower courts (and the Supreme, for that matter) make foolish holdings rather frequently. You don’t even have to be “on one side” to see that.

I don’t see why you can’t just leave it up to the States given that marriage infringes in no way whatsoever on individual rights under the law. The argument is about things above and beyond “equality”. If we’re honest, those who are on the left here want to impose their will on the society by force to make it seem like these things are normal. We’ll see if it works.

From your “make it seem like these things are normal” you seem to be implying that homosexual behavior is abnormal.    You might not like what the courts have ruled (I do), but they have over the last decade consistently and decisevely rejected the argument that gay marriage should be illegal because it is aberrant behavior.  These aren’t “foolish” rulings at all.  They are a quite logical extension of the rights provided to all of us under the constitution.
 
You can make that argument if you like, but it isn’t going to hold any water in the courts. 
 
 
 

[btomba_77]

Bill Clinton comes out against the bill he signed:
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bill-clinton-its-time-to-overturn-doma/2013/03/07/fc184408-8747-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html]http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bill-clinton-its-time-to-overturn-doma/2013/03/07/fc184408-8747-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html[/link]

[i]I[/i]n 1996, I signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Although that was only 17 years ago, it was a very different time. In no state in the union was same-sex marriage recognized, much less available as a legal right, but some were moving in that direction. Washington, as a result, was swirling with all manner of possible responses, some quite draconian. As a bipartisan group of former senators stated in their March 1 amicus brief to the Supreme Court, many supporters of the bill known as DOMA believed that its passage would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or more. It was under these circumstances that DOMA came to my desk, opposed by only 81 of the 535 members of Congress.
On March 27, [link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2012/12/07/the-supreme-court-takes-up-doma/]DOMA will come before the Supreme Court[/link], and the justices must decide whether it is consistent with the principles of a nation that honors freedom, equality and justice above all, and is therefore constitutional. As the president who signed the act into law, I have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and, in fact, incompatible with our Constitution.
 
We are still a young country, and many of our landmark civil rights decisions are fresh enough that the voices of their champions still echo, even as the world that preceded them becomes less and less familiar. We have yet to celebrate the centennial of the 19th Amendment, but a society that denied women the vote would seem to us now not unusual or old-fashioned but alien. I believe that in 2013 DOMA and opposition to marriage equality are vestiges of just such an unfamiliar society.
Americans have been at this sort of a crossroads often enough to recognize the right path. We understand that, while our laws may at times lag behind our best natures, in the end they catch up to our core values. One hundred fifty years ago, in the midst of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln concluded a message to Congress by posing the very question we face today: It is not Can any of us imagine better? but [link=http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29503]Can we all do better[/link]?
The answer is of course and always yes. In that spirit, I join with the Obama administration, the petitioner [link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/edie-windsors-fight-for-same-sex-marriage-rights-continues-even-after-partners-death/2012/07/19/gJQARguhwW_story.html]Edith Windsor[/link], and the many other dedicated men and women who have engaged in this struggle for decades in urging the Supreme Court to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.

 
 
 

[raallen]

Sounds like bill and Hillary are trying to cozy up to rich homosexual donors.

Hilary is opening up a can of worms that could backfire on her, possibly hard. First off,There is no secure constitutional argument to be made that would overturn a law very simply declaring that the universal understanding of marriage is between individual members of different biological sexes. If opponents site history, where go they venture to-Ancient Greece or Rome that tolerated same sex cohabitation, along with cohabitation among men and children?

The DOMA case will obviously result in the law being upheld by the SCOTUS. Then, Hillary will actively have to fight and scold individual states to overturn their bans on gay marriage. If she doesn’t, gay activists and their ardent followers will keep pressing her knowing the Clinton’s position on this issue through the years.

[Unknown Member]

Quote from RVU

Sounds like bill and Hillary are trying to cozy up to rich homosexual donors.

Golly, what a surprise that you would hear it that way! lol

[btomba_77]

The DOMA case will obviously result in the law being upheld by the SCOTUS.

 
It *could* be upheld.   It could be overturned too. Many SCOTUS watchers are handicapping for a 5-4 DOMA overturn and a 5-4 Prop 8 uphold.
 
That would mean a state-by-state trench warfare over gay marriage.

[Unknown Member]

Quote from dergon

The DOMA case will obviously result in the law being upheld by the SCOTUS.

It *could* be upheld.   It could be overturned too. Many SCOTUS watchers are handicapping for a 5-4 DOMA overturn and a 5-4 Prop 8 uphold.

That would mean a state-by-state trench warfare over gay marriage.

For God’s sake people, even the President that originally signed it into law in the first place is now decreeing that it’s Unconstitutional! How can anyone say the odds are on the side of it being upheld at this point?
 
 

[btomba_77]

Quote from Lux

Quote from dergon

The DOMA case will obviously result in the law being upheld by the SCOTUS.

It *could* be upheld.   It could be overturned too. Many SCOTUS watchers are handicapping for a 5-4 DOMA overturn and a 5-4 Prop 8 uphold.

That would mean a state-by-state trench warfare over gay marriage.

For God’s sake people, even the President that originally signed it into law in the first place is now decreeing that it’s Unconstitutional! How can anyone say the odds are on the side of it being upheld at this point?

 
Sadly, SCOTUS is sometimes lagging to social norms.      In the reality of the Court there look to be a solid 4 to strike and a solid 4 to uphold.  In all liklihood it comes down to Kennedy.  It is not a slam dunk either way. 

[kaldridgewv2211]

I did just see something in Slate where it looked like Bill Clinton is now second guessing signing of DOMA.

[raallen]

Here’s a simple question. Why hasnt the gay lobby and their supporters try to petition Obama and the democrats to write federal legislation directly overturning DOMA? If there is a majority of people who support ‘gay marriage’, then it shouldnt really be a problem to present repeal legislation. In particular, since the certain media keeps reminding how many individuals republicans have filed amicus briefs with the SCOTUS (nota bene: Bill Clinton’s support was in a local paper’s editorial and not an amicus brief). Why is this being done through the courts?
 
Could it be that the democrats are still afraid of the stigma of being so pro-gay? Or, could it be that the dems would find out that there are a lot of internal anti-gay feelings within their own party?
 
Simply put-this is not a civil rights issue. The hang-ups and separation gays experience is not and has never been close to being equivalent to the civil rights movement where an American individual of one race could clearly enunciate centuries of real systemic discrimination and dislocation from opportunity and being free. And, what is next, special benefits and affirmative action-like guarantees for gays at public and private institutions? Will millennia of organized religion’s teachings of blaspheme and behavioral appropriateness  be deemed as ‘hate speech’ as the want of many gay activist right now?
 
Any non-biased judge hearing this case, should ask: why not just petition the legislature and executive branches all over the US (fed, state and local)  for this novel recognition of a fairly new pattern of same-sex co-habitation and the maintenance of certain economic and legal benefits that comes with it? That approach has lead to gay marriage’s acceptance in the Northeast, Iowa and even a small town in Kentucky ([link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/us/vicco-kentucky-passes-ban-on-gay-bias.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0).]http://www.nytimes.com/20…ewanted=all&_r=0).[/link] Instead, activists of all types really seek the dilution of traditional religion which has played an essential role in our peaceful and free country.

[btomba_77]

This *is* a civil rights issue and any non-biased judge hearing this case could easy rule that prohibitions against gay marriage is a violation of the equal protection clause and thus unconstitutional.
 
 

[Unknown Member]

RVU,
 
What you fail to realize is that an issue becomes a “civil rights” issue when it FAILS to have majority approval. You seem to think that something should become a law simply because the majority of people want it so. Nothing could be further from the truth. 
 
 

[odayjassim1978_476]

is someone campaigning already.

Quote from DICOM_Dan

I did just see something in Slate where it looked like Bill Clinton is now second guessing signing of DOMA.

[raallen]

[blockquote]RVU says…Here’s a simple question. Why hasnt the gay lobby and their supporters try to petition Obama and the democrats to write federal legislation directly overturning DOMA? If there is a majority of people who support ‘gay marriage’, then it shouldnt really be a problem to present repeal legislation. In particular, since the certain media keeps reminding how many individuals republicans have filed amicus briefs with the SCOTUS (nota bene: Bill Clinton’s support was in a local paper’s editorial and not an amicus brief). Why is this being done through the courts?

Could it be that the democrats are still afraid of the stigma of being so pro-gay[/style]? Or, could it be that the dems would find out that there are a lot of internal anti-gay feelings within their own party?

Simply put-this is not a civil rights issue. The hang-ups and separation gays experience is not and has never been close to being equivalent to the civil rights movement where an American individual of one race could clearly enunciate centuries of real systemic discrimination and dislocation from opportunity and being free. And, what is next, special benefits and affirmative action-like guarantees for gays at public and private institutions? Will millennia of organized religion’s teachings of blaspheme and behavioral appropriateness  be deemed as ‘hate speech’ as the want of many gay activist right now?

Any non-biased judge hearing this case, should ask: why not just petition the legislature and executive branches all over the US (fed, state and local)  for this novel recognition of a fairly new pattern of same-sex co-habitation and the maintenance of certain economic and legal benefits that comes with it? That approach has lead to gay marriage’s acceptance in the Northeast, Iowa and even a small town in Kentucky ([link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/us/vicco-kentucky-passes-ban-on-gay-bias.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0%29.]http://www.nytimes.com/20…ewanted=all&_r=0).[/link] Instead, activists of all types really seek the dilution of traditional religion which has played an essential role in our peaceful and free country.[/blockquote]  

Quote from Nobody, Spectus, Lux, Back on the Saddle 

Well that’s just a cheap shot to change the subject from your much worse bigoted remarks about gays. (clapping- no underlines, italiacs or boldface used in your response)

 
 
 
 
Only someone zombied by group-think liberalism could really conclude that one side or the other in a policy disagreement which this country is split in half about is ‘bigotry’ for not supporting your side of things. Its a policy disagreement, and there is no need to deviance label people as ‘bigoted’ who disagree with your super-id take on things.  If you want to filibuster and rambled on with worthless drivel, fine. However, your circumlocutions are often barely tolerable, and, you should be thrown back to the first year of grad school. By expanding the concept of ‘bigotry’, well liberals are ‘bigoted’ everyday they seek to increase the welfare/central states power, money and reach since it only leads to further destitution and hopelessness of the most vulnerable and impoverished.
 
 
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

I assume you have no gay friends, RVU. Acquaintances or relatives?

What do you have against gay people?

[scottgood421]

RVU – my panties are just fine.  my wife is a lot hotter than yours and she has allowed me to sire 6 beautiful children.  I think they are all mine.
 
Great to know that my children enjoy the freedom to choose the path they wish to take without paranoid bigots dictating what is appropriate.  The same bigots that always seem to end up getting caught with their panties down in some truck stop or rest room. 
 
Our new premier is an openly gay woman – she is an honest capable decent person who looks set to do an outstanding job. 
 
As for censorship – I don’t know what you are talking about.  The pro-lifers were outside the hospital last week with their placards, candles and singing.
 
Are your links as reliable as your estimate of Canadian radiologist income?
 
Cheers
 
 
 
 

[Unknown Member]

Quote from RVU

Only someone zombied by group-think liberalism could really conclude that one side or the other in a policy disagreement which this country is split in half about is ‘bigotry’ for not supporting your side of things. Its a policy disagreement, and there is no need to deviance label people as ‘bigoted’ who disagree with your super-id take on things.  If you want to filibuster and rambled on with worthless drivel, fine. However, your circumlocutions are often barely tolerable, and, you should be thrown back to the first year of grad school. By expanding the concept of ‘bigotry’, well liberals are ‘bigoted’ everyday they seek to increase the welfare/central states power, money and reach since it only leads to further destitution and hopelessness of the most vulnerable and impoverished.

Oh, you mean like the “zombied group-think liberalism” back when 50% of the country wanted to free the slaves?
 
Only ignorant bigots try to attach the popularity of an idea to whether it should qualify as bigotry.
 

[raallen]

Quote from Lux

Quote from RVU

Only someone zombied by group-think liberalism could really conclude that one side or the other in a policy disagreement which this country is split in half about is ‘bigotry’ for not supporting your side of things. Its a policy disagreement, and there is no need to deviance label people as ‘bigoted’ who disagree with your super-id take on things.  If you want to filibuster and rambled on with worthless drivel, fine. However, your circumlocutions are often barely tolerable, and, you should be thrown back to the first year of grad school. By expanding the concept of ‘bigotry’, well liberals are ‘bigoted’ everyday they seek to increase the welfare/central states power, money and reach since it only leads to further destitution and hopelessness of the most vulnerable and impoverished.

Oh, you mean like the “zombied group-think liberalism” back when 50% of the country wanted to free the slaves?

Only ignorant bigots try to attach the popularity of an idea to whether it should qualify as bigotry.

By you equating sexual identity, to which any individual (and several do) can change, lie about, and socially adapt to at whim, with race demostrates one of two things. Either you are addicted to the spoon fed pablum of the group-think left while knowing nothing about anthropology/biology, or, you are a noisy circumlocuous bloviating troll. Its likely a combination of both.

[scottgood421]

Quote from RVU

Here’s a simple question. Why hasnt the gay lobby and their supporters try to petition Obama and the democrats to write federal legislation directly overturning DOMA? If there is a majority of people who support ‘gay marriage’, then it shouldnt really be a problem to present repeal legislation. In particular, since the certain media keeps reminding how many individuals republicans have filed amicus briefs with the SCOTUS (nota bene: Bill Clinton’s support was in a local paper’s editorial and not an amicus brief). Why is this being done through the courts?

Could it be that the democrats are still [style=”color: #ff0000;”]afraid of the stigma[/style] of being so pro-gay[[/style]/style]? Or, could it be that the dems would find out that there are a lot of internal anti-gay feelings within their own party? [/style]

[style=”color: #ff00ff;”]Simply put-this is not a civil rights issue.[/style][/style] The hang-ups and separation gays experience is not and has never been close to being equivalent to the civil rights movement [/style]where an American individual of one race could clearly enunciate centuries of real systemic discrimination and dislocation from opportunity and being free. And, what is next, special benefits and affirmative action-like guarantees for gays at public and private institutions? Will millennia of organized religion’s teachings of blaspheme and behavioral appropriateness  be deemed as ‘hate speech’ as the want of many gay activist right now? [/style]

Any non-biased judge hearing this case, should ask: why not just petition the legislature and executive branches all over the US (fed, state and local)  for this novel recognition of a fairly new pattern of same-sex co-habitation and the maintenance of certain economic and legal benefits that comes with it? That approach has lead to gay marriage’s acceptance in the Northeast, Iowa and even a small town in Kentucky ([link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/us/vicco-kentucky-passes-ban-on-gay-bias.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0).]http://www.nytimes.com/20…ewanted=all&_r=0).[/link] Instead, activists of all types really seek the dilution of traditional religion which has played an essential role in our peaceful and free country. [/style]

[/style]
Unbelievable to me that this discussion is even occurring in the 21st century, and opinions like this are being expressed. [/style]

[Unknown Member]

Quote from adopted canuck

Unbelievable to me that this discussion is even occurring in the 21st century, and opinions like this are being expressed. [/style]

And from a so-called “PROFESSIONAL”, no less!

Living proof of how many critical flaws there really are in the medical school acceptance process.

What med schools may have thought would be a model caregiver to society just turns out to be yet another everyday frightened, paranoid knuckle-dragger.

Our school system is in trouble alright, just not the way the extremist right thinks it is.

[kayla.meyer_144]

All this “petition” stuff is garbage. It didn’t work so well during Civil Rights. It took a Voting Rights Act and Federal troops & FBI to enforce Constitutional Rights.

[raallen]

Quote from adopted canuck

Quote from RVU

Here’s a simple question. Why hasnt the gay lobby and their supporters try to petition Obama and the democrats to write federal legislation directly overturning DOMA? If there is a majority of people who support ‘gay marriage’, then it shouldnt really be a problem to present repeal legislation. In particular, since the certain media keeps reminding how many individuals republicans have filed amicus briefs with the SCOTUS (nota bene: Bill Clinton’s support was in a local paper’s editorial and not an amicus brief). Why is this being done through the courts?

Could it be that the democrats are still afraid of the stigma[/style] of being so pro-gay[[/style]/style]? Or, could it be that the dems would find out that there are a lot of internal anti-gay feelings within their own party? [/style]

Simply put-this is not a civil rights issue.[/style][/style] The hang-ups and separation gays experience is not and has never been close to being equivalent to the civil rights movement [/style]where an American individual of one race could clearly enunciate centuries of real systemic discrimination and dislocation from opportunity and being free. And, what is next, special benefits and affirmative action-like guarantees for gays at public and private institutions? Will millennia of organized religion’s teachings of blaspheme and behavioral appropriateness  be deemed as ‘hate speech’ as the want of many gay activist right now? [/style]

Any non-biased judge hearing this case, should ask: why not just petition the legislature and executive branches all over the US (fed, state and local)  for this novel recognition of a fairly new pattern of same-sex co-habitation and the maintenance of certain economic and legal benefits that comes with it? That approach has lead to gay marriage’s acceptance in the Northeast, Iowa and even a small town in Kentucky ([link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/us/vicco-kentucky-passes-ban-on-gay-bias.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0).]http://www.nytimes.com/20…ewanted=all&_r=0).[/link] Instead, activists of all types really seek the dilution of traditional religion which has played an essential role in our peaceful and free country. [/style]

[/style]
Unbelievable to me that this discussion is even occurring in the 21st century, and opinions like this are being expressed. [/style]

 
…well someone’s panties are bunching up. What is really outrageous is that Canada, a western country without real security threats, has a strong and deep commitment to censorship and muzzling its citizens. In the 60s when the liberals in Canada wanted to chant “F-the draft” or say something political correct, that was okay. Now with lib entrenched in power, the Canadian government resorts to well-known and extensive stifling of free speech. Canadian scientists are unable to openly discuss their results with the public, citizens are unable to discuss terrorist killings of Israeli citizens or the pro-life cause , and music acts are routinely banned.What is even sadder beside atrocious are that some well know Canadian literati are being censored, like Margret Atwood.
[/style]
 
I cant believe that Canadian type of censorship would exist today. For what reason?!! Immediate national threat?  And worse, why are there so many PC passive lemmings like yourself that listen/obey to the Canadian government taking away the fundamental human right to think, express ideas freely.[/style]
 

[link=http://www.freedomtoread.ca/censorship-in-canada/challenged-works/#.UTt9qFecySo]http://www.freedomtoread….ed-works/#.UTt9qFecySo[/link]
[link=http://www.freedomtoread.ca/challenged-works/]http://www.freedomtoread.ca/challenged-works/[/link]
[link=http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/1937314311001]http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/1937314311001[/link]
[link=http://www.towleroad.com/2013/01/canadian-psa-fights-****got-with-censorship-video.html]http://www.towleroad.com/…-censorship-video.html[/link]
[link=http://www.lifenews.com/2012/12/12/canadian-pro-life-students-show-courage-in-face-of-censorship/]http://www.lifenews.com/2…in-face-of-censorship/[/link]
This list could go on and on about real episodes of censorship.

[Unknown Member]

Quote from RVU

…well someone’s panties are bunching up. What is really outrageous is that Canada, a western country without real security threats, has a strong and deep commitment to censorship and muzzling its citizens. In the 60s when the liberals in Canada wanted to chant “F-the draft” or say something political correct, that was okay. Now with lib entrenched in power, the Canadian government resorts to well-known and extensive stifling of free speech. Canadian scientists are unable to openly discuss their results with the public, citizens are unable to discuss terrorist killings of Israeli citizens or the pro-life cause , and music acts are routinely banned.What is even sadder beside atrocious are that some well know Canadian literati are being censored, like Margret Atwood.
[/style]

I cant believe that Canadian type of censorship would exist today. For what reason?!! Immediate national threat?  And worse, whey are there so many PC passive lemmings like yourself that listen/obey to the Canadian government taking away the fundamental human right to think, express ideas freely.[/style]

[link=http://www.freedomtoread.ca/censorship-in-canada/challenged-works/#.UTt9qFecySo]http://www.freedomtoread….ed-works/#.UTt9qFecySo[/link]
[link=http://www.freedomtoread.ca/challenged-works/]http://www.freedomtoread.ca/challenged-works/[/link]
[link=http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/1937314311001]http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/1937314311001[/link]
[link=http://www.towleroad.com/2013/01/canadian-psa-fights-****got-with-censorship-video.html]http://www.towleroad.com/…-censorship-video.html[/link]
[link=http://www.lifenews.com/2012/12/12/canadian-pro-life-students-show-courage-in-face-of-censorship/]http://www.lifenews.com/2…in-face-of-censorship/[/link]
This list could go on and on about real episodes of censorship.

Well that’s just a cheap shot to change the subject from your much worse bigoted remarks about gays.

Figures.

Stop with your petty diversion and stay focused on the OP.

[raallen]

Quote from Frumious

I assume you have no gay friends, RVU. Acquaintances or relatives?

What do you have against gay people?

Your comments across several boards on AM really are telling of a mostly passive aggressive and insidious animosity toward people of deep biblical religious faith and their universal values. What do you have against people of biblical traditional faith? Have you ever met or broken bread with a person of traditional Christian religious faith? After all, there are far more Americans who identify, believe and practice traditional Christianity than the 3% perhaps who claim to have a strong attraction with the same sex.

[Unknown Member]

li

Quote from RVU

Quote from Frumious

I assume you have no gay friends, RVU. Acquaintances or relatives?

What do you have against gay people?

Your comments across several boards on AM really are telling of a mostly passive aggressive and insidious animosity toward people of deep biblical religious faith and their universal values. What do you have against people of biblical traditional faith? Have you ever met or broken bread with a person of traditional Christian religious faith? After all, there are far more Americans who identify, believe and practice traditional Christianity than the 3% perhaps who claim to have a strong attraction with the same sex.

Well, YOUR past posts across these discussions show that you have no qualms about jumping to the most chasmatic mental leaps of illogical that go beyond imagination.
 
And now the gloves come off… 

For your information, I AM OF TRADITIONAL BIBLICAL FAITH and yet I have tremendous problems with certain other [i]”people of deep blblical faith”.  [/i]
 
I certainly DO have problems with [i]”people of deep biblical religious faith”[/i] who claim to know what God is “thinking” or what God “intends” when no such things have ever been stated in the Bible they claim to worship and respect.
 
I also have a problem with [i]”people of deep biblical religious faith”[/i] who throw stones at other religions for the violence and oppression in those scriptures despite the fact that the Old Testament is arguably at the tippity top of the list of violent and oppressive messages that go WAY beyond any violence and oppression in other religious doctrines.
 
Furthermore, I have a problem with [i]”people of deep biblical religious faith”[/i] who would bring us all back to the ancient third world times of the scriptures and impose the mores, ethics, superstitions, and cultural stigmas of those times and proselytize those ancient standards as something we should adhere to, today.
 
And let’s not forget those “people of deep biblical religious faith” who go off half-cocked making stuff up in order to sooth their own fears and paranoia, like not allowing women to be priests, claiming life begins at conception, insisting that stem cell research is somehow a violation of a non-existent religious tenet, and also claiming that buying an insurance policy that provides payment for an abortion is somehow against their religion when no one is requiring any member of the flock to participate in such a medical procedure, especially when some policies cost MORE if the provider has to turn the policy into an a la carte Chinese menu with various breakout items, and when those same hypocrites are totally mum about the fact that the taxes that they pay help fund wars in which many thousands of God’s innocent children are slaughtered in cold blood all over the world.
 
But at this moment, my biggest problem with[i] “people of deep biblical religious faith”[/i] are those hypocrites who claim, on one hand, that what the Bible says about gays or marriage should be taken entirely, definitively, and literally, but who also conveniently cherry-pick [i]other[/i] aspects of the darker side of the scriptures by handwaving them away as mere “metaphor” or as being “symbolic” of a deeper meaning, like whether Adam was REALLY the first guy on the planet from which all others were spawned, or that the 7 billion humans on Earth today were derived from the rampant inbreeding of Noah’s family, or that the universe is really only about 6000 years old and that dinosaur fossils are a decoy created by Satin, or that special creation should be given equal time to evolution in every science course and textbook.
 
I abhor those who believe “God can do no wrong”. Does the Bible say that God can do no wrong? People with that level of “deep believe” know darn well that “God” also goaded Abraham into murdering HIS OWN INFANT SON as a sacrifice, and that God incinerated Aaron’s poor young novice sons simply because they lit incense at the wrong moment during a new ceremony that everyone was still learning (despite the fact that Aaron unconditionally stepped up to serve God as the front man for Moses who was too cowardly to speak to the people himself), and that God cast widespread plague and pestilence upon the Pharaoh of Egypt for taking in Abraham’s wife as his own wife even though Abraham, himself, was the one who is guilty of lying to Pharaoh by claiming that Sarah was his sister and NOT his wife!
 
And what on Earth was the reason that God needed to force Abraham to sacrifice the one son he had strived to father for so many years? Why did God totally disregard Aaron’s loving service to him and, in an instant, vaporize is poor young sons for such a small and inconsequential administrative error? Why did God punish the Pharaoh, who did NOTHING wrong? Why did God let Abraham get away with the tremendous lie that led Pharaoh to hook up with Sarah in the first place? For that matter, why did God not punish Moses for murdering the Egyptian guard without a trial when he saw the guard beating a fellow slave? Where do you draw the line on which story should be taken literally vs. which story should be handily swept under the rug?
 
I have no problem at all being a person of [i]”deep biblical religious faith”[/i], but folks please let’s keep a level head, accept our full responsibility to the Eternal and put the good book into crystal clear perspective as a spiritual document and not a 21st Century Operator’s Manual.
 
As a civilization that has advanced much farther than the culture that existed when the biblical scriptures were written, we no longer jump to the alter to sacrifice lambs…or our own [i][u]offspring[/u][/i]. Rather we sacrifice money and time. We do not stone adulterers to death. The people do not vote in a public square for which criminals die and which we want to set free. We do not part the waters of any sea when we need to accomplish something great in life. We do not shoot any cyclops with a slingshot in order to demonstrate our cleverness over our nemesis, and we do not threaten to cut babies in half as a ploy to affect conflict resolution.
 
Join the modern age.
 
 

[raallen]

Ahhh…it is a little of both–anti-Chritian bigot and bloviating troll with the multiple usage of Italiacs, caps for display.

[scottgood421]

Quote from RVU

Ahhh…it is a little of both–anti-Chritian bigot and bloviating troll with the multiple usage of Italiacs, caps for display.

 
Relatively Worthless Unit –
 
but you told me [b]I[/b] was your Troll.  You made me feel special………………………….

[raallen]

Schmuck-canuck—1/2 of your responses are geared to me. You are either obsessed or a troll. Move along now please.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Quote from RVU

Quote from Frumious

I assume you have no gay friends, RVU. Acquaintances or relatives?

What do you have against gay people?

Your comments across several boards on AM really are telling of a mostly passive aggressive and insidious animosity toward people of deep biblical religious faith and their universal values. What do you have against people of biblical traditional faith? Have you ever met or broken bread with a person of traditional Christian religious faith? After all, there are far more Americans who identify, believe and practice traditional Christianity than the 3% perhaps who claim to have a strong attraction with the same sex.

Nothing like blaming your God demanding intolerance and bending it into some sort of virtue. You would also have accused me of  “animosity toward people of deep biblical religious faith” about slavery since the Bible was also used as a justification for that too. Recall the schism of the Baptists over the issue due to biblical & therefore “God’s Law” interpretations. And if you are following God’s Laws faithfully as defined in the Bible, it’s an easy bet you are not following quite a few. Selective reading?
 
The Bible can be used as a justification for much intolerance. Has been and is used for that over many more issues than homosexuality. “The Bible” tells you to hate Jews too. But we don’t do we.

[btomba_77]

Thankfully, with the Establishment Clause, all this talk of religious faith and bibilical beliefs has no bearing on how the Court should rule on the merits of the case.  
 
This is why I think government should be out of the marriage business entirely.  Each religious group should be free to define marriage as it likes and choose to sanctify or not sanctify marriages based on doctrine.
 
The government should only be concerned with “civil union”, the legal contract.  Calling the legal contract “marriage” muddies the water on church/state religion as different religions and even different denomination within the same religion can hold widely disparate views on what “marriage” is supposed to look like.
 
Don’t like gays? Don’t want ’em in your church? Great.  Go for it. 
 
But that has nothing to do with how homosexual unions  are managed by US governmental agencies.
 
 
 
______
 
And a view ofthe potential thinking of Chief Justice Roberts regarding the DOMA and Prop 8 cases:
[link=http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-guest-if-scotus-doesnt-strike-down-doma-it-will-go-down-in-history-like-the-dred-scott-decision/]http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-guest-if-scotus-doesnt-strike-down-doma-it-will-go-down-in-history-like-the-dred-scott-decision/[/link]

I think the key is that John Roberts is going to be very concerned about his legacy, Mixner replied. This is his court. This will be the signature.
The question is whether hes going to go the direction of the Dred Scott decision or [i]Plessy v. Ferguson[/i], where separate but equal, or if hes going to see the inevitable tide of history and want his court to be on the right side of history, he added.
This is a step towards freedom for millions of fellow Americans, Mixner concluded.

 

[Unknown Member]

Quote from dergon

Thankfully, with the Establishment Clause, all this talk of religious faith and bibilical beliefs has no bearing on how the Court should rule on the merits of the case.  

This is why I think government should be out of the marriage business entirely.  Each religious group should be free to define marriage as it likes and choose to sanctify or not sanctify marriages based on doctrine.

The government should only be concerned with “civil union”, the legal contract.  Calling the legal contract “marriage” muddies the water on church/state religion as different religions and even different denomination within the same religion can hold widely disparate views on what “marriage” is supposed to look like.

Don’t like gays? Don’t want ’em in your church? Great.  Go for it. 

But that has nothing to do with how homosexual unions  are managed by US governmental agencies.
______
And a view ofthe potential thinking of Chief Justice Roberts regarding the DOMA and Prop 8 cases:
[link=http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-guest-if-scotus-doesnt-strike-down-doma-it-will-go-down-in-history-like-the-dred-scott-decision/]http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-guest-if-scotus-doesnt-strike-down-doma-it-will-go-down-in-history-like-the-dred-scott-decision/[/link]

I think the key is that John Roberts is going to be very concerned about his legacy, Mixner replied. This is his court. This will be the signature.
The question is whether hes going to go the direction of the Dred Scott decision or [i]Plessy v. Ferguson[/i], where separate but equal, or if hes going to see the inevitable tide of history and want his court to be on the right side of history, he added.
This is a step towards freedom for millions of fellow Americans, Mixner concluded.

The excerpt you quoted says it all. I would not be surprised if Scalia is the only justice that upholds DOMA. The others can clearly see the writing on the wall.
 
 

[btomba_77]

Quote from Lux

The excerpt you quoted says it all. I would not be surprised if Scalia is the only justice that upholds DOMA. The others can clearly see the writing on the wall.

 
I will be significantly surprised if the ruling is different than 5-4 either way with one caveat:
 
 I could envision a scenario in which Roberts sides with the liberal block and Kennedy to make the “legacy” look more solid at 6-3.  (With that plus his ACA ruling, Roberts would officially be labelled a turncoat by the Right …… if that matters to him).
 
But Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are not going to vote to support gay marriage. No way.  So 6-3 is the max.
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Heard an interview with retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor who was replaced by Alito. There was a bit of history between them regarding the “rights” of husbands over wives in that a wife must get permissions from her husband to get an abortion, regardless of any history of rape of abuse. I suppose Alito believes in a “Defense Of Marriage” and this is just one example.
 
[link=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2005/10/alito_v_oconnor.html]http://www.slate.com/arti…0/alito_v_oconnor.html[/link]

The triumvirate also parted company with Alito entirely over his vision of the rights of husbands. The Constitution did not permit states to require wives to tell their husbands before getting an abortion, the Supreme Court majority found. The O’Connor-Souter-Kennedy opinion cited a lot of trial testimony about the prevalence and danger of domestic violence. Pennsylvania’s law exempted wives who’d been raped by their husbands, but not those who’d been coerced into “sexual behavior other than penetration,” the three justices noted. They continued:

[blockquote]In well-functioning marriages, spouses discuss important intimate decisions such as whether to bear a child. But there are millions of women in this country who are the victims of regular physical and psychological abuse at the hands of their husbands. Should these women become pregnant, they may have very good reasons for not wishing to inform their husbands of their decision to obtain an abortion. Many may have justifiable fears of physical abuse, but may be no less fearful of the consequences of reporting prior abuse to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Many may have a reasonable fear that notifying their husbands will provoke further instances of child abuse; these women are not exempt from [Pennsylvania’s] notification requirement. Many may fear devastating forms of psychological abuse from their husbands, including verbal harassment, threats of future violence, the destruction of possessions, physical confinement to the home, the withdrawal of financial support, or the disclosure of the abortion to family and friends.
[/blockquote]
The dissenters, by contrast, adopted Alito’s sunnier, husband-centered version of marriage. Then Chief Justice William Rehnquist (joined by Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Byron White), emphasized “a husband’s interests in procreation within marriage and in the potential life of his unborn child.” Rehnquist paid Alito the high compliment of directly quoting his words about the good that could come from requiring women to talk to their husbands. “This participation might in some cases result in a decision to proceed with the pregnancy,” Rehnquist concluded.

 
How would Alito & company want to apply this for “defending” same-sex marriages.
 
 

[btomba_77]

[link=http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gop-senator-reverses-gay-marriage-stance-son-comes-065826488–politics.html]http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gop-senator-reverses-gay-marriage-stance-son-comes-065826488–politics.html[/link]
 

GOP senator reverses gay-marriage stance after son comes out

 
A prominent conservative senator said Thursday that he now supports gay marriage.
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, told reporters from [link=http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/03/15/portman-reverses-stance-on-gay-marriage-says-son-is-gay.html]the Columbus Dispatch[/link] and other Ohio newspapers that his change of heart on the hot-button issue came two years after his son, Will, told him and his wife that he is gay.
“It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective, and that’s of a Dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would haveto have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years,” Portman said.
[link=http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/politics/portman-gay-marriage/index.html]In an interview with CNN[/link], Portman said his son, then a freshman at Yale University, told him “that he was gay, and that it was not a choice, and that it’s just part of who he is, and that he’d been that way for as long as he could remember.”
The dramatic announcement comes just a week before the U.S. Supreme Court is to hear oral arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage, a measure Portman co-sponsored as a member of the House in 1996.
Portman was on the short list to be Mitt Romney’s running mate last year. He said he informed Romney during the vetting process that he had a gay son, but that the issue was not a deal breaker for Romney.
He also told CNN that he sought guidance from former Vice President Dick Cheney, whose daughter Mary is openly gay.
Portman said Cheney’s advice to him was simple: “Follow your heart.”

[Unknown Member]

Quote from dergon

[link=http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gop-senator-reverses-gay-marriage-stance-son-comes-065826488–politics.html]http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gop-senator-reverses-gay-marriage-stance-son-comes-065826488–politics.html[/link]

GOP senator reverses gay-marriage stance after son comes out

A prominent conservative senator said Thursday that he now supports gay marriage.
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, told reporters from [link=http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/03/15/portman-reverses-stance-on-gay-marriage-says-son-is-gay.html]the Columbus Dispatch[/link] and other Ohio newspapers that his change of heart on the hot-button issue came two years after his son, Will, told him and his wife that he is gay.
“It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective, and that’s of a Dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would haveto have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years,” Portman said.
[link=http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/politics/portman-gay-marriage/index.html]In an interview with CNN[/link], Portman said his son, then a freshman at Yale University, told him “that he was gay, and that it was not a choice, and that it’s just part of who he is, and that he’d been that way for as long as he could remember.”
The dramatic announcement comes just a week before the U.S. Supreme Court is to hear oral arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage, a measure Portman co-sponsored as a member of the House in 1996.
Portman was on the short list to be Mitt Romney’s running mate last year. He said he informed Romney during the vetting process that he had a gay son, but that the issue was not a deal breaker for Romney.
He also told CNN that he sought guidance from former Vice President **** Cheney, whose daughter Mary is openly gay.
Portman said Cheney’s advice to him was simple: “Follow your heart.”

It’s in the genes…I always thought Portman, like ol’ harry reid were “light in the loafers”.

[btomba_77]

Quote from Point Man

Quote from dergon

[link=http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gop-senator-reverses-gay-marriage-stance-son-comes-065826488–politics.html]http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gop-senator-reverses-gay-marriage-stance-son-comes-065826488–politics.html[/link]

GOP senator reverses gay-marriage stance after son comes out

A prominent conservative senator said Thursday that he now supports gay marriage.
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, told reporters from [link=http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/03/15/portman-reverses-stance-on-gay-marriage-says-son-is-gay.html]the Columbus Dispatch[/link] and other Ohio newspapers that his change of heart on the hot-button issue came two years after his son, Will, told him and his wife that he is gay.
“It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective, and that’s of a Dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would haveto have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years,” Portman said.
[link=http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/politics/portman-gay-marriage/index.html]In an interview with CNN[/link], Portman said his son, then a freshman at Yale University, told him “that he was gay, and that it was not a choice, and that it’s just part of who he is, and that he’d been that way for as long as he could remember.”
The dramatic announcement comes just a week before the U.S. Supreme Court is to hear oral arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage, a measure Portman co-sponsored as a member of the House in 1996.
Portman was on the short list to be Mitt Romney’s running mate last year. He said he informed Romney during the vetting process that he had a gay son, but that the issue was not a deal breaker for Romney.
He also told CNN that he sought guidance from former Vice President **** Cheney, whose daughter Mary is openly gay.
Portman said Cheney’s advice to him was simple: “Follow your heart.”

It’s in the genes…I always thought Portman, like ol’ harry reid were “light in the loafers”.

Well….. despite the pejorative tone of the reply, at least we can claim a small amount of progress when the hard core conservatives on this forumat least acknowledge that homosexuality is set condition with genetic predisposition rather than a lifestyle choice.
 
Baby steps. 🙂

[Unknown Member]

[i] “…at least we can claim a small amount of progress when the hard core conservatives on this forumat least acknowledge that homosexuality is set condition with genetic predisposition rather than a lifestyle choice.[/i]”
  
Right, except that he’s changed his tune only now that it has become an issue for him and his family.  Millions of people have been saying and writing what Portman’s son said to him, but Portman could not have cared less about the right of homosexuals to pursue happiness until his son was about to be denied that right. 

[Unknown Member]

Quote from Back in the Saddle

Right, except that he’s changed his tune only now that it has become an issue for him and his family.  Millions of people have been saying and writing what Portman’s son said to him, but Portman could not have cared less about the right of homosexuals to pursue happiness until his son was about to be denied that right. 

Many politicians are guilty of situational ethics. This is nothing new. The latest poster child example is Gov. Christie when he practically deified Obama for his quick and effective response to Sandy after accusing him of not being able to lead out of a paper bag just a few days earlier.
 

[btomba_77]

Quote from me

Thankfully, with the Establishment Clause, all this talk of religious faith and bibilical beliefs has no bearing on how the Court should rule on the merits of the case.

This is why I think government should be out of the marriage business entirely. Each religious group should be free to define marriage as it likes and choose to sanctify or not sanctify marriages based on doctrine.

The government should only be concerned with “civil union”, the legal contract. Calling the legal contract “marriage” muddies the water on church/state religion as different religions and even different denomination within the same religion can hold widely disparate views on what “marriage” is supposed to look like.

Don’t like gays? Don’t want ’em in your church? Great. Go for it.

But that has nothing to do with how homosexual unions are managed by US governmental agencies.

 
Looks like Rand Paul agrees with me (sort of):
[link=http://conservativebyte.com/2013/03/rand-paul-wants-marriage-out-of-tax-code/]http://conservativebyte.com/2013/03/rand-paul-wants-marriage-out-of-tax-code/[/link]
 

Quote from Rand Paul

I tell you what. Lets take the word marriage out of the tax code and lets just eliminate any special or different treatment for married couples in the tax code and thatll end it.

 
 
 
 

[btomba_77]

John Kasich, Ohio Governor and sometimes talked-of future presidential candidate comes out in favor of civil unions….. then changes his mind:
 

Quote from John Kasich

If people want to have civil unions and have some way to transfer their resources, I’m for that. I don’t support gay marriage.”
“I’ve got friends that are gay and I’ve told them ‘Look, (same sex marriage) is just not something I agree with’ and Im not doing it out of a sense of anger or judgment, it’s just my opinion on this issue.”
“I just think marriage is between a man and a woman, but if you want to have a civil union that’s fine with me.”

 
 
_______
 
Within a day of his remarks, though, his spokesman told Buzzfeed that  Kasich’s view was unchanged.  His office has offered clarification to say the governor was using the term civil union loosely.

[kayla.meyer_144]

“John Kasich is a strong moralist & as such firmly stands on both sides of this argument! And let no one say otherwise!”

[Unknown Member]

Quote from dergon

Well….. despite the pejorative tone of the reply, at least we can claim a small amount of progress when the hard core conservatives on this forumat least acknowledge that homosexuality is set condition with genetic predisposition rather than a lifestyle choice.

Baby steps. 🙂

I think you’re being way too gracious. I’m quite sure he means it’s [i]”in the genes”[/i] to be predisposed to [i]”choose that lifestyle”![/i] lol
 
 

[Unknown Member]

Quote from Point Man

It’s in the genes…I always thought Portman, like ol’ harry reid were “light in the loafers”. 

Perhaps, but not nearly as “light” as Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, and Lindsey Graham. One might even wonder about Mitt Romney, considering how often we saw him prancing around on stage. 
 
Compared to those “loafers”, Portman is a real he-man. 
 
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Quote from dergon

A prominent conservative senator said Thursday that he now supports gay marriage.
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, told reporters from [link=http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/03/15/portman-reverses-stance-on-gay-marriage-says-son-is-gay.html]the Columbus Dispatch[/link] and other Ohio newspapers that his change of heart on the hot-button issue came two years after his son, Will, told him and his wife that he is gay.
“It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective, and that’s of a Dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would haveto have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years,” Portman said.

Nothing like having something like discrimination hit home to force one to give a fresh look. I knew a women who said that she could forgive her son anything – even murder, but if he was gay she’d disown him.
 
What’s to say.

[Unknown Member]

Quote from Frumious

Quote from dergon

“It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective, and that’s of a Dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would haveto have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years,” Portman said.

Nothing like having something like discrimination hit home to force one to give a fresh look. I knew a women who said that she could forgive her son anything – even murder, but if he was gay she’d disown him.

What’s to say.

Well, Portman may deserve credit for seeing the light, but as far as I’m concerned, he is totally unqualified for office if he is so fickle about his position on important public policy that he actually does a complete 180 simply because one of those issues hits home. 
 
And of course, as always, Cheney is dead wrong in his advice to Portman. A politician absolutely should [u]NOT[/u] follow his heart when leading national policy. A politician should simply do what’s best for the population of 300 million hearts in America, REGARDLESS of what [u]his[/u] one lone heart says.
 
 
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Thank God we’re still safe, several Republicans have firmly stated they would not alter their positions on gays & gay marriage even if their sons came out.
 
What if daughters came out? Is homophobia more confined to gay men than gay women?

[btomba_77]

Hillary Clinton officially in favor of gay marriage today.
 
I say that by 2016 you will be hard pressed to find a national-level candidate in the democratic party who does not support gay marriage.
 
 
 
 

[Unknown Member]

Quote from dergon

Hillary Clinton officially in favor of gay marriage today.

I say that by 2016 you will be hard pressed to find a national-level candidate in the democratic party who does not support gay marriage.

 Why are libs so fixated on gayness.  Hillary in favor…..HHmmmm…..maybe ol’ billy…..

[Unknown Member]

Quote from Point Man

Why are libs so fixated on gayness.  Hillary in favor…..HHmmmm…..maybe ol’ billy…..

I hate to tell you, but “libs” are not at all “fixated on gayness”. Libs are fixated on [u]liberty[/u] and [u]freedom[/u]. 
 
Rather, it’s the so-called extremist conservative Republicans claiming to be so fixated on “freedom” who are the [u]real[/u] hypocrites. If the Republicans were TRULY concerned about protecting Americans’ freedoms, then there would be no further discussion about this ridiculous topic. It’s the Republicans who are dragging out their fixation on ANTIgayness, and therefore are against the very “freedom” that they claim to be promoting. 
 
Funny you should ask. 
 
 

[Unknown Member]

Quote from dergon

Looks like Rand Paul agrees with me (sort of):
[link=http://conservativebyte.com/2013/03/rand-paul-wants-marriage-out-of-tax-code/]http://conservativebyte.com/2013/03/rand-paul-wants-marriage-out-of-tax-code/[/link]

Quote from Rand Paul

I tell you what. Lets take the word marriage out of the tax code and lets just eliminate any special or different treatment for married couples in the tax code and thatll end it.

That may address tax issues, but it doesn’t address visitation rights, inheritance/survivorship, default estate executorship, and other considerations outside of the relatively narrow issue of “taxation”. Is there any surprise that Ryan only feels the need to address how [u]taxes[/u] should apply to gays?
 
 

[btomba_77]

Jeffrey Toobin has a good piece in the New Yorker on DOMA and PROP 8:
 

In 2003, the Supreme Court decided that gay people could no longer be thrown in prison for having consensual sex. Specifically, Justice Anthony Kennedys opinion, in Lawrence v. Texas, declared that Texass anti-sodomy law demeans the lives of homosexual persons and violated the right to liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. But Kennedy was careful to describe the limits of the Courts holding. He wrote that the case does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. In other words, in Kennedys telling, Lawrence v. Texas was not about same-sex marriage.
To which Justice Antonin Scalia responded, in a dissenting opinion, Do not believe it. He explained:

Quote from Scalia

If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is no legitimate state interest for purposes of proscribing that conduct; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), when sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring, what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising the liberty protected by the Constitution?

What, indeed? A decade later, its clear that Scalia was right. Once a society decides that the law must treat a group of people equally in one area of life, it becomes harderand, eventually, impossibleto justify discriminating against them in others. If gay people cant be prosecuted for being gay, then they shouldnt be fired for being gay, either. If they cant be fired, then they shouldnt be denied custody of children. And so on, to the issue of marriage. Each of these steps is incomplete under current law, as well as in the real world, but the direction they are taking is unmistakable. This week, we will begin to find out whether the Justices will impede or accelerate that process. But, at this point, not even the Supreme Court can reverse the march toward equality.

There are really only two reasons that gay marriage is still illegal in more than three-quarters of the country: thats the way it has always been; and the very idea of same-sex marriage makes some people, well, uncomfortable. But courts, even the current Supreme Court, usually require that laws be justified by something more than tradition and bigotry.

The Obama Administration declined to defend the constitutionality of DOMA, so congressional Republicans gave that task to Paul Clement, who was the Solicitor General during the Administration of George W. Bush. Clement has done his best. Many states have chosen to retain the traditional definition because of the intrinsic connection between marriage and children, he wrote in his brief, and this may be true, at least in part. But, since there are many married straight people who do not have children (and many unmarried gay people who do), Clement must know that the argument is not likely to be a winning one. So he has come up with this: The link between procreation and marriage itself reflects a unique social difficulty with opposite-sex couples that is not present with same-sex couplesnamely, the undeniable and distinct tendency of opposite-sex relationships to produce unplanned and unintended pregnancies. Even after repeated readings, the sentence is baffling. Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., the current Solicitor General, understated matters by saying that justifications like that one for the institution of marriage would hardly be recognizable to most of its participants.

Read more: [link=http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2013/04/01/130401taco_talk_toobin#ixzz2OZLoQsC6]http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2013/04/01/130401taco_talk_toobin#ixzz2OZLoQsC6[/link]

[odayjassim1978_476]

Toobin, I really like his analysis.  Come on Roberts, lets LeaN FORWARD as MSNBC slogan says.
Toobin did seem like wow when he heard Mark Gergoes( the attorney I met in CA) arguments for Jodi Arias..like this defense attorney is good if he can say that stuff with a straight face and could potentially pull one juror.

Quote from dergon

Jeffrey Toobin has a good piece in the New Yorker on DOMA and PROP 8:

In 2003, the Supreme Court decided that gay people could no longer be thrown in prison for having consensual sex. Specifically, Justice Anthony Kennedys opinion, in Lawrence v. Texas, declared that Texass anti-sodomy law demeans the lives of homosexual persons and violated the right to liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. But Kennedy was careful to describe the limits of the Courts holding. He wrote that the case does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. In other words, in Kennedys telling, Lawrence v. Texas was not about same-sex marriage.
To which Justice Antonin Scalia responded, in a dissenting opinion, Do not believe it. He explained:

Quote from Scalia

If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is no legitimate state interest for purposes of proscribing that conduct; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), when sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring, what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising the liberty protected by the Constitution?

What, indeed? A decade later, its clear that Scalia was right. Once a society decides that the law must treat a group of people equally in one area of life, it becomes harderand, eventually, impossibleto justify discriminating against them in others. If gay people cant be prosecuted for being gay, then they shouldnt be fired for being gay, either. If they cant be fired, then they shouldnt be denied custody of children. And so on, to the issue of marriage. Each of these steps is incomplete under current law, as well as in the real world, but the direction they are taking is unmistakable. This week, we will begin to find out whether the Justices will impede or accelerate that process. But, at this point, not even the Supreme Court can reverse the march toward equality.

There are really only two reasons that gay marriage is still illegal in more than three-quarters of the country: thats the way it has always been; and the very idea of same-sex marriage makes some people, well, uncomfortable. But courts, even the current Supreme Court, usually require that laws be justified by something more than tradition and bigotry.

The Obama Administration declined to defend the constitutionality of DOMA, so congressional Republicans gave that task to Paul Clement, who was the Solicitor General during the Administration of George W. Bush. Clement has done his best. Many states have chosen to retain the traditional definition because of the intrinsic connection between marriage and children, he wrote in his brief, and this may be true, at least in part. But, since there are many married straight people who do not have children (and many unmarried gay people who do), Clement must know that the argument is not likely to be a winning one. So he has come up with this: The link between procreation and marriage itself reflects a unique social difficulty with opposite-sex couples that is not present with same-sex couplesnamely, the undeniable and distinct tendency of opposite-sex relationships to produce unplanned and unintended pregnancies. Even after repeated readings, the sentence is baffling. Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., the current Solicitor General, understated matters by saying that justifications like that one for the institution of marriage would hardly be recognizable to most of its participants.

Read more: [link=http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2013/04/01/130401taco_talk_toobin#ixzz2OZLoQsC6]http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2013/04/01/130401taco_talk_toobin#ixzz2OZLoQsC6[/link]

[kayla.meyer_144]

No comment quite does justice.
 
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/03/25/bigotry-in-west-virginia/]http://www.washingtonpost…otry-in-west-virginia/[/link]

[Unknown Member]

That’s such an absurdly extreme case, I’m wondering if it’s actually a staged plant. 
 
 

[btomba_77]

*nods* Could be a joke post attacking hillfolk.
 

Quote from some blog comment

We were really glad to hear that School Board is getting rid of them queers. The next thing is we need to get rid of all the n****rs, the spics, the kikes and the wops. You know even them Catholics, they are wrong as baby eaters. We need to clear them people out and have good, white, God-fearing Christians and everybody else needs to be put to death for their abominations. Well keep Lincoln County white and right. Thank you.

The use of the word “them” in place of “those” but in a post that has otherwise proper grammar sounds not like an authentic bigot of low education , but a grad student at WVU’s “voice of an appalachian”.
 
 

[Unknown Member]

Quote from dergon

*nods* Could be a joke post attacking hillfolk.

Quote from some blog comment

We were really glad to hear that School Board is getting rid of them queers. The next thing is we need to get rid of all the n****rs, the spics, the kikes and the wops. You know even them Catholics, they are wrong as baby eaters. We need to clear them people out and have good, white, God-fearing Christians and everybody else needs to be put to death for their abominations. Well keep Lincoln County white and right. Thank you.

The use of the word “them” in place of “those” but in a post that has otherwise proper grammar sounds not like an authentic bigot of low education , but a grad student at WVU’s “voice of an appalachian”.

Yeah, you’re right, in point of fact. We see a slew of “them bigots” all across the country. For some reason it reminds me of the part Jack Black played in the movie “Mars Attacks!”. On one hand, it’s so sad to position that mentality in such a comedic role, but on the other hand it does say a lot about the atrocity of that mindset.
 
 

[btomba_77]

The legal team challenging Prop 8 is an interesting biparisan duo:
 
”
On behalf of a California couple, Prop 8 is being challenge by the unlikely bipartisan duo of Olson and David Boies, who argued before the court on opposite sides of the 2000 case over Florida’s vote recount in the presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. Boies served as the top lawyer for Gore’s campaign; Olson, for Bush’s.
 
The pair was brought together by gay-rights advocates seeking to overturn California’s ban, which took the gay activist community by surprise when it passed in 2008. Californians voted 52 percent to 48 percent in favor of banning gay marriage under their state constitution in 2008 on the same day they voted Barack Obama into the White House by a margin of 61 percent to 37 percent for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. ”

[kayla.meyer_144]

Olson lost his wife on one of the 9-11 planes.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Mormons just out!

The world is changing. Even Supremes worried about decision to come.

[btomba_77]

Reading the tea leaves — looks like the only majority decision might be to dimiss Prop 8. 
 
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-case.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-case.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0[/link]
 

I just wonder if the case was properly granted, said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who probably holds the decisive vote, in a comment that showed a court torn over whether this was the right time and right case for a decision on a fast-moving social issue.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed to share that concern. If the issue is letting the states experiment and letting the society have more time to figure out its direction, she said, why is taking a case now the answer?
Those justices and others seemed driven to that conclusion by an argument in which no attractive middle ground emerged on the substance of the question before them: whether voters in California were entitled to enact [link=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/californias_proposition_8_samesex_marriage/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier]Proposition 8[/link], which overturned a State Supreme Court decision allowing same-sex marriage.
Justices who appeared sympathetic to same-sex marriage indicated that there was no principled way to issue a ruling that could apply only in California or only in the nine states that have robust civil union or domestic partnership laws but withhold the word marriage.
That appeared to leave the court with an all-or-nothing choice on the merits: either a ruling that would require same-sex marriage in all 50 states or one that would say that all states may do as they wish. Neither choice seemed attractive to a majority of the justices.
Five members of the court asked questions indicating that they might vote to dismiss the case on the threshold issue that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to appeal a lower courts decision. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., whose questions on the merits indicated discomfort with requiring states to allow same-sex marriage, seemed particularly interested in the standing issue.

 
 
And for the AM libertarians — defense of DOMA has now cost over $3 million of tax payer money, House Republicans quietly upping the funds in the contract to pay for legal counsel.  Boehner is now going the “no comment” route with regard to DOMA.
 
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Supremes are scared that they will come out on the wrong side of the argument. Or rule to strike it down & find conservatives want their blood. Best to pass the hot potato instead of standing for something.

[Unknown Member]

After hearing the arguments on both sides it is now more clear than ever that there is simply no civic justification for prohibiting same sex marriage in the USA.

[Unknown Member]

I think that SCOTUS will try to pass the buck on the CA case. They may well find that those backing Prop 8 have no standing to argue the case and throw it back. It seems that they really don’t want to declare gay marriage a Constitutional right for all. They tend to not want to enforce social behaviour when majority of states don’t support that stand, but they may surprise yet. They have more problems with DOMA. It is Federal law and not state law. Also it denies rights to people who are legally married in some states. I think here that they will decide that state rights take precedent over Federal and say that DOMA is void.

[btomba_77]

Quote from Raddocmed

I think that SCOTUS will try to pass the buck on the CA case. They may well find that those backing Prop 8 have no standing to argue the case and throw it back. It seems that they really don’t want to declare gay marriage a Constitutional right for all. They tend to not want to enforce social behaviour when majority of states don’t support that stand, but they may surprise yet. They have more problems with DOMA. It is Federal law and not state law. Also it denies rights to people who are legally married in some states. I think here that they will decide that state rights take precedent over Federal and say that DOMA is void.

I tend to agree.  My wager is “no standing” on Prop 8, leaving the lower court ruling in place for California while striking DOMA with as narrow language as possible.

[btomba_77]

Just listened to NPR recap or oral arguments.  Sounds like 5 to strike DOMA, but Kennedy isn’t going to do it on “equal protection”  but instead on “state’s rights”.
 
And any hope that one of the 4 conservatives, particularly Roberts, might flip votes seems to have been just wishful thinking.

[odayjassim1978_476]

? DOMA struck down but Ca has to deal with prop 8

Quote from dergon

Quote from Raddocmed

I think that SCOTUS will try to pass the buck on the CA case. They may well find that those backing Prop 8 have no standing to argue the case and throw it back. It seems that they really don’t want to declare gay marriage a Constitutional right for all. They tend to not want to enforce social behaviour when majority of states don’t support that stand, but they may surprise yet. They have more problems with DOMA. It is Federal law and not state law. Also it denies rights to people who are legally married in some states. I think here that they will decide that state rights take precedent over Federal and say that DOMA is void.

I tend to agree.  My wager is “no standing” on Prop 8, leaving the lower court ruling in place for California while striking DOMA with as narrow language as possible.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Considering the arguments & open speculation, it seems the war on gay marriage is effectively over. There will be diehards but it is a zombie in the bright light of day.

[btomba_77]

Quote from Noah’sArk

? DOMA struck down but Ca has to deal with prop 8

Quote from dergon

Quote from Raddocmed

I think that SCOTUS will try to pass the buck on the CA case. They may well find that those backing Prop 8 have no standing to argue the case and throw it back. It seems that they really don’t want to declare gay marriage a Constitutional right for all. They tend to not want to enforce social behaviour when majority of states don’t support that stand, but they may surprise yet. They have more problems with DOMA. It is Federal law and not state law. Also it denies rights to people who are legally married in some states. I think here that they will decide that state rights take precedent over Federal and say that DOMA is void.

I tend to agree.  My wager is “no standing” on Prop 8, leaving the lower court ruling in place for California while striking DOMA with as narrow language as possible.

Well, yes.  But California wouldn’t have to “deal with” Prop 8 much at all.    The lower court found the law unconstitutional.
 
The appeals court questioned standing and referred the case to the Supreme Court.  If SCOTUS agreees that the Prop 8 defenders had no rigfht to challenge the lower court ruling then the lower court ruling would stand with no option for appeal….. and Prop 8 would quietly go away.

[eyoab2011_711]

SCOTUS will always chose to duck and obfuscate if given the choice

[odayjassim1978_476]

which may be best??? Cali created the prop 8 issue. with respect to DOGMA, you can have some states with legalized same sex getting fed benefits and not other states for that may create a mass influx into some states and not others.  Law/ SCOTUS is imho to simplify issues not create more. 
Now will they allow in the end CO/ WA to keep their state’s right for legalization of cannabis and will North Dakota’s state right be upheld with respect to abortion.  At some point the SCOTUS has to dictate the policy just to simplify things..just my 2 cents

Quote from dergon

Quote from Noah’sArk

? DOMA struck down but Ca has to deal with prop 8

Quote from dergon

Quote from Raddocmed

I think that SCOTUS will try to pass the buck on the CA case. They may well find that those backing Prop 8 have no standing to argue the case and throw it back. It seems that they really don’t want to declare gay marriage a Constitutional right for all. They tend to not want to enforce social behavior when majority of states don’t support that stand, but they may surprise yet. They have more problems with DOMA. It is Federal law and not state law. Also it denies rights to people who are legally married in some states. I think here that they will decide that state rights take precedent over Federal and say that DOMA is void.

I tend to agree.  My wager is “no standing” on Prop 8, leaving the lower court ruling in place for California while striking DOMA with as narrow language as possible.

Well, yes.  But California wouldn’t have to “deal with” Prop 8 much at all.    The lower court found the law unconstitutional.

The appeals court questioned standing and referred the case to the Supreme Court.  If SCOTUS agrees that the Prop 8 defenders had no rigfht to challenge the lower court ruling then the lower court ruling would stand with no option for appeal….. and Prop 8 would quietly go away.

[Unknown Member]

I am for gay marriage only if polygamy marriage is allowed. You can’t be one and not the other. Muslims and other religions should have the right to marry multiple wives if gays are allowed to marry. Why not? This is the issue with gay marriage imo it opens up a whole can to worms. Ask the supporters if polygamy should be allowed and then they cringe. Why. Freedom of religion right ?

[kayla.meyer_144]

Why? What’s the connection? There is no domino theory of today, gay marriage, tomorrow polygamy, then … What would the rationale be?

[btomba_77]

Quote from Frumious

Why? What’s the connection? There is no domino theory of today, gay marriage, tomorrow polygamy, then … What would the rationale be?

 
It is certainly a legitimate question if “equal protection” if basis on which prohibition of gay marriage is struck
 
[link=http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/28/175623980/in-light-of-high-court-arguments-what-does-gay-marriage-tells-us-about-polygamy]http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/28/175623980/in-light-of-high-court-arguments-what-does-gay-marriage-tells-us-about-polygamy[/link]
 

Sotomayor asked Ted Olson, the lawyer asking the court to repeal California’s ban on gay marriage, that if he was right and “marriage is a fundamental right” could any state restrictions ever exist. In other words, does declaring gay marriage a civil right, pave the way to legalization of, say, polygamy?
[link=http://www.npr.org/2013/03/26/175351429/audio-supreme-court-arguments-on-california-gay-marriage-ban]Olson responded[/link]:
[blockquote]
“You’ve said in the cases decided by this Court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing. And if you if a State prohibits polygamy, it’s prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status. It’s selecting them as a class, as you described in the Romer case and as you described in the Lawrence case and in other cases, you’re picking out a group of individuals to deny them the freedom that you’ve said is fundamental, important and vital in this society, and it has status and stature, as you pointed out in the VMI case.”

[/blockquote] During the second hearing, which considered the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, attorney Paul Clement took the opposing position, saying the government has the right to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
“If you look at historically, not only has the Federal Government defined marriage for its own purposes distinctly in the context of particular particular programs, it’s also intervened in in other areas, including in-state prerogatives,” [link=http://www.npr.org/2013/03/27/175456870/transcript-supreme-court-arguments-on-defense-of-marriage-act]Clement siad[/link]. “I mean, there’s a reason that four state constitutions include a prohibition on polygamy. It’s because the Federal Congress insisted on them.”
 
 
….
 
Turley said that polygamy is now where gay marriage was a decade ago, [link=http://web.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/commentary/lawvtex]when Supreme Court decided Lawrence v. Texas[/link], which stopped states from prohibiting sexual acts between same-sex couples. The implication is that polygamy will move forward in time.
 
“You cannot defend a new civil liberty, while denying it to others. I think there’s a grander more magnificent trend that can see in the law and that is this right to be left alone,” Turley said. “People have a right to establish their families as long as they don’t harm others.”

 
 
 
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Let polygamy be brought up as an argument then. I side with Olson’s argument regarding the history of sexual exploitation & child marriages with polygamy. The history of “consenting adults” with polygamy & equality is definitely in question, not to mention property & child rights questions, etc. The assumption is also that the man is the head of the harem. Why not a woman having multiple husbands? Or maybe soon, multiple husbands or multiple wives in gay polygamy. The arguments can get into the supremely silly territory with opponents arguing that allowing gays to marry would also open the gates to adult-child marriages or “inter-species” marriages. I don’t know about you but “consenting” part of “consenting adults” usually doesn’t apply to children or my dog or horse, or as in the movie “Clerks 2,” donkeys.
 
Why isn’t the polygamy question along with the rest in the truly weird categories seen as nothing but a squalid attempt to throw a monkey wrench into the works, nothing more?
 
But right now it’s the question of equality for gays, not polygamists or other strange examples. As Kagan asked, what was the purpose of DOMA, to protect marriage or was it born out of animus & fear?
 
 

[Unknown Member]

This entire “slippery slope” concept is nuts. Why not have better gun registration- because they will use roles to take guns away. That with absolutely nobody even suggesting taking anybodiy’s gun away. Gay marriage will lead to leagl bestiality. Why not ban any feeding of children because it could lead to future crime, drug use etc. If no baby is fed then there will be no chance for future problems.
I see no reason to have a debate about polygamy. I think that as practised by many now that it could be shown to either have no real problems or be very harmful depending on which group is evaluated. Polygamy is the norm for much of the world. What I do think is that if you do allow polygamy you would have define it between consenting adults. I would argue that is needed even for traditional marriage. I don’t agree with selling a 12 yo for marriage even if one female and one male. If society can’t find a societal reason to ban polygamy then what is the problem. If there is a problem then you could ban it based on that problem.
When both Limbaugh and O’Reilly claim the issue is dead and in favor of gay marriage it says something.

[Unknown Member]

[accidental dupe, sorry]

[Unknown Member]

The irony is that gay marriage will actaully STABILIZE the institution of marriage from its current skyrocketing instability including rampant infidelity and divorce rate (over 50%) in the current heterosexual fiasco. Gays currently are demonstrating half the divorce rate of heterosexual marriages. As far as I can tell, the much more solid gay marriage paradigm may actaully create a model of the family unit that will serve as a role model for heterosexual marriages. This stability in social and economic structure will only stand to please the government at all levels, as well as the commercial industry (better economic stability) and even the church, which I assume is lamenting at the current heterosexual divorce rate.

Yet another example of how extreme conservatives are arguing aainst their own best interest (unless marriage fidelity really is NOT in their best interest, which clearly is an arguable point these days).

[ruszja]

Sounded like they are going to strike down DOMA but dont see a reason to interfere with individual states definition of marriage.

[Unknown Member]

Well if they do strike down DOMA, ten depending on the wording of the dissent any state law that contradicts it could be construed as a court case for the violation of rights permitted by equal protection.
 
I guess we’ll soon find out.