DOMA shot down

catocom

catocom

Well-Known Member
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-strikes-down-defense-marriage-act-provision/

Some may be confused by my stance, as I consider myslef Consevative.
While I personally think 'marriage' IS between a man ans a woman, because
it's ordained by God, I agree with the SCOTUS.
I also being a Libertarian think the Fed shouldn't be involved in the 'marriage business' period.
Now that said, I understand that there should be court intervention where children are
concerned where like a 'couple' split up, but as far as monetary issues, IMHO ALL those
laws should be repealed, and the feds get out.
If states want to make, or keep there individual laws, I think that's fine atm, but I really feel the same
as with the feds.

I've seen certain cases where a partner couldn't visit a patient in a hospital.
I never thought that was right whether it was just a friend, or same sex partner.
There are other, what I consider, basic human rights also that should be fixed along those lines.
That's why (and it's just a matter of semantics to some, but not to me) Marriage
is ONLY between a man and a woman.

Also, while I'm not a Mormon, and I see certain problems with polygamy,
I have a somewhat unique view on that which I won't go into now.
 
People need to stop viewing it as if its morally right then its constitutional. Two separate issues. DOMA is unconstitutional but Prop 8 is constitutional. However, they did not rule on the constitutionality of Prop 8. I don't quite understand what the ruling is about. Seems like some sort of technicality.
 
catocom said:
Also, while I'm not a Mormon, and I see certain problems with polygamy,
I have a somewhat unique view on that which I won't go into now.
Click to expand...


oh you gotta give us the dirt on that.

er wait was this the thing about you and yer brother sharing a wife er something? wasn't there some sort of family angle?
 
catocom said:
I've seen certain cases where a partner couldn't visit a patient in a hospital.
Click to expand...


That's a crock of shit, assuming the "couple" are serious. Powers of Attorney can be signed & filed. Problem solved.

I kind of agree with Goth....DOMA, which I had no problem with, is a federal law where none need be...EXCEPT, it does legally limit where federal dollars/benefits go...so, if a lesbian IRS agent goes to a state & gets married to her lesbian lover, the feds can say they aren't giving the "spouse" government health insurance
 
how in the fuck could you be a strict constructionist and not have a problem with DOMA?

oh, right...

Gotholic said: ↑
1. People need to stop viewing it as if its morally right then its constitutional.​
LOL.
 
Go back & read what I wrote. One sentence explains the moral dilemma
 
2minkey said:
LOL.
Click to expand...

What is so funny? I have had talks with liberals and conservatives on the matter. When I ask those on the left if they think DOMA is constitutional, they say no. When I ask why, they say its because they believe gays should be able to marry. When I ask those on the right, same answer but in the inverse. Both sides approach the situation incorrectly.

The constitution does not grant the Federal government the authority to define marriage, nor does it grant it the authority to ban anything. Only states may ban things in accordance with the constitution. That is why DOMA is unconstitutional but Prop 8 is constitutional.
 
Gonz said:
That's a crock of shit, assuming the "couple" are serious. Powers of Attorney can be signed & filed. Problem solved.

I kind of agree with Goth....DOMA, which I had no problem with, is a federal law where none need be...EXCEPT, it does legally limit where federal dollars/benefits go...so, if a lesbian IRS agent goes to a state & gets married to her lesbian lover, the feds can say they aren't giving the "spouse" government health insurance
Click to expand...

Perhaps to rectify the situation either take away federal benefits, or have federal benefits be given to married couples dictated by the states own laws on marriage.
 
prop 8 violates basic freedoms of life liberty et al.

this isn't some bullshit line item. this is people being able to make their own life choices.

why do you want to restrict the freedom of others based on your own beliefs?
 
2minkey said:
prop 8 violates basic freedoms of life liberty et al.

this isn't some bullshit line item. this is people being able to make their own life choices.

why do you want to restrict the freedom of others based on your own beliefs?
Click to expand...

It doesn't violate basic freedoms. It's important to remember marriage is and never was a right. The institution of marriage is, in principle, about procreation. As Alan Keyes eloquently explains:

 
Gonz said:
That's a crock of shit, assuming the "couple" are serious. Powers of Attorney can be signed & filed. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
well it may be Now.
I actually didn't say when I saw it....it was over 25 years ago.
I guess that's along the same lines as why scotus did away with the redistricting thing.
Times change some things. (in society's view).
 
Gotholic said:
It doesn't violate basic freedoms. It's important to remember marriage is and never was a right. The institution of marriage is, in principle, about procreation. As Alan Keyes eloquently explains:
Click to expand...


it does violate basic freedoms. if you don't think it does, fine, but keep your bullshit the fuck away from me. i don't need the gov to enumerate a right to marriage. i also don't need the gov to enumerate a right to use oxygen in the air. you're so hung up on fascist-literalist interpretations that you just sound ridiculous.

alan keyes is a sack of monkey shit.

"as he so eloquently..."

sweet fucking jesus, maybe you should build a shrine to him.
 
Gonz said:
Go back & read what I wrote. One sentence explains the moral dilemma
Click to expand...

noted.

you sure do have to elaborate some absurd shit to try to make a point.

i had never considered the interstate lesbian IRS benefit distribution question before. LOL.

if i marry a baboon can i get coverage for it too?

how long can gotholic stay on his parents' policy if he moves out of state?
 
2minkey said:
it does violate basic freedoms. if you don't think it does, fine, but keep your bullshit the fuck away from me. i don't need the gov to enumerate a right to marriage. i also don't need the gov to enumerate a right to use oxygen in the air. you're so hung up on fascist-literalist interpretations that you just sound ridiculous.

alan keyes is a sack of monkey shit.

"as he so eloquently..."

sweet fucking jesus, maybe you should build a shrine to him.
Click to expand...

You can only fight for them to be "married" at the sate level since the Federal government doesn't have the authority to do so. The definition of marriage does not encompass homosexuals. It is not a "fascist-literalist interpretation". The facts do not support your attempt to include homosexuals.

Marriage is not a protected right by the Constitution.
 
Gotholic said:
The constitution does not grant the Federal government the authority to define marriage, nor does it grant it the authority to ban anything. Only states may ban things in accordance with the constitution.
Click to expand...

Granted. Every time a state has given its citizens a vote on this matter, the citizens have declined to allow homosexual marriage. Every time they have denied homosexual marriage, a federal court has overturned that vote. So, Congress did what they are allowed to do, in order to assuage the voters & move to overturn a court decision, it passed a law.

Get government out of marriage. That is the only solution.
 
2minkey said:
prop 8 violates basic freedoms of life liberty et al.
Click to expand...

Does it? Why, in the two hundred & twenty four years before this political game came into being, was this never an issue? In most states, you cannot marry without a state issued license, and in many, if not most, states, the woman must take a blood test. So, are these states violating the woman's right? How about her to-be husbands?

This issue is nothing but political meandering. It's a continuation of the radical changes that began deteriorating the family, starting back in the late 60's, early 70's.
 
catocom said:
well it may be Now.
I actually didn't say when I saw it....it was over 25 years ago.
I guess that's along the same lines as why scotus did away with the redistricting thing.
Times change some things. (in society's view).
Click to expand...


Powers of attorney have been around a very long time. Most folks don't bother
 
Gotholic said:
You can only fight for them to be "married" at the sate level since the Federal government doesn't have the authority to do so. The definition of marriage does not encompass homosexuals. It is not a "fascist-literalist interpretation". The facts do not support your attempt to include homosexuals.

Marriage is not a protected right by the Constitution.
Click to expand...


not in your fascist/literalist interpretation. bringing up "facts" when it's obviously an issue of interpretation is the dead giveaway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top