A Crack In The DOMA

[oirg]

http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2012/05/31/federal-appeals-court-boston-rules-defense-marriage-act-unconstitutional/cAEWI0tDSz8m1lsLN5fwAN/story.html

federal appeals court in Boston today declared unconstitutional the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union of only a man and a woman.

“We won,’’ said Laura Kiritsy, spokeswoman for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Boston-based advocacy group that had challenged the 1996 law.

The federal law, known as DOMA, defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman when it comes to federal laws and regulations, consequently limiting federal benefits such as Social Security survivor benefits and the ability to file joint taxes to heterosexual couples.

Today’s ruling by the First US Circuit Court of Appeals likely sets the stage for the issue of same-sex marriage to finally be explored by the US Supreme Court, nine years after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court became the first court in the Western Hemisphere to approve same-sex marriages.

:clap:

[FormLetter]

What happens then if all the relevant federal agencies, after DOMA is declared unconstitutional, go into their regs and revise them so that wherever it now says "married", they replace it with "married to a member of the opposite sex"?

[Standtall]

As much as I dislike the DOMA and what it stands for, I hate it when courts do what legislators should be doing.

[Loner]

What happens then if all the relevant federal agencies, after DOMA is declared unconstitutional, go into their regs and revise them so that wherever it now says "married", they replace it with "married to a member of the opposite sex"?

Equal protection violation.

[Standtall]

Equal protection violation.

married to a member of the opposite sex

Who do you think is not treated equally by this wording?

[Loner]

married to a member of the opposite sex

Who do you think is not treated equally by this wording?

If that wording weren't problematic, DOMA itself wouldn't be problematic. You can't make distinctions based on gender without a compelling interest. DOMA has already failed that test, and there's no argument on the regulations that hasn't already been made for DOMA.

[SirVLCIV]

As much as I dislike the DOMA and what it stands for, I hate it when courts do what legislators should be doing.

When legislators refuse to do their job in accordance to the Constitution, I don't mind when the courts do their job in upholding the Constitution.

[SirVLCIV]

If that wording weren't problematic, DOMA itself wouldn't be problematic. You can't make distinctions based on gender without a compelling interest. DOMA has already failed that test, and there's no argument on the regulations that hasn't already been made for DOMA.

Bolded is key.

[FashionableFedora]

Bolded is key.

Any reason a state should get to dictate who gets federal benefits? Seems like a federal function.

[SirVLCIV]

Any reason a state should get to dictate who gets federal benefits? Seems like a federal function.

federal appeals court.

[SirVLCIV]

Appeals Court Judge Michael Boudin wrote the unanimous decision for a three-judge panel.

“Invalidating a federal statute is an unwelcome responsibility for federal judges; the elected Congress speaks for the entire nation, its judgment and good faith being entitled to utmost respect,’’ he wrote. “But a lower federal court such as ours must follow its best understanding of governing precedent, knowing that in large matters the Supreme Court will correct mis-readings.”

Boudin noted that if DOMA is left intact, then same-sex couples legally married in Massachusetts are being denied federal benefits routinely provided to heterosexual couples. That, he said, cannot withstand legal scrutiny.

“Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress’ denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest,’’ he wrote.

“To conclude,” he added, “many Americans believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and most Americans live in states where that is the law today. One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage.’’.

[FashionableFedora]

The judge made my point. It's state law that says who can get married. That's well and good, except when state laws give legal entitlement to federal benefits. In those cases, the federal government should get to make qualifications of who qualifies and who doesn't. States can't dictate to the feds.

[Loner]

The judge made my point. It's state law that says who can get married. That's well and good, except when state laws give legal entitlement to federal benefits. In those cases, the federal government should get to make qualifications of who qualifies and who doesn't. States can't dictate to the feds.

What the feds decides was that married people got it. State determines who's married. Which is how it's always been. The feds, absent a federal marriage amendment, do not get to make that determination.

[FashionableFedora]

What the feds decides was that married people got it. State determines who's married. Which is how it's always been. The feds, absent a federal marriage amendment, do not get to make that determination.

I think your argument and mine both have merit, guess it's up to the SC to decide. Wouldn't be shocked either way it goes.

[Loner]

I just hope Anthony Kennedy wakes up on the right side of history the morning he hears the case.

[Standtall]

If that wording weren't problematic, DOMA itself wouldn't be problematic. You can't make distinctions based on gender without a compelling interest. DOMA has already failed that test, and there's no argument on the regulations that hasn't already been made for DOMA.

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.

I don't see your wording in the 14th.

[Standtall]

When legislators refuse to do their job in accordance to the Constitution, I don't mind when the courts do their job in upholding the Constitution.

Which part of the constitution says they need to allow gay marriage?

[Standtall]

What the feds decides was that married people got it. State determines who's married. Which is how it's always been. The feds, absent a federal marriage amendment, do not get to make that determination.

Can the Federal Government set the age at which people can get married without parental consent too?

[notreallyme]

Can the Federal Government set the age at which people can get married without parental consent too?

I don't think they can ...do you think differently?

[notreallyme]

Which part of the constitution says they need to allow gay marriage?

That's not how it works.

[Standtall]

I don't think they can ...do you think differently?

I do not.

[Standtall]

That's not how it works.

I agree with you.

[Loner]

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.

I don't see your wording in the 14th.

If Robert and Jane are married and received benefits based on marital status, and Roberta and Maxine are married but denied marital benefits because they fail the "one male plus one female" test, they're not equal under the law - their marriage is being segregated based on an immutable characteristic. They are not receiving the equal protection of the law.

It's really pretty simple.

[Wigmeister General]

... and polygamy is next. After that, incest. After that, no age restrictions. After that, no restrictions whatsoever.

[Loner]

Can the Federal Government set the age at which people can get married without parental consent too?

We've been over why that is a fundamentally different question so many times in so many threads that at this point, all I can tell you is:

THERE...ARE...FOUR...LIGHTS!

Get over it.

[Standtall]

If Robert and Jane are married and received benefits based on marital status, and Roberta and Maxine are married but denied marital benefits because they fail the "one male plus one female" test, they're not equal under the law - their marriage is being segregated based on an immutable characteristic. They are not receiving the equal protection of the law.

It's really pretty simple.

I agree. I do not agree that it is automatic that Roberta and Maxine need to be allowed to get "married" or need to be treated as "married" if a Governmental body determines that that is not a marriage.

For example, I am single. I would love to marry my lamp and claim it as a dependent, but the Government doesn't need to recognize that. i.e. the Government DOES decide what a marriage is.

I am not saying a gay marriage is the same as a man and a lamp marriage. If you want to go down that tangent, well have fun.

[Loner]

Even if you didn't buy the equal protection argument, you're left with :In declaring some marriages that are legal in their state of origin void for federal purposes the feds are asserting a power that is not given it in the constitution and not prohibited to the states. So it resided in the states or the people, not the feds, and is unconstitutional on its face.

[Standtall]

In declaring some marriages that are legal in their state of origin void for federal purposes the feds are asserting a power that is not given it in the constitution and not prohibited to the states. So it resided in the states or the people, not the feds.

This is an interesting point. The state says they are married and the Feds say they are not.

The problem is what do you do with a couple married in Mass and then move Texas? Force Texas to accept the Mass law?

It is only a matter of time until same sex marriage is not a problem. I still think it is a legislator thing rather than a legal thing, but I see your point.

Does a same sex couple in Mass get to file married on Federal return?

[Standtall]

Even if you didn't buy the equal protection argument, you're left with :In declaring some marriages that are legal in their state of origin void for federal purposes the feds are asserting a power that is not given it in the constitution and not prohibited to the states. So it resided in the states or the people, not the feds, and is unconstitutional on its face.

I see you edited, and again, this is a more interesting argument.

[Loner]

Apparently before Loving v. Virginia that's the way it was. You were married in one state and not in the next. I don't know what they did about things like SS, I imagine the couples as a practical matter only lived where it was legal. (It's certainly the case that there are parts of the country most gay couples will not entertain residing.) Maybe that's the way it will go down over the next decade or three.

[Standtall]

Apparently before Loving v. Virginia that's the way it was. You were married in one state and not in the next. I don't know what they did about things like SS, I imagine the couples as a practical matter only lived where it was legal. (It's certainly the case that there are parts of the country most gay couples will not entertain residing.) Maybe that's the way it will go down over the next decade or three.

Hopefully it doesn't take that long.

[BigBen]

... and polygamy is next. After that, incest. After that, no age restrictions. After that, no restrictions whatsoever.

Human sacrifice, cats and dogs living together... mass hysteria!!

[notreallyme]

... and polygamy is next. After that, incest. After that, no age restrictions. After that, no restrictions whatsoever.

:ohnoes:

I'm assuming satire but ... Just think if we let women vote what's next cats and dogs voting?

[notreallyme]

married to a member of the opposite sex

Who do you think is not treated equally by this wording?

Do you think married to a member of the same race would also be OK? How about oppostie race? (Talk about a diversity enhancer!! <--don't tell the libs they might go for it)

[Standtall]

Do you think married to a member of the same race would also be OK? How about oppostie race? (Talk about a diversity enhancer!! <--don't tell the libs they might go for it)

What are you talking about now?

[Mog]

he's saying that to compare marrying someone of the opposite sex to marrying a lamp is stupid, and it's much more appropriate to compare marrying someone of the opposite sex to marrying someone of another race, religion, etc.

[Mog]

which, by the way, we allow (AFAIK)

[Standtall]

he's saying that to compare marrying someone of the opposite sex to marrying a lamp is stupid, and it's much more appropriate to compare marrying someone of the opposite sex to marrying someone of another race, religion, etc.

I think there is a line. My personal line would be one where the following types of marriages would be ok:

Straight marriage
Gay marriage
Polygamy
Incest
Man and his cow
Man and his lamp
Woman and her coffee table
:judge:

Of course, there would be zero legal ramifications to being married in an ideal world.

Given that we have some stuff in place, I would limit it to humans only. i.e. the top 4 categories are all fine.

As an aside: Woman and a lamp would just be wrong.

[ADoubleDot]

So you're more ok with men marrying inanimate objects than women??? misogynist :shake:

[Standtall]

So you're more ok with men marrying inanimate objects than women??? misogynist :shake:

Nope. A woman can marry a coffee table and obviously that would make no sense for a man. :rolleyes:

[Mr. B]

So, that sleazeball Slick Willie signed an unconstitutional law? Doesn't surprise me.

[Baby, ByeBye]

I'd approve of same sex marriage, polygamy, incest, bestiality.

[Pseudolus]

When legislators refuse to do their job in accordance to the Constitution, I don't mind when the courts do their job in upholding the Constitution.

Couple questions:

At what point did restricting the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples become un-Constitutional? (Note that this is different from "when did courts notice that it had become un-Constitutional?".)

Was that Constitutional change done on purpose? Did the folks voting for it realize "hey, right now we're saying that two dudes/gals can get married"? Did they just not tell anyone? Did they accidentally do something as fundamental radically redefine marriage?

Or does the above seem ludicrous, and more likely, did none of that happen and, really, courts are just making reasons up to impose their own political judgement on the rest of us?

[Entropy]

In before rollercoaster.

[Bicycle Repair Man]

Couple questions:

At what point did restricting the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples become un-Constitutional? (Note that this is different from "when did courts notice that it had become un-Constitutional?".)

Was that Constitutional change done on purpose? Did the folks voting for it realize "hey, right now we're saying that two dudes/gals can get married"? Did they just not tell anyone? Did they accidentally do something as fundamental radically redefine marriage?

Or does the above seem ludicrous, and more likely, did none of that happen and, really, courts are just making reasons up to impose their own political judgement on the rest of us?
Laws were passed that made it illegal to discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation. The logical conclusion derived from those laws, and the laws about marriage and equal protection, is that marriage licences should be given to any two people of any combination of gender.

Either the court must strike down the laws banning gay marriage, or they must strike down the laws forbidding discrimination by gender/orientation, or they must strike down the laws which allow government to issue marriage licences in the first place.

To be perfectly honest, as a libertarian I would be cool with any of those three actions, or any combination or even all three.

[Pseudolus]

Laws were passed that made it illegal to discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation. The logical conclusion derived from those laws, and the laws about marriage and equal protection, is that marriage licences should be given to any two people of any combination of gender.
So your position is the "accident" one? That 'gay marriage' was legalized decades ago, and, just, no one noticed until recently?

Can you imagine someone back in those days standing up and saying, "You know, legally and logically speaking, passing this is equivalent to saying any two people can get 'married', even if they're both the same sex"? The people in favor of those laws, the good progressive liberals who wanted to end discrimination would have called that up-stander a liar and a demogogue, said that he was crazily and dishonestly misinterpreting their proposal in order to try to defeat them. But now such a then-crazy and then-dishonest argument is being made by the good progressive liberals themselves. Wacky world we live in, innit?

[FormLetter]

... and polygamy is next. After that, incest. After that, no age restrictions. After that, no restrictions whatsoever.

What is wrong with polygamy?

Age has some more merit because of the likelihood of coercion.

[FormLetter]

Shortest path to minimal confusion and maximal individual liberty on the issue would be to get the federal government and state governments both out of marriage entirely. Marriage is whatever the participants in the marriage or the institution in which those participants created their marriage say it is, which may or may not include a contract between the participants (and possibly the institution too, which I had never contemplated before).

The only role government would have in marriage would be of contract enforcement in situations where a contract is involved.

Oh, and standards of weights and measures for those men that are lucky enough to get a vow from their wife/wives to not exceed certain levels of either while married.

[Entropy]

So your position is the "accident" one? That 'gay marriage' was legalized decades ago, and, just, no one noticed until recently?

Can you imagine someone back in those days standing up and saying, "You know, legally and logically speaking, passing this is equivalent to saying any two people can get 'married', even if they're both the same sex"? The people in favor of those laws, the good progressive liberals who wanted to end discrimination would have called that up-stander a liar and a demogogue, said that he was crazily and dishonestly misinterpreting their proposal in order to try to defeat them. But now such a then-crazy and then-dishonest argument is being made by the good progressive liberals themselves. Wacky world we live in, innit?

Change is scary for you, eh? You think the same thing happened when they realized marriage could include other races? What about when we as a nation realized that non-whites and women should be able to vote? Do you picture the same scenarios happening?

[Pseudolus]

Way to not engage the argument!

Also, I've priorly demonstrated how foolish the simple-minded analogy is with interracial marriage.

[Loner]

There's a long history of being slow to recognize various inalienable rights. This isn't the first time it's taken a while to do the right thing, and it won't be the last.

[Entropy]

Way to not engage the argument!

Also, I've priorly demonstrated how foolish the simple-minded analogy is with interracial marriage.

I thought your argument was that interpretations of laws and the people who support them change over time. Not only that but that the people who identify with a label or group also change over time and their views may not be the same as what came before them even though it is the same overarching label.

Was it something different?

Also, I've never seen your prior demonstration. Sorry. Although you should recognize that I wasn't necessarily equating them in the sense that they should both be recognized or anything, just that it is a very similar viewpoint that would demonstrate what I was getting at in the first paragraph.

Feel free to explain where I strayed instead of just claiming that I did.

[Loner]

Way to not engage the argument!

Also, I've priorly demonstrated how foolish the simple-minded analogy is with interracial marriage.

You've demonstrated your bigotry, not others' foolishness.

[notreallyme]

Way to not engage the argument!

Also, I've priorly demonstrated how foolish the simple-minded analogy is with interracial marriage.

You don't think they ever come up with laws / regulations without fully considering the implications of those laws / regulations? HA!!

[Len Myers]

You don't think they ever come up with laws / regulations without fully considering the implications of those laws / regulations? HA!!

SLYT (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfHnzYEHAow).

[phoebe]

Which part of the constitution says they need to allow gay marriage?The part that leaves all the rest to the states and the people.

Can the Federal Government set the age at which people can get married without parental consent too?
Traditionally, they have not. I don't think that's ever been tested in the courts since the Federal government has never challenged the states' right to set whatever age laws they like. Those laws vary widely from state to state, by the way.

The definition of marriage in the US was always left to the states until the passage of DOMA.

DOMA has two main parts. One part says the federal government can ignore certain legal marriages, and the second part says that the states don't have to recognize each others' marriages. Only the first part was challenged in this suit. I think it is pretty obvious that the first part is unconsitutional, or at least, a vast new intrusion of the federal government into states' rights for a purpose that is suspect based on previous interpretations of the constitutiona nd federal laws. I don't think it should be surprising that some judges appointed by republicans (the three were appointed by Reagan, Bush1, and Clinton, iirc) found it unconsitutional.

[Sentinel]

If Robert and Jane are married and received benefits based on marital status, and Roberta and Maxine are married but denied marital benefits because they fail the "one male plus one female" test, they're not equal under the law - their marriage is being segregated based on an immutable characteristic. They are not receiving the equal protection of the law.

It's really pretty simple.

I suppose by your argument incest marriage should be constitutionally protected.

Why should Bob not be allowed to marry his sister when the neighbor Ken can?

Why not actually insert those words into constitution using the amendment process instead of stretching them out of thin air?

[Sentinel]

The part that leaves all the rest to the states and the people.

So since states are required to recognize a marriage...there is no problem with the status quo?

[Baby, ByeBye]

I suppose by your argument incest marriage should be constitutionally protected.

Why should Bob not be allowed to marry his sister when the neighbor Ken can?

Why not actually insert those words into constitution using the amendment process instead of stretching them out of thin air?

I think most of us here do not oppose incest.

[Sentinel]

Change is scary for you, eh? You think the same thing happened when they realized marriage could include other races? What about when we as a nation realized that non-whites and women should be able to vote? Do you picture the same scenarios happening?

We adopted the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment prohibited racial discrimination. Those were adopted through the Constitution's amendment process.

They say nothing about gender identity/sexual orientation.

The Equal Rights Amendment was proposed in 1972 to deal with gender discrimination. It never passed (although was close).

Its disingenuous for those amendment supporters now to turn around and say it wasn't necessary and that the 14th amendment protected it already after their failure.

[Loner]

We adopted the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment prohibited racial discrimination. Those were adopted through the Constitution's amendment process.

They say nothing about gender identity/sexual orientation.

The Equal Rights Amendment was proposed in 1972 to deal with gender discrimination. It never passed (although was close).

Its disingenuous for those amendment supporters now to turn around and say it wasn't necessary and that the 14th amendment protected it already after their failure.

I'm glad we have time-traveling mind-readers to tell us when equal doesn't really mean equal.

[Sentinel]

I'm glad we have time-traveling mind-readers to tell us when equal doesn't really mean equal.

You have the right to marry an adult of the opposite gender. We all do.

The 13th, 14th, ad 15th amendment were explicit in banning racial and ethnic and previous slave-status discrimination.

This sexual orientation/gender identity is making stuff up out of thin air just like Roe v Wade.

[notreallyme]

You have the right to marry an adult of the opposite gender. We all do.

The 13th, 14th, ad 15th amendment were explicit in banning racial and ethnic and previous slave-status discrimination.

This sexual orientation/gender identity is making stuff up out of thin air just like Roe v Wade.

13th is slavery. (not applicable)

14th
Section 1. 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.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


15th (voting - not applicable)
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]



I read all 3 and I don't know what ur talking about :shrug:

[phoebe]

So since states are required to recognize a marriage...there is no problem with the status quo?I have no clue what your point is supposed to be.

Under the status quo, the states are not required to recognized a same-sex marriage created in another state. I think that is a problem, but it is not the issue that was recently challenged in federal court. I just mentioned it to point out that the specific portion of DOMA that was judged unconstitutional was the part where the Federal government decided to stop recognizing certain otherwise legal marriages as defined by the relevant states.

[Sentinel]

13th is slavery. (not applicable)

14th


15th (voting - not applicable)


I read all 3 and I don't know what ur talking about :shrug:

You see the word race in the 15th amendment.

Those amendments banned racial, previous slave status discrimination. It doesn't mention gender identity/alternate lifestyle discrimination. So if you want to push for that, read about the amendment process and start a legitimate movement.

[FormLetter]

The 15th pertained to the right to vote only.

[notreallyme]

You see the word race in the 15th amendment.

Those amendments banned racial, previous slave status discrimination. It doesn't mention gender identity/alternate lifestyle discrimination. So if you want to push for that, read about the amendment process and start a legitimate movement.

So what it's about voting ... not relevant.

[Blockhead]

I suppose by your argument incest marriage should be constitutionally protected.

Why should Bob not be allowed to marry his sister when the neighbor Ken can?

Why not actually insert those words into constitution using the amendment process instead of stretching them out of thin air?

The left takes great pain to avoid these questions, as an honest answer would burden them with that same "bigotry" label they use with such ironic hatred for anyone who disagrees with them. The intra-family issue is now becoming a more legitimate one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2147758/Forbidden-love-How-adults-reunite-lost-parents-risk-genetic-sexual-attraction.html

A proposition for marriage in these situations would be resoundingly defeated at the polls, just as one would for the group of 10 people living together (who decided 2 was the right number?). Progressives should also be decrying any benefits enjoyed by the individual in a marriage but not by the single person who never was able to find someone, or simply chose not to do so. But it's uncomfortable when you understand the necessity of drawing a line that would expose your own hypocrisy.

[BigBen]

The left takes great pain to avoid these questions, as an honest answer would burden them with that same "bigotry" label they use with such ironic hatred for anyone who disagrees with them. The intra-family issue is now becoming a more legitimate one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2147758/Forbidden-love-How-adults-reunite-lost-parents-risk-genetic-sexual-attraction.html

A proposition for marriage in these situations would be resoundingly defeated at the polls, just as one would for the group of 10 people living together (who decided 2 was the right number?). Progressives should also be decrying any benefits enjoyed by the individual in a marriage but not by the single person who never was able to find someone, or simply chose not to do so. But it's uncomfortable when you understand the necessity of drawing a line that would expose your own hypocrisy.

I don't really think too many here have a problem with incestuous marriages, provided they don't procreate.

You missed two major differences between same-sex and inter-familial marriages:

1) external victims - the offspring of incestuous relationships often pay the consequences of those relationships physically and genetically. This makes incest less acceptible in our society, as it harms an external party

2) visitation rights - many proponents of same-sex marriage recognition argue that it would be difficult to grant hospital visitation rights without a legal relationship. This would not be an issue in the case of incest, which is by definition a family relationship

[phoebe]

Couple questions:

At what point did restricting the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples become un-Constitutional? (Note that this is different from "when did courts notice that it had become un-Constitutional?".)I think it has always been unconstitutional for the federal government to over-ride state definitions of marriage unless they can justify it under some specific constutional reason. So there hasn't been any change.


You might want to ask when it became unconstitutional for some of the states to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples under the various state constitutions, though.

Was that Constitutional change done on purpose? Did the folks voting for it realize "hey, right now we're saying that two dudes/gals can get married"? Did they just not tell anyone? Did they accidentally do something as fundamental radically redefine marriage?

Or does the above seem ludicrous, and more likely, did none of that happen and, really, courts are just making reasons up to impose their own political judgement on the rest of us?Since there was no change in the Federal position (except for the unconstitutional passing of DOMA) the rest of this post doesn't make any sense.

Again, you might want to ask that question about various of the states. My guess is the answers will be different by state.

[EddieC]

You've demonstrated your bigotry, not others' foolishness.

this

[Sentinel]

I don't really think too many here have a problem with incestuous marriages, provided they don't procreate.

I and majority of Americans would oppose...maybe the far left on this site have no problem with it.



You missed two major differences between same-sex and inter-familial marriages:

1) external victims - the offspring of incestuous relationships often pay the consequences of those relationships physically and genetically. This makes incest less acceptible in our society, as it harms an external party

2) visitation rights - many proponents of same-sex marriage recognition argue that it would be difficult to grant hospital visitation rights without a legal relationship. This would not be an issue in the case of incest, which is by definition a family relationship

1) So well-being of a child is a legitimate reason to ban incest marriage, but liberals lecture everyone that fact gays can't produce children or theories of personal development consequences of gay couple raising a child should be irrelevant to question of whether the gay couples should get "equal protection of for marriage." Yeah, they are dripping with hypocrisy.

2) You can easily get around that without legalizing gay marriage, ...that is certainly not their end goal for gay lobby. Furthermore, not every relative is automatically given visitation rights.

[Baby, ByeBye]

I and majority of Americans would oppose...maybe the far left on this site have no problem with it.



1) So well-being of a child is a legitimate reason to ban incest marriage, but liberals lecture everyone that fact gays can't produce children or theories of personal development consequences of gay couple raising a child should be irrelevant to question of whether the gay couples should get "equal protection of for marriage." Yeah, they are dripping with hypocrisy.

2) You can easily get around that without legalizing gay marriage, ...that is certainly not their end goal for gay lobby. Furthermore, not every relative is automatically given visitation rights.

disagree. Most everyone around me have no problem with incest. As long as youre not clouded by your religious bs, there's little argument against controlled incest.

Also, all gays can have children. They're not infertile. And many do have their own children

[Sentinel]

disagree. Most everyone around me have no problem with incest. As long as youre not clouded by your religious bs, there's little argument against controlled incest.

The adult alternative lifestyle entertainment back bunker isn't a good sample of Americans. I hope hobbies aren't clouding views on the moral decay and abuse/destruction of familial institutions.


Also, all gays can have children. They're not infertile. And many do have their own children

Not with each other. One could argue deliberately bringing a child into a relationship where he or she cannot or loses touch with biological parent is immoral and harmful for child's development.

[Baby, ByeBye]

The adult alternative lifestyle entertainment back bunker isn't a good sample of Americans. I hope hobbies aren't clouding views on the moral decay and abuse/destruction of familial institutions.

what hobbies are you talking about? By people around me I meant people at work, which includes my peers and direct supervisors. And also everyone back in college had no problem with incest either, nor was there any objection to it during our contemporary moral issues class. There's simply 0 argument against incest. Saying incest is wrong by throwing around words like "moral decay" is just begging the question.


Not with each other. One could argue deliberately bringing a child into a relationship where he or she cannot or loses touch with biological parent is immoral and harmful for child's development.

You could try to argue, but you would fail.
First of all, not everyone wants kids. So arguing against gay marriage from a "having kids" perspective is just an utter waste of time. You inevitably have to resort to the "what if everyone was gay, then the world would end".

1. No it won't. Surrogates and artificial insemination exist.

2. That argument was fail to begin with. If everyone was women the world would end also. That doesn't mean being a woman is immoral or unfitting for marriage.

Secondly, as already explained, there are gays who do want kids. Just like there are straights who don't want kids. I fail to see how "kids" is an argument for marriage.

Also, why would it be immoral or "harmful" because a child does not grow up with his or her biological parents? Many adopted kids grow up perfectly fine, whether they have knowledge of being adopted or not.
Show us the statistics or stfu.

[independent]

As these threads get longer, this looks more appealing:

Shortest path to minimal confusion and maximal individual liberty on the issue would be to get the federal government and state governments both out of marriage entirely. Marriage is whatever the participants in the marriage or the institution in which those participants created their marriage say it is, which may or may not include a contract between the participants (and possibly the institution too, which I had never contemplated before).

The only role government would have in marriage would be of contract enforcement in situations where a contract is involved.

I can see that states would have laws concerning children - who is responsible for care and decisions. But that doesn't require talking about "marriage".

[Sentinel]

what hobbies are you talking about? By people around me I meant people at work, which includes my peers and direct supervisors. And also everyone back in college had no problem with incest either, nor was there any objection to it during our contemporary moral issues class. There's simply 0 argument against incest. Saying incest is wrong by throwing around words like "moral decay" is just begging the question.

You talk about incest relationships with your supervisors? Wow, where do you work, Hollywood? San Francisco?

Don't think former college classmates agreeing with you impresses anyone here. The same college friends who woke up wasted Saturday morning on top of a toilet bowl? I knew college philosophy professors who openly supported some form of slavery. When people take the world around you for granted and live in a cocoon, people are willing to express all sorts of crazy ideas,...as long as they think they're separated from the consequences.

You don't see anything immoral of legalizing giving state-sanctioned benefits to a relationship where a parent could hypothetically see an offspring as a future mate in the future? Do you understand how mixing familial relationship causes harm, confusion, and abuse to children. It's not a Philosophy 101 thought experiment. This is real life.

[Baby, ByeBye]

...Do you understand how mixing familial relationship causes harm, confusion, and abuse to children. It's not a Philosophy 101 thought experiment. This is real life.

Only as much as I can see kids of interracial parents being harmed, confused, and abused. Either show me evidence that this could happen, or stop speculating with your bigotry.

[SirVLCIV]

Which part of the constitution says they need to allow gay marriage?

10th amendment.

[Baby, ByeBye]

You talk about incest relationships with your supervisors? Wow, where do you work, Hollywood? San Francisco?


No, not San Francisco.I'm on the east coast (not NYC either). And yes, we talk about a lot of things during lunch. I don't think I've run into anyone yet who opposes incest aside from the biological concerns (which can be easily avoided).

[Standtall]

10th amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Oh, so the same part that gives everyone the right to marry their lamps?

[Baby, ByeBye]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Oh, so the same part that gives everyone the right to marry their lamps?

To be honest. I have nothing against people marrying their lamps. But what would be the point of making it a government sanctioned marriage? So that the lamp can have visitation rights and reduced taxes?

[Sentinel]

Do you believe people have a right to make the word marriage have some sort of defined meaning....or is any limitation considered unconstitutional bigotry to you?

[Baby, ByeBye]

Do you believe people have a right to make the word marriage have some sort of defined meaning....or is any limitation considered unconstitutional bigotry to you?

I find the fact that religious institution tries to hold a monopoly on the meaning of marriage bigoted. First of all, marriage goes way back before the creation of Christianity.

Secondly, meaning of words change all the time. TO say that you define it at one time and suddenly it's "set in stone", not to mention, the very meaning of the word holds a particular cultural and legal influence, is pure bigotry.

[swifthat]

Why don't homosexuals make up their own word, say, warriage. Then the government can give those who are warried the exact same rights/privileges/etc. as those who are married.

[Baby, ByeBye]

Why don't homosexuals make up their own word, say, warriage. Then the government can give those who are warried the exact same rights/privileges/etc. as those who are married.

why don't blacks go to black-only schools with equally qualified teachers.


why don't we just make a new dictionary for gay people with a completely new set of words

the fact that you create a different word signals a difference to the outsiders. also, homosexuals were brought up the same way heterosexuals are. "Marriage" depicts a certain homely emotion that a made-up word cannot replace.

[whisper]

As much as I dislike the DOMA and what it stands for, I hate it when courts do what legislators should be doing.

If legislators were doing what they should be doing, this law would never have been passed.

[Sentinel]

I find the fact that religious institution tries to hold a monopoly on the meaning of marriage bigoted. First of all, marriage goes way back before the creation of Christianity.

Secondly, meaning of words change all the time. TO say that you define it at one time and suddenly it's "set in stone", not to mention, the very meaning of the word holds a particular cultural and legal influence, is pure bigotry.

Nobody said anything about religious institution or Christianity. We're saying the general public has a right to define a legal relationship that is sanctioned by the state. The state should follow the will of the people without guidelines. If majority of the people think the best environment to raise future generation is one father one mother household, then that state should be consistent with that public demand. 30+ states have done so already. If you want to experiment with gay marriage approved by a state legislature (and not by public referendum I might add), there is New York. However, that shouldn't mean that Arizona has to acknowledge that relationship.

Your argument that marriage can change all the time and therefore we should continuously change it arbitrarily makes no sense. If the people don't decide through democratic process how to define the word, then who decides?

[swifthat]

why don't blacks go to black-only schools with equally qualified teachers.


why don't we just make a new dictionary for gay people with a completely new set of words

the fact that you create a different word signals a difference to the outsiders. also, homosexuals were brought up the same way heterosexuals are. "Marriage" depicts a certain homely emotion that a made-up word cannot replace.
Fair enough. I guess I'll throw that suggestion in the shredder.

[SirVLCIV]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Oh, so the same part that gives everyone the right to marry their lamps?

If states allow it, yes.

Your argument by absurdity is ridiculous.

[SirVLCIV]

Do you believe people have a right to make the word marriage have some sort of defined meaning....or is any limitation considered unconstitutional bigotry to you?

I don't give a shit what people want to make the word 'marriage' mean.

I want all citizens of the US, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, to have equal rights.

[whisper]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Oh, so the same part that gives everyone the right to marry their lamps?

:shake:

Really, your logic is poor.

The 9th amendment creates other rights. The 10th amendment creates the federal system. Defining what a marriage is was a power delegated to the States - and has always been a power delegated to the states.

That a power has been delegated to the states doesn't mean a right has been created.

[whisper]

Why don't homosexuals make up their own word, say, warriage. Then the government can give those who are warried the exact same rights/privileges/etc. as those who are married.

Because if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck - you might as well call it a duck.

[swifthat]

Because if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck - you might as well call it a duck.
Psh. I threw that idea out like, five minutes ago. Where have you been?

[phoebe]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Oh, so the same part that gives everyone the right to marry their lamps?If some state were to give people the right to marry their lamp, then that part of the constitution would require the Federal government to recognize those marriages, unless there was some sound constitutional reason not to.

Of course, since lamps can't enter into contracts in any state, it seems extremely unlikely that any state would give people the right to enter into marriage contracts with lamps. Surely you could have come up with a better example than that. Like incest, or polygamy. Those could actually happen.

(Currently, many states allow marriages that are would be illegal to enter into in other states due to incest statues. You can look up on-line which states allow you to marry your first cousin, for example. The Federal government recognizes all those marriages legally entered into in any state.)

Nobody said anything about religious institution or Christianity. We're saying the general public has a right to define a legal relationship that is sanctioned by the state. The state should follow the will of the people without guidelines. If majority of the people think the best environment to raise future generation is one father one mother household, then that state should be consistent with that public demand. 30+ states have done so already. If you want to experiment with gay marriage approved by a state legislature (and not by public referendum I might add), there is New York. However, that shouldn't mean that Arizona has to acknowledge that relationship.

Your argument that marriage can change all the time and therefore we should continuously change it arbitrarily makes no sense. If the people don't decide through democratic process how to define the word, then who decides?I'm confused. The people have decided, the same way they decide any other sort of law, through a messy mix of direct democracy, representative democracy, and a court system to keep everything consistent. The people in different states have reached different conclusions. Some states have allowed same-sex marriage, and others have banned it.

(And legislatures have confirmed same sex marriage in several states, some of which first got there through court cases.)

The part of DOMA that was overturned isn't the part that says Arizona doesn't have to recognize NY marriages. It is the part that says the Federal Government doesn't have to recognize NY marriages. The constitution and legal precedent pretty clearly leaves the definition of marriage to the states - the Fed is supposed to recognize marriage as it is defined by the states for Federal purposes. DOMA unconstitutionally prevents people legally married in NY from collecting spousal SS benefits, from being married next to their spouse in military cemeteries and various other FEDERAL privileges granted to spouses. That's the part that was unanimously overturned by this ruling.

[Standtall]

If legislators were doing what they should be doing, this law would never have been passed.

I agree with you 100%. We should be putting pressure on legislators to do the right thing.

[Standtall]

I don't give a shit what people want to make the word 'marriage' mean.

I want all citizens of the US, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, to have equal rights.

:lol:

[Standtall]

:shake:

Really, your logic is poor.

The 9th amendment creates other rights. The 10th amendment creates the federal system. Defining what a marriage is was a power delegated to the States - and has always been a power delegated to the states.

That a power has been delegated to the states doesn't mean a right has been created.

Under the law, no U.S. state or political subdivision is required to recognize a same-sex marriage treated as a marriage in another state.

So Texas doesn't want gay marriage to be allowed, Mass does. Doesn't this law help enforce Texas' right to define marriage the way they want?

[Standtall]

If some state were to give people the right to marry their lamp, then that part of the constitution would require the Federal government to recognize those marriages, unless there was some sound constitutional reason not to.

Of course, since lamps can't enter into contracts in any state, it seems extremely unlikely that any state would give people the right to enter into marriage contracts with lamps. Surely you could have come up with a better example than that. Like incest, or polygamy. Those could actually happen.


I am not tryind to defend man/lamp marriage. I am pointing out that the amendment being used to defend it doesn't do what it was being claimed to do.

[whisper]

So Texas doesn't want gay marriage to be allowed, Mass does. Doesn't this law help enforce Texas' right to define marriage the way they want?

Nope.

What it does is prevent Mass from defining gay marriage as legitimate and didn't change in any way how Texas defines marriage.

[Loner]

I am not tryind to defend man/lamp marriage. I am pointing out that the amendment being used to defend it doesn't do what it was being claimed to do.

Well, yeah, when you keep misstating other people's claims, it's easy to refute them.

[Standtall]

Nope.

What it does is prevent Mass from defining gay marriage as legitimate and didn't change in any way how Texas defines marriage.

Under the law, no U.S. state or political subdivision is required to recognize a same-sex marriage treated as a marriage in another state.

I don't understand how this law doesn't protect Texas' rights to be wrong about this.

[Standtall]

Well, yeah, when you keep misstating other people's claims, it's easy to refute them.

I disagree that the constitution gives anyone the right to gay marriage.

I also think that gay marriage should be legal and will pretty soon become legal.

The fight needs to be one in the world of public opinion and politically. Obama's coming out in favor was huge! Fighting it in court is not a winning strategy and deflects attention away from the winning strategy.

[whisper]

Under the law, no U.S. state or political subdivision is required to recognize a same-sex marriage treated as a marriage in another state

I don't understand how this law doesn't protect Texas' rights to be wrong about this.

:2pac:

Prior to the law, no U.S. state or political subdivision was required to recognize a same-sex marriage treated as a marriage in another state. After the law, no U.S. state or political subdivision was required to recognize a same-sex marriage treated as a marriage in another state. The law did NOTHING to change this fact.

What the law DID do was prevent states that wanted to recognize same sex marriages as valid from doing so.

[Standtall]

:2pac:

Prior to the law, no U.S. state or political subdivision was required to recognize a same-sex marriage treated as a marriage in another state. After the law, no U.S. state or political subdivision was required to recognize a same-sex marriage treated as a marriage in another state. The law did NOTHING to change this fact.

What the law DID do was prevent states that wanted to recognize same sex marriages as valid from doing so.

My google search told me differently.

I thought same sex marriage was valid in Mass currently with DOMA still in place. Is this not true?

[Incredible Hulctuary]

I don't give a shit what people want to make the word 'marriage' mean.

I want all citizens of the US, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, to have equal rights.

Including single people?

Government benefits reserved for married people amount to discrimination against single people. For example, as a single person I can't name any adult to receive survivor benefits for Social Security, but married people can name their spouse, without having to pay more into SS for that survivor benefit or having their living benefits reduced to adjust for the joint-and-survivor nature of the survivor benefit. And married people upon death can pass on unlimited assets to their spouse tax-free, while single people can't name anybody at all to receive a tax-free inheritance without limitation.

[Standtall]

Including single people?

Government benefits reserved for married people amount to discrimination against single people. For example, as a single person I can't name any adult to receive survivor benefits for Social Security, but married people can name their spouse, without having to pay more into SS for that survivor benefit or having their living benefits reduced to adjust for the joint-and-survivor nature of the survivor benefit. And married people upon death can pass on unlimited assets to their spouse tax-free, while single people can't name anybody at all to receive a tax-free inheritance without limitation.

I will wait hear for him to say you have the same right to marry. :popcorn:

[Baby, ByeBye]

Including single people?

Government benefits reserved for married people amount to discrimination against single people. For example, as a single person I can't name any adult to receive survivor benefits for Social Security, but married people can name their spouse, without having to pay more into SS for that survivor benefit or having their living benefits reduced to adjust for the joint-and-survivor nature of the survivor benefit. And married people upon death can pass on unlimited assets to their spouse tax-free, while single people can't name anybody at all to receive a tax-free inheritance without limitation.

I agree with this actually. I think married people receiving benefits at all is the dumb.

[whisper]

My google search told me differently.

I thought same sex marriage was valid in Mass currently with DOMA still in place. Is this not true?

You're google search isn't correct.

A gay married couple from one state who moved to another found that they couldn't be divorced because they weren't married in that state.

Mass is suing the federal government for DOMA interfering with Mass defining gay marriage as acceptable.

[phoebe]

My google search told me differently.

I thought same sex marriage was valid in Mass currently with DOMA still in place. Is this not true?

You are wrong. Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriages, but same sex marriages legally entered into under Massachusetts law are not recognized by the Federal government. This affects the taxes of married, couples, their SS benefits, where they can be buried, and all sorts of other things. DOMA prevents the US government from recognizing these otherwise valid marriages in MA. And that's the part of DOMA that was found unconstitutional. It's really an extremely straightforward and obvious ruling.

[Standtall]

You are wrong. Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriages, but same sex marriages legally entered into under Massachusetts law are not recognized by the Federal government. This affects the taxes of married, couples, their SS benefits, where they can be buried, and all sorts of other things. DOMA prevents the US government from recognizing these otherwise valid marriages in MA. And that's the part of DOMA that was found unconstitutional. It's really an extremely straightforward and obvious ruling.

Isn't the federal government in a tough spot here.

If they recognize same sex marriage in Mass, and don't recognize two guys who want to be married in Texas, they are going to be breaking equal protection?

If they recognize it in Texas too, aren't they trampling on Texas's rights to say they don't want two guys married? Can you be married in the eyes of the Feds but not in the state you reside?

Either way there is an issue legally right?

[Standtall]

You are wrong. Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriages, but same sex marriages legally entered into under Massachusetts law are not recognized by the Federal government. This affects the taxes of married, couples, their SS benefits, where they can be buried, and all sorts of other things. DOMA prevents the US government from recognizing these otherwise valid marriages in MA. And that's the part of DOMA that was found unconstitutional. It's really an extremely straightforward and obvious ruling.

What does that mean?

[Mr. B]

Including single people?

Government benefits reserved for married people amount to discrimination against single people. For example, as a single person I can't name any adult to receive survivor benefits for Social Security, but married people can name their spouse, without having to pay more into SS for that survivor benefit or having their living benefits reduced to adjust for the joint-and-survivor nature of the survivor benefit. And married people upon death can pass on unlimited assets to their spouse tax-free, while single people can't name anybody at all to receive a tax-free inheritance without limitation.Reminds me of a question I never dared ask anyone who might know.

The company I worked for had a flexible benefits plan, whereby the company gave each employee a fixed amount of money per pay period (pre-tax) that they could use to buy whatever benefit package they wanted from a list of benefits provided (e.g., life insurance, medical, dental, disability, etc.). The amount given varied by salary, but also by whether one chose single vs. married. Single employees got less money with which to buy benefits.

Certainly, buying a medical plan for a family costs more than for a single person, but why should that matter? Why was a single person quite openly paid less that a married person for doing the same job? Apparently, no discrimination laws were broken (not that I'm in favor of such laws to begin with, however.)

[Bicycle Repair Man]

Isn't the federal government in a tough spot here.

If they recognize same sex marriage in Mass, and don't recognize two guys who want to be married in Texas, they are going to be breaking equal protection?

If they recognize it in Texas too, aren't they trampling on Texas's rights to say they don't want two guys married? Can you be married in the eyes of the Feds but not in the state you reside?
The federal government doesn't perform any marriages ever. Two guys living in Texas can't get the federal government to recognize their marriage because they're not married. Only the state of Texas can marry them.

[whisper]

Isn't the federal government in a tough spot here.

If they recognize same sex marriage in Mass, and don't recognize two guys who want to be married in Texas, they are going to be breaking equal protection?

No. There is a difference between wanting to be married, and being married. There is no violation of equal protection.

[whisper]

\The amount given varied by salary, but also by whether one chose single vs. married. Single employees got less money with which to buy benefits.

Does a married person whose spouse bought their own coverage get more money as well?

[Loner]

Reminds me of a question I never dared ask anyone who might know.

The company I worked for had a flexible benefits plan, whereby the company gave each employee a fixed amount of money per pay period (pre-tax) that they could use to buy whatever benefit package they wanted from a list of benefits provided (e.g., life insurance, medical, dental, disability, etc.). The amount given varied by salary, but also by whether one chose single vs. married. Single employees got less money with which to buy benefits.

Certainly, buying a medical plan for a family costs more than for a single person, but why should that matter? Why was a single person quite openly paid less that a married person for doing the same job? Apparently, no discrimination laws were broken (not that I'm in favor of such laws to begin with, however.)

I would assume they make an exception in the law for that, but there have definitely been single people who complained about it. Right on thgis board in fact. There's also evidence that married men are paid more than single men in salary alone, while married women earn less than single women, though both of those are conceivably explained away by support or lack thereof at home allowing the person to focus more on work.

[Standtall]

No. There is a difference between wanting to be married, and being married. There is no violation of equal protection.

So if every state chose to not allow gay marriage there would be no equal protection issues?

[phoebe]

What does that mean?It means that under federal law, veterans and their spouses can be buried together in certain cemetaries (Arlington National Cemetary is the most famous, but I think there are other military cemetaries.) Except if your spouse (legally recognized by the state in which you live and in which you were married) is the same sex as you, your spouse can't be buried next to you in those cemetaries.

So if every state chose to not allow gay marriage there would be no equal protection issues?And when that was true, we didn't have DOMA, either, because there wasn't an issue.

Today, there are several states that perform same-sex marriages, and DOMA is interfering with the rights of the people who enter into those marriages. And the federal courts have (so far) uniformly ruled that to be unconstitutional.

It's pretty straightforward. DOMA interferes with the right of the states to define marriage within those states, and with the rights of some people who have been legally married under state law.

[SirVLCIV]

I agree with this actually. I think married people receiving benefits at all is the dumb.

:iatp:

[SirVLCIV]

I will wait hear for him to say you have the same right to marry. :popcorn:

You may be waiting for awhile.

[Incredible Hulctuary]

It's pretty straightforward. DOMA interferes with the right of the states to define marriage within those states ...

That's some bass-ackwards logic. You can criticize DOMA on its Constitutional flaws and other aspects without this nonsense argument. DOMA explicitly prevents one state from forcing its definition of marriage on another state, which is the opposite of what you're saying.

[phoebe]

That's some bass-ackwards logic. You can criticize DOMA on its Constitutional flaws and other aspects without this nonsense argument. DOMA explicitly prevents one state from forcing its definition of marriage on another state, which is the opposite of what you're saying.

DOMA has two parts, and that is not the part that was found unconstitutional. The part that was found unconstitutional is the part of DOMA that prevents the Federal government from recognizing certain marriages.

[whisper]

DOMA explicitly prevents one state from forcing its definition of marriage on another state, which is the opposite of what you're saying.

Once again, MA the state is suing the federal government over DOMA for it's interference with them defining marriage as they wished. This is a fact. If DOMA wasn't interfering with their operation, they'd be engaged in this lawsuit.

[whisper]

So if every state chose to not allow gay marriage there would be no equal protection issues?

You're confusing arguments.

1.) The fact that MA allows gay men to marry and get federal benefits doesn't mean that there is a federal equal protection issue of gay men wanting to get married but not being married not getting benefits because the state doesn't allow them to. The

That is DIFFERENT from:

2.) There is an equal protection issue on the state level that it allows certain marriages and not allow others.

[phoebe]

You're confusing arguments.

1.) The fact that MA allows gay men to marry and get federal benefits doesn't mean that there is a federal equal protection issue of gay men wanting to get married but not being married not getting benefits because the state doesn't allow them to. The

That is DIFFERENT from:

2.) There is an equal protection issue on the state level that it allows certain marriages and not allow others.

To elaborate:

Courts have found that the MA constitution (but not the Federal constitution) requires the state of MA to allow same sex couples to marry.

Courts have found that the Federal constitution doesn't allow the Federal government to discriminate against certain people who are legally married according to the laws of their US state.

Got it?

[Loner]

You're confusing arguments.


That's kind of his schtick.

[notreallyme]

Nobody said anything about religious institution or Christianity. We're saying the general public has a right to define a legal relationship that is sanctioned by the state. The state should follow the will of the people without guidelines. If majority of the people think the best environment to raise future generation is one father one mother household, then that state should be consistent with that public demand. 30+ states have done so already. If you want to experiment with gay marriage approved by a state legislature (and not by public referendum I might add), there is New York. However, that shouldn't mean that Arizona has to acknowledge that relationship.

Your argument that marriage can change all the time and therefore we should continuously change it arbitrarily makes no sense. If the people don't decide through democratic process how to define the word, then who decides?

This is EXACTLY the type of thinking that was the reason the forefathers to create the Bill of Rights.

[Mr. B]

Does a married person whose spouse bought their own coverage get more money as well?I haven't worked there in over seven years, and, unfortunately, I don't remember the details.

[ker8]

I think they should just pass gay marriage & be done w/it, b/c you know at the end of the day those opposing it will look like horrible monsters in the history books 50-100yrs from now.

Then again I'm not opposed to polygamy either. As long as they're consenting adults, who am I to tell them they can't live the way they want.


I also agree with the others above who have stated that being married should carry no financial benefits from the gov't.


Besides, we have much bigger issues to worry about than this, like our mounting debt & inability to curb spending.

[WYGTLMTD?]

I also agree with the others above who have stated that being married should carry no financial benefits from the gov't.


Besides, we have much bigger issues to worry about than this, like our mounting debt & inability to curb spending.

I see people make the statement about "financial benefits" to being married, but what does that entail other than social security survivor benefits. There are certainly non-financial benefits, like visitation rights, but it seems like married couples pay more in taxes for the right to be married than they would receive in benefits.

[Loner]

I see people make the statement about "financial benefits" to being married, but what does that entail other than social security survivor benefits. There are certainly non-financial benefits, like visitation rights, but it seems like married couples pay more in taxes for the right to be married than they would receive in benefits.

It only seems like that to dual-income professionals. Nearly everyone else, married people make out better. Income tax brackets are wider for married couples. So if you marry and your spouse stays home, your taxes are lower. Flip side of that is if they start earning money, it's effectively taxed at your marginal rate(so it sucks for people earning close to each other. When one is part-time/low earning, it tends to be a wash).
There's also the right to prevent them from testifying against you in a court of law, which could be very valuable if you get sued or charged with something.

[phoebe]

I see people make the statement about "financial benefits" to being married, but what does that entail other than social security survivor benefits. There are certainly non-financial benefits, like visitation rights, but it seems like married couples pay more in taxes for the right to be married than they would receive in benefits.

The federal tax law is heavily influenced by your marital status. I have read that the net result of all the regulations that depend on marital status is close to zero, but for individual couples the impact can be enormous. In general, couples with two wage-earners of roughly comparable income are hurt by the marriage penalty, and couples with a single person earning the vast majority of the income benefit. There are gay and straight couples in each of those categories.

While I would personally favor eliminating references to marriage in the tax code, realistically, the chance of this happening in the next two decades is about zero.

[Incredible Hulctuary]

I think they should just pass gay marriage & be done w/it, b/c you know at the end of the day those opposing it will look like horrible monsters in the history books 50-100yrs from now.

Then again I'm not opposed to polygamy either. As long as they're consenting adults, who am I to tell them they can't live the way they want.

People are already free to live in gay or polygamous arrangements that have the religious and social aspects of marriage. But when they want to involve the government to give them benefits and enforce other aspects of the relationship, it's not just about them living how they want.

Polygamy presents problems that put the "consenting adults" condition in serious doubt or otherwise creates legal complexities. For example, if a man has 3 wives and wants a 4th but one existing wife doesn't agree, how much power does she have to object, given the 3 vs. 1 situation and the government-imposed difficulties and expenses of getting out of the marriage? It's not like an informal arrangement where she can just walk away.

[twig93]

DOMA has two parts, and that is not the part that was found unconstitutional. The part that was found unconstitutional is the part of DOMA that prevents the Federal government from recognizing certain marriages.
So technically, this seems wrong, and in a very limited sense, I agree that the federal government should not be allowed to ignore validly performed marriages, including same-sex marriages in states that allow them.

However, it seems like the federal government still has the right to set benefits however they want.

I mean that is to say, if they wanted to provide medical insurance to spouses of federal employees, but only spouses with blue eyes... shouldn't they be allowed to do that? They're not saying that people married to a person with brown eyes aren't married... just that taxpayer dollars will not be used to pay for the brown-eyed spouses' medical insurance.

There is no "right" to have employer-paid spousal medical insurance (until 2014 anyway). It's basically a gift from the employer. Shouldn't the employer (in this case the federal government) be allowed to choose how to distribute this gift?

Now replace 'brown eyes' with 'same sex'. And note that I chose eye color rather than race because race is considered a protected class in civil rights legislation. Neither eye color nor sexual orientation is a protected class. (At least not under federal legislation. Some states do make sexual orientation a protected class in state legislation.)

[twig93]

I also agree with the others above who have stated that being married should carry no financial benefits from the gov't.
This is the real problem.

[twig93]

I see people make the statement about "financial benefits" to being married, but what does that entail other than social security survivor benefits. There are certainly non-financial benefits, like visitation rights, but it seems like married couples pay more in taxes for the right to be married than they would receive in benefits.
It depends on the incomes of the spouses. As a general rule, if the incomes are similar, they will pay more if they are married than if they are single. If their incomes are pretty different, they will pay less. If they have one kid, that increases the likelihood of marriage being a bad deal, and if they have two kids their incomes have to be radically different for marriage to save them anything in taxes. I know straight couples who have had "commitment ceremonies" and the girl changes her name, but they don't get legally married because the tax benefits of shacking up are so great.

(I can go into more detail about why all of this is the case, but don't want to derail the thread too much.)

[twig93]

It only seems like that to dual-income professionals. Nearly everyone else, married people make out better. Income tax brackets are wider for married couples. So if you marry and your spouse stays home, your taxes are lower. Flip side of that is if they start earning money, it's effectively taxed at your marginal rate(so it sucks for people earning close to each other. When one is part-time/low earning, it tends to be a wash).
There's also the right to prevent them from testifying against you in a court of law, which could be very valuable if you get sued or charged with something.
While your bolded sentence is technically true, the majority of married people born after 1940 are dual-income and will be for most of their lives (counting retirement income as 'income').

So "nearly everyone else" is a pretty small subset. The IRS provides a huge disincentive to getting married to most normal hard-working middle-class Americans.

The testifying in court thing just shouldn't exist at all and then there wouldn't be a gay/straight issue.

[twig93]

So I've read this whole thread and have reached the following opinions:

1) States should be able to define who may and may not marry with limited federal guidance (such as Loving vs Virginia or possibly age limits).

2) The federal government should be able to define who they want to give benefits to (Social Security, employee insurance, etc.) If they only want to give benefits to heterosexual married couples, they should be allowed to do that... but they have to re-word their benefit eligibility definitions to say as much. (Since gays married in the state of Massachusetts are "married" they would qualify for any benefits to any "married" persons. But if the gummint wants to re-write their benefits to only be for spouses of male/female marriages they should be allowed to do that if they want.)

3) PPACA should be scrapped altogether, but if it is not... anything that says "married" in PPACA should mean "in a marriage that is legally recognized in the couple's state of residence". I'm not real sure about this... PPACA is such a POS that it's hard to determine a narrow application of requirements that shouldn't even exist at all. I could probably be persuaded to change my opinion here, but right now this is how I think it should be.

4) States should not need to recognize marriages performed in other jurisdictions if the marriage would not be legal in the state. (i.e. status quo)

5) Laws about testifying in court should be scrapped but if they aren't... they should apply to valid same-sex marriages as well. (i.e. marriage validly performed in a state that allows gay marriage, couple resides in a state that chooses to recognize marriage.)

JMO...