Confusion if DOMA’s overruled
The fact that if SCOTUS overrules DOMA the result will be conflict of laws over who is married and who is not should come as absolutely no surprise. In fact, one of the reasons for the passage of the act in the first place was to avoid such confusion and make it clear how federal laws would work in the presence of the differences between the way states treat gay marriage.
To promoters of gay marriage who believe it should be universally accepted, this is probably a feature rather than a bug. Although I’m not conversant with all the finer legal points here, it seems to me the next step for them—if DOMA is declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS—would be to push for the idea that the resultant chaos should be resolved in favor of forcing all states to allow it. The argument would probably be that letting gay couples who are able to get married because they live in states that allow it receive tax and other federal benefits that are denied to other gay couples who would like to be married but who reside in states that do not allow it would be considered a denial of Fifth Amendment equal protection rights.
Classical legal reasoning: “…the resultant chaos should be resolved in favor of forcing all states to allow it.” Never mind the right and wrong of an issue, we must avoid chaos at whatever cost.
The legal ramifications are too tangled for me. But if gay marriage becomes legal nation wide it would open pandora’s box. Can brothers of legal age marry? Why shouldn’t polygamy or polyandry become legal? After all if its a matter of equal rights…..
People are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO stupid….
this has nothing to do with gays, or straights, civil rights or ANYTHING like that!!!!!!!!!!!!
and the fact that most people dont actually know what its about, what trick is being played and all that, makes them stupid enough to deserve what will happen to them (taking a page from the people who do this to them)
so materialist, and so focused on whatever piece of crap put in front of them. they are completely stupid to what the real point is.
the point is the argument. not what side…
i have explained this half a dozen times, and each time, i got chastised for assuming people are dense. but note, those doing that and getting all uppity on it, sure don’t do a damn thing to change my mind other than try to hurt me to get me to say something else (their taking a page from the despotic left on that)
if you accept the argument for debate, you accept the question behind the argument that allows the debate.
it doesn’t matter which side your on, who wins or loses.
you all lost the day the argument started!!!!!!!!!!!
because the argument is not about what its about
and if you don’t get the game, you will NEVER know what its about!
may i ask where your rights come from?
do they come from nature?
do they come from god?
do they come from man?
do they come from the state?
so that’s it in a nutshell.
by allowing the argument at all, you have conceded that the state has the right to make up rights, and take away rights.
by allowing the argument we are all accepting that states are who gives us our rights. after all, we just gave them that power!!!!!!!!
how so? they are going to decide who has a RIGHT to do x or not do x… regardless of how they decide, they have established their power and precedence to give or take away rights as they feel they can argue.
gun rights? just take them away… how so?
well, since the state gives you rights, the state can take them away
then you argue, they cant
and then they say, what do you think we did with DOMA?
we decided who did or didnt have a right to an action or condition
[edited for length]
artfldgr:
by discussing what is happening legally, and what the different sides are saying about it or claiming (including the side the person discussing it does not agree with) it does not mean that people are ignorant of the larger and/or deeper issues involved, or in any sort of agreement with the premises the opposite side is operating under.
I believe that much of your ongoing misunderstanding of the posts and comments here could fall under the general description of your tendency to think that if something is not explicitly stated in each post it is therefore not understood or even acknowledged as an issue.
There have been many discussions in the comments section of this blog (and others) about natural rights.
And discussing a legal decision that’s pending, and what its practical ramifications might be—as well as what the left is planning for its next step—does not necessarily have much to do with what people understand or don’t understand about the underlying issues and battles.
Gays and straights have the same rights with respect to marriage. Both a straight man and a gay man have the right to marry a woman. A straight woman and a gay woman have the right to marry a man. The civil rights argument falls short.
” what do you think we did with DOMA?”
DOMA took rights away from no one. As Mr. Fran says, everyone has a right to get married. Some people find marriage unsuitable, but for some reason they wish to make us pretend they are married, and to alter our institutions to maintain the pretense. Wouldn’t it be better if they embraced their own diversity and accepted that marriage is just not for them/
@Randy …kudos for such a simple and brilliant riposte.
Personaly, I can handle the fact that secular, non-religious people are pushing for this mis-named “gay marriage”…I expect pagans to be pagans…what bothers me most is the movement WITHIN churches pushing for it!
There is a “progressive” Christian that I was “friends” with on Facebook for a while before he “de-friended” me. This is the guy that one day will argue for gay marriage in the name of freedom and on another day argue that Hobby Lobby and other Christian owned companies should be forced to pay for abortion inducing drugs against their most deepest beliefs! I suppose he will simply say “its the law” when churches that oppose “gay marriage” are forced to perform those unions inside their church buildings. It reminds me of that saying, maybe it was Reagans, that “A liberal is someone who is so open minded he won’t take his own side in an argument.”
It’s about the benefits.
Here in Washington State marriage proffers something like 700 or more (a figure stated by a lesbian lawyer pushing to nationalize gay marriage) financial/legal benefits and at the Federal level it confers 1117 (lesbian lawyer’s figure) financial and legal benefits.
Next the single people will be demanding the same benefits as married folks. They are being discriminated against just like anyone else who isn’t “legally” married.
The it will be polygamists, followed by NAMBLA, followed by the polyandrists, followed by the incestuous, followed by ??
This has the potential to be a quite can of worms.
We the People of the United States … secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
The government has a legal mandate to favor procreative unions.
However, if society deems it necessary to reject biological imperatives, and stops promoting evolutionary fitness, then there is no credible argument to not offer equal protection, equal rights, and equal benefits to all unions, without consideration for sexual or platonic relationships, irrespective of form and kind, and blind to numbers and combinations.
By pursuing selective rights for homosexual couplets, the homosexual activists, and their heterosexual patrons, are demonstrating a unique prejudice and are arbitrarily discriminating against other unions.
Also, if the interest is equal protection, then the issue is also selective discrimination by age or stage of development. The issue is elective abortion which through a premeditated act deprives a human being of its unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness from “creation”. It is violent act committed against a human being when it is most vulnerable and incapable of defending its own life.
Both homosexual activists and their heterosexual patrons need to answer for the selective and capricious demands for equal protection, equal rights, and equal benefits.