Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 1 votes

DOMA & Gay Marriage


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#1    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,093 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 June 2013 - 01:18 PM

Before it comes out today, how much would anyone bet that the SC will basically punt?  They will decide that it is not an area for the Federal Government and will put it in the hands of the states.  And I think that would be the right call.  It is not the Federal Governmentís place to regulate social issues as long as each state respects rulings of the others, then Federal Government has no place dictating how people live their lives.

*Signature removed* Forum Rules

#2    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 26 June 2013 - 01:35 PM

View PostRavenHawk, on 26 June 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

Before it comes out today, how much would anyone bet that the SC will basically punt?  They will decide that it is not an area for the Federal Government and will put it in the hands of the states.  And I think that would be the right call.  It is not the Federal Government's place to regulate social issues as long as each state respects rulings of the others, then Federal Government has no place dictating how people live their lives.

Hey! I've been wondering where you have been....

I agree with 'ya on that. It should not be up to the Federal Government, but the individual states themselves. The government has no right (according to the Constitution) to tell people how to live their lives....


#3    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,093 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 June 2013 - 02:16 PM

View PostKowalski, on 26 June 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

Hey! I've been wondering where you have been....
Iím around.  With my work, Iím lucky if I can focus on one thread at a time.  I was off in the religion forum trying to seek honesty.  As expected, I never got it.  

Quote

I agree with 'ya on that. It should not be up to the Federal Government, but the individual states themselves. The government has no right (according to the Constitution) to tell people how to live their lives....
Correct but, where I think the Feds do have authority is if a gay couple get married in a state that allows gay marriage and then moves to a state that does not, then the feds should ensure that that couple can observe and enjoy their full rights.  This is one area that the Fed can usurp the authority of the state but the state still holds the ban on gay marriage.

To prevent couples that live in a ban state from going to a allow state to get married, that state should respect the laws of the ban state and not allow the marriage.

*Signature removed* Forum Rules

#4    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 26 June 2013 - 02:28 PM

View PostRavenHawk, on 26 June 2013 - 02:16 PM, said:

I'm around.  With my work, I'm lucky if I can focus on one thread at a time.  I was off in the religion forum trying to seek honesty.  As expected, I never got it.  


Correct but, where I think the Feds do have authority is if a gay couple get married in a state that allows gay marriage and then moves to a state that does not, then the feds should ensure that that couple can observe and enjoy their full rights.  This is one area that the Fed can usurp the authority of the state but the state still holds the ban on gay marriage.

To prevent couples that live in a ban state from going to a allow state to get married, that state should respect the laws of the ban state and not allow the marriage.

My sister in law, has a friend whose gay, and he put something on his Facebook, which said, "So cousins can marry in North Carolina, but gay's can't..." My mother in law, who was reading it, showed it to my father in law (who is from North Carolina) and he went, "Yeah, that's right!" lol
:)

You have to admit, it was pretty funny...


#5    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,093 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 June 2013 - 02:33 PM

Breaking news:

5 to 4 on both, DOMA is unConstitutional and gay marriage is legal in California.  I can see new law suits against Obamacare on similar principles.  Justice Roberts is turning out to be a brilliant mastermind.

*Signature removed* Forum Rules

#6    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,791 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 26 June 2013 - 03:11 PM

Good rulings today and I'm glad they split the way they did so we don't have to hear about the "evil conservatives who hate gays".  Personally I think we've got a pretty good Court right now.

On the larger matter, I just wish government at all levels would get out of the marriage business all together.  Marriage should be a religious construct.  Government should simply recognize civil unions as legal relationships and stop at that.  Anyone then wanting to get married can then do so - whether in front of a priest, rabbi, a Jedi Master, or Ingrid the Queen of the Forest Nymphs.  Or, they can choose not to have to have an invisible dude or dudette in the sky give their relationship a big old thumbs up.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#7    Capt Amerika

Capt Amerika

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 574 posts
  • Joined:31 May 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Frozen Tundra of the USA

Posted 26 June 2013 - 06:37 PM

Over one hundred years ago, the Court held in Reynolds v. U.S. that polygamy was “an offence against society.”

Today it was determined that the Federal Government has the power to define the term marriage.
It now appears that all it takes is love.
If you love someone, you can marry them.  period.
Its all about equal rights regardless of whether anyone else agrees with the morality of the union.

I would like to hear someone explain to me why Polygamy should be a felony in the USA when the SCOTUS has determined that "Love" is all that matters.
Where are their "equal rights".
For the record, i agree with Polygamy about as much as i do Homosexuality.  I dont.
But would like to know how someone can support one but not the other.


#8    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,956 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 26 June 2013 - 07:13 PM

View PostCapt Amerika, on 26 June 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

Over one hundred years ago, the Court held in Reynolds v. U.S. that polygamy was “an offence against society.”

Today it was determined that the Federal Government has the power to define the term marriage.
It now appears that all it takes is love.
If you love someone, you can marry them.  period.
Its all about equal rights regardless of whether anyone else agrees with the morality of the union.

I would like to hear someone explain to me why Polygamy should be a felony in the USA when the SCOTUS has determined that "Love" is all that matters.
Where are their "equal rights".
For the record, i agree with Polygamy about as much as i do Homosexuality.  I dont.
But would like to know how someone can support one but not the other.

For hetrosexuals, your opinion on the 'morality' of the union doesn't matter. A 20 year old woman can marry a 90 year old man and vice versa and your opinion on the union (or any other form) would not matter one bit. A straight couple can marry for love and it's not bit of difference what you think about it. You can't force them not to marry. So why should a gay couple marriying be subject to your morality? Why is love a good enough reason for straight people but for gay people it's somehow not enough?

Laws also have a habit of changing. It wasn't too long ago that people were decrying interacial marriage as being immoral. We grew out of that when the law was overturned.

I really wish people would stop bringing polygamy up though, that's a seperate issue that will be dealt with seperately.

Edited by shadowhive, 26 June 2013 - 07:18 PM.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#9    green_dude777

green_dude777

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,047 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

  • When you look back in life, you don't regret what you did, you regret what you never attempted.

Posted 26 June 2013 - 07:49 PM

View PostCapt Amerika, on 26 June 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

Over one hundred years ago, the Court held in Reynolds v. U.S. that polygamy was “an offence against society.”

Today it was determined that the Federal Government has the power to define the term marriage.
It now appears that all it takes is love.
If you love someone, you can marry them.  period.
Its all about equal rights regardless of whether anyone else agrees with the morality of the union.

I would like to hear someone explain to me why Polygamy should be a felony in the USA when the SCOTUS has determined that "Love" is all that matters.
Where are their "equal rights".
For the record, i agree with Polygamy about as much as i do Homosexuality.  I dont.
But would like to know how someone can support one but not the other.

Capt. Amerika, this is supposed to be a free nation, but it isn't because of bigots.  If someone isn't bothering you, then mind your own business.

For the record, I don't think any government should be involved in any marriage or union between people.  I don't think the government or others should even feel they have the right to tell someone they can't do something because of their 'moral standards'.... If someone isn't hurting anyone else, don't worry about it.

With that said, I think your name and views are ironic when referencing the ideals of America, but spot on when referencing this overreaching government.  If two dudes want to make out with each other and get married in their church, cult, boys club, etc, then so be it.  If some farmer finds his sheep attractive, so be it.  If 7 people all want to get married together in their little club, who are you  to take your own 'moral high ground' and think you can stop it?

I just wish all bigots were out in the public like the Westboro Baptists, so I could snap a few pictures, and 50 years down the road, that same picture would be displayed for the hateful (and losing) side of these current civil rights issues.

Hope that defeat today to your side tastes really bitter for a long time.

Edited by Daughter of the Nine Moons, 27 June 2013 - 01:19 AM.
5a. Personal attacks: Attack the point being presented, not the person who is making it.


#10    Sweetpumper

Sweetpumper

    Heatseeker

  • Member
  • 10,637 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Avengers Tower

Posted 26 June 2013 - 07:52 PM

How many on who lean heavily to the right in here is against gay marriage?

"At it's most basic level, science is supposed to represent the investigation of the unexplained, not the explanation of the uninvestigated." - Hunt for the Skinwalker

"The ultimate irony of the Disclosure movement is that it deeply distrusts officialdom, while simultaneously looking to officialdom for the truth." - Robbie Graham Silver Screen Saucers

#11    Sweetpumper

Sweetpumper

    Heatseeker

  • Member
  • 10,637 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Avengers Tower

Posted 26 June 2013 - 08:10 PM

View PostKowalski, on 26 June 2013 - 08:03 PM, said:

or marry a cow, let them....

I know a few guys who've done that.

"At it's most basic level, science is supposed to represent the investigation of the unexplained, not the explanation of the uninvestigated." - Hunt for the Skinwalker

"The ultimate irony of the Disclosure movement is that it deeply distrusts officialdom, while simultaneously looking to officialdom for the truth." - Robbie Graham Silver Screen Saucers

#12    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 26 June 2013 - 08:18 PM

View PostSweetpumper, on 26 June 2013 - 08:10 PM, said:

I know a few guys who've done that.

:w00t:  LMAO....


#13    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,093 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 June 2013 - 08:20 PM

One thing missing though is *consenting adults* so itís not just about love.  Marriage *IS* a contract.  And I donít object to polygamy but I think it should be common sense that determines how far it goes.  Why not have one woman and two men married?  Perhaps the wealthier you are, the more spouses you can maintain (itís good to be the king).  But 1 man and 12 women or 5 men and 9 women?  Really?

*Signature removed* Forum Rules

#14    green_dude777

green_dude777

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,047 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

  • When you look back in life, you don't regret what you did, you regret what you never attempted.

Posted 26 June 2013 - 08:23 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 26 June 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

only if the cow can give an intelligible verbal or written consent and is over 18.

I know this is a joke, but unfortunately some people really use this as a bullet point.

My retort to those people:  A farmer having relations with his livestock is by far more humane than the process of slaughter.  Also to note, the cow is by far bigger than the farmer.


#15    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    SCIENCE!

  • Member
  • 10,807 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 26 June 2013 - 10:32 PM

IMO, as someone who is right leaning, this is a blow for the freedoms the US proudly proclaims to be built upon.  
Now the only rule is "do both parties consent?", which is good and what the rule of a free nation should be - it's protecting that sanctity of that choice.

I must not fear. Fear is the Mind-Killer. It is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and to move through me. And when it is gone I will turn the inner eye to see it's path.
When the fear is gone, there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users