DOMA ruled unconstitutional

[questionmark]

Breaking news

Edited June 26, 2013 by questionmark

[questionmark]

And the first story out:

A divided U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal law that defines marriage as a heterosexual union, saying it violates the rights of married gay couples by denying them government benefits.

The vote on the Defense of Marriage Act was 5-4. Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the four Democratic-appointed justices in the majority.

Read more

[Rafterman]

I'm actually surprised it took this long.

[Clarakore]

Texas will be the last to recognize this and will attempt its hardest to block it regionally.

They also pretended the slaves were not freed by empancipation. Look up Juneteenth.

Of course there are shining pockets of progressivism. Our city recognized same sex couples could receive benefits if on the city payroll. Of course Governor Perry & Co. have blocked that so we are going to find anothet way to work around it.

Having the Supreme Court make voting harder will be another challenge here. Still progress is not about speed but direction and compromise. So you win some and you lose some but at least we all as a country have won this. Just to finalize it here, Perry will run interference...count on it.

Another win here was we blocked their ridiculous abortion bill. Yay!

Edited June 26, 2013 by The world needs you

[Kowalski]

Another win here was we blocked their ridiculous abortion bill. Yay!

Yeah, killing a five month old baby is real progressive dude.....

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

And before we sink into another abortion thread, I think that what the SCOTUS has done is a blow for the freedoms the US trumpets being built upon.

[Kowalski]

And before we sink into another abortion thread, I think that what the SCOTUS has done is a blow for the freedoms the US trumpets being built upon.

What do you mean by that?

Edited June 26, 2013 by Kowalski

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

What do you mean by that?

basically, they've said "as long as people consent, off you go we have no reason to enact a law controlling your actions". Sounds like establishing a Freedom to me. Freedom to constentually marry whomsoever consents to marry you.

[shadowhive]

basically, they've said "as long as people consent, off you go we have no reason to enact a law controlling your actions". Sounds like establishing a Freedom to me. Freedom to constentually marry whomsoever consents to marry you.

And that's a bad thing because....

[spartan max2]

It makes me sad that republicans have to fight gay rights so hard. Like wtf

I agree with a limited goverment. So many people are getting turned away from that train of thought though becuase republicans are too busy being dumb and fighting gay marriage. It just makes them look like *******s

I like you republicans but come on, wake up

Edited June 26, 2013 by spartan max2

[Kowalski]

basically, they've said "as long as people consent, off you go we have no reason to enact a law controlling your actions". Sounds like establishing a Freedom to me. Freedom to constentually marry whomsoever consents to marry you.

I get you! It really is like "Wake up people! You don't need the government to tell you what your freedoms are..."

It makes me sad that republicans have to fight gay rights so hard. Like wtf

I agree with a limited goverment. So many people are getting turned away from that train of thought though becuase republicans are too busy being dumb and fighting gay marriage. It just makes them look like *******s

I like you republicans but come on, wake up

I know...

It's almost hypocritical in a way, because their for limited government, but want to say who can marry whom...

[spartan max2]

I get you! It really is like "Wake up people! You don't need the government to tell you what your freedoms are..."

I know...

It's almost hypocritical in a way, because their for limited government, but want to say who can marry whom...

It is so frustrating!!! Becuase the parties gay stance is killing the party , and because of its hypocritical stance people turn away from limited goverment. just makes me mad...

[Odin11]

I get you! It really is like "Wake up people! You don't need the government to tell you what your freedoms are..."

I know...

It's almost hypocritical in a way, because their for limited government, but want to say who can marry whom...

It's not "almost" hypocritical, it's hypocritical to the extreme. It is in fact one of the best examples of hypocrisy I can think of.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

And that's a bad thing because....

It's not, it's a Good Thing!

[+and-then]

I take this as a reflection of the social change that has happened in America over the past decade. The gay lobby has managed to change the focus from morality to civil rights and there will be no stopping it's agenda from here forward. Rest assured this is only a crack of the door opening and overall I'd say what it leads to will not be pretty. I think homosexuality is regarded as sin by the Bible. But so is lying, over indulging in food or drink or gossip... point is that a government cannot legislate what is in the heart. My fear is that I anticipate a movement to bless multiparty union and child - adult union in time. If marriage is to be so redefined then who will be the arbiters of where that ends? WHO will stand and say "this" or "that" is unacceptable? A society with no standards of morality at all is where we are headed and EVERYONE wishes for some kinds of boundaries I think. That said, the law was unfair and needed adjusting - maybe not being thrown out completely. Sad thing is that the issue here, imo, is not one of legal rights but moral equivalence and that just isn't something a court can rule over.

[Almagest]

and then - Marriage has been redefined countless times. The 'traditional' marriage, between a loving man and woman, is only a couple of centuries old, perhaps less. Marriage for centuries was about familial alliances and for getting rid of ones pesky daughters.

[+and-then]

and then - Marriage has been redefined countless times. The 'traditional' marriage, between a loving man and woman, is only a couple of centuries old, perhaps less. Marriage for centuries was about familial alliances and for getting rid of ones pesky daughters.

True enough but is it not just possible that an "evolution" of sorts has taken place to reach a more stable society? Frankly, I really don't care about who marries who because it doesn't impact my life much, if at all. But when the day comes that children start being married off again to adults in the US I hope I'm not around. The changes in morality that I have seen in my lifetime have been immense and a good argument can be made that a deterioration of our culture has followed. The changes have been like a form of social entropy - a race to see where we can break down all barriers until none exist at all. I just think that at some point we in the west (if we survive) will see that it has gone too far and made life not much worth living. Just the opinion of an old guy who's seen a lot he feels sad about...

[Almagest]

Can a child apply for a home loan?

[Odin11]

I take this as a reflection of the social change that has happened in America over the past decade. The gay lobby has managed to change the focus from morality to civil rights and there will be no stopping it's agenda from here forward. Rest assured this is only a crack of the door opening and overall I'd say what it leads to will not be pretty. I think homosexuality is regarded as sin by the Bible. But so is lying, over indulging in food or drink or gossip... point is that a government cannot legislate what is in the heart. My fear is that I anticipate a movement to bless multiparty union and child - adult union in time. If marriage is to be so redefined then who will be the arbiters of where that ends? WHO will stand and say "this" or "that" is unacceptable? A society with no standards of morality at all is where we are headed and EVERYONE wishes for some kinds of boundaries I think. That said, the law was unfair and needed adjusting - maybe not being thrown out completely. Sad thing is that the issue here, imo, is not one of legal rights but moral equivalence and that just isn't something a court can rule over.

Informed Consent, Informed Consent, Informed (knowledgeable, well-versed, educated) Consent , what is it with you people and pedophilia? I don't understand how your minds always go there.

I see nothing wrong with polygamy as long as it is between adults that have given Informed Consent. (A lot of women in the Middle East are so undereducated that they can’t give Informed Consent, so I would not agree to their polygamist marriage)

As to morality, Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong) behavior or character.

To things that cause no harm, moral condemnation simply isn’t appropriate. Homosexuality is often misidentified as a moral issue. Gay relationships involves no intrinsic harm… any more then mixed ones. But when classing harmless things as immoral results in persecution, we have reason to condemn the misclassification.

Homosexuality causes no identifiable harm, so there are no valid grounds for declaring it immoral.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Odin11

[F3SS]

I know...

It's almost hypocritical in a way, because their for limited government, but want to say who can marry whom...

It's not "almost" hypocritical, it's hypocritical to the extreme. It is in fact one of the best examples of hypocrisy I can think of.

Not exactly because from a different POV they can be seen as trying to prevent more people from taking advantage of government benefits which obviously requires more federal oversight and more federal employees thereby keeping government limited.

I don't know. Maybe that's a stretch but it could be.

[+and-then]

Informed Consent, Informed Consent, Informed (knowledgeable, well-versed, educated) Consent , what is it with you people and pedophilia? I don't understand how your minds always go there.

I see nothing wrong with polygamy as long as it is between adults that have given Informed Consent. (A lot of women in the Middle East are so undereducated that they can’t give Informed Consent, so I would not agree to their polygamist marriage)

As to morality, Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong) behavior or character.

To things that cause no harm, moral condemnation simply isn’t appropriate. Homosexuality is often misidentified as a moral issue. Gay relationships involves no intrinsic harm… any more then mixed ones. But when classing harmless things as immoral results in persecution, we have reason to condemn the misclassification.

Homosexuality causes no identifiable harm, so there are no valid grounds for declaring it immoral.

The mind "goes there" because it is a truism in life that things tend to get worse...not better... as regards human behavior at it's basest level. You seem angry or at least frustrated, Odin. I don't call homosexuality immoral, God's word does. If that is of no importance to you then that's fine by me - your choice, rock on. But don't act as if just because some people will behave in rational and even "moral" ways toward this issue, that ALL people will. Or that in time the standards can't be blurred to the point of being unrecognizable. I can guarantee you that if my great grand parents were able to see what America has become morally they would be unable to even comprehend the changes.

[Almagest]

The mind "goes there" because it is a truism in life that things tend to get worse...not better... as regards human behavior at it's basest level. You seem angry or at least frustrated, Odin. I don't call homosexuality immoral, God's word does. If that is of no importance to you then that's fine by me - your choice, rock on. But don't act as if just because some people will behave in rational and even "moral" ways toward this issue, that ALL people will. Or that in time the standards can't be blurred to the point of being unrecognizable. I can guarantee you that if my great grand parents were able to see what America has become morally they would be unable to even comprehend the changes.

Classic Cop Out. Good thing we live in a secular society where the alleged words of God don't get to influence our laws. Because my hair is getting kinda long and I'd hate to have to be put to death for that.

[Odin11]

The mind "goes there" because it is a truism in life that things tend to get worse...not better... as regards human behavior at it's basest level. You seem angry or at least frustrated, Odin. I don't call homosexuality immoral, God's word does. If that is of no importance to you then that's fine by me - your choice, rock on. But don't act as if just because some people will behave in rational and even "moral" ways toward this issue, that ALL people will. Or that in time the standards can't be blurred to the point of being unrecognizable. I can guarantee you that if my great grand parents were able to see what America has become morally they would be unable to even comprehend the changes.

I am angry, angry that in this day and age people like you can still rationalize their bigotry, because that is what it is bigotry. In 1967 people were saying that interracial marriage was immoral using god’s, so called, word. If you want to be in the same boat as them be my guest. History will treat you and other anti-civil right people the same as them, as a disgrace on our country’s past. That you would think civil rights is a move to the worse show just how backwards in morals you are. Like Almagest said I’m just glad we live in a secular society where your god has no say in our laws (or should have no say).

Like I said in the other topic: the people have NO RIGHT to vote to restrict someone else's civil liberties.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Odin11

[acidhead]

I believe that the GOV should not be in the business litigation of marriage or redefining the terms of a marriage contract. Individuals should be free to litigate the terms of their own personal contracts any way they choose - and call it anything they want - as long as their own personal freedom does not infringe on the freedom of another individual. It's called personal liberty....... something the D's and the R's fear.

[danielost]

Fed. Law isn't supposed to trump state law nor the other way.