Major Blow to Homophobes: SCOTUS Refuses to Block Gay Marriage in DC

[Peikko 1,575]

The voters of California can vote upon and have whatever laws they wish.

However, DOMA is unconstitutonal in nature and violates the full faith and credit clause in the constitution. As a marriage is a contract between two individuals with the state they live in, it very much fits into that catagory.

If marriage were just a 'simple' contract between two individuals that wasn't filed with the state and the state gave no benefits to said couples, then DOMA would be perfectly legal in every aspect for the individual.

You don't get to cherry pick and interpret the constitution as you see fit. It doesn't work that way. You claim to be someone who has studied the constitution, then you should know that. To me though, you are letting your own personal bias get in the way of rational thinking.

As I've said before though, the simple thing would be for government to get out of marriage. You cannot honestly tell me that there's a 'societal' benefit for heterosexual marriage versus gay marriage vs whatever. That's ludicrous in this day and age. Not all couples breed and marriage today is meaningless in many ways with a divorce rate near 50%. - If you have 2 people, loving one another, wanting to be with one another, taking up less space by living together and using the same materials, THAT benefits society no mattter who it is, be them gay, straight, etc...

The word 'marriage' needs to be taken out if you want government to recognize the union of two people and for it to have some sort of benefit. But you can't give benefits to man/woman combinations without giving benefits to woman/woman or man/man combinations either. It simply doesn't work that way in society. It's wrong just as affirmative action is wrong in the way it benefits certain groups and not the other. Our government has to be equal across the board and that is the law of the land when it comes to how it treats people.

From what I can deduce from reading VW's last post, she appers to have become confused. After posting that unailiable rights derive from the devine (which is another argument as to whether in this day and age one must adhere to the concept that these rights are god given in order for these rights to have value and merit, particularly given the philosophical debate that was playing out during the time the American constituion was written up and upon which the notion of divine rights rests) she then goes on to argue that gay marriage can't be a divine right because god does not approve of it. That's not what is being argued from a constitutional stand point however. The divine rights are life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. The right to marriage (and divorce) is a derivative of these divine rights, not one of them, therefore it can not legally be denied simply because 'god would not approve', particularly as the consitution also protects the right of the individual to believe in god (or not) in the manner that they see fit. At least, that's how I understand it, from a non scholarly position.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I dont believe we should redefine marriage. I would say the majority of americans dont want marriage to be redefined to include gay couples either. so we get labelled as homophobes and bigots......name calling designed to foster guilt, but meaningless really. The family is the core of a healthy society. Some may disagree with that but it would be hard to prove otherwise. And i mean a husband and wife with the vast majority of them having children.

Children grow into more well adjusted people with male and female input in a traditional marriage. sanction gay marriage, sanction gay adoption, you sanction a union that will have a negative effect on society. The more you strip traditional marriage of its high calling the worse the effect on society. Its not that a gay cant be a good parent. Its that a child NEEDS male and female input to balance the psychological and physiological wants and desires built into their genetic make up.

So the government should protect traditional marriage, and protect it fiercely. Wont happen with Obama of course. Hopefully he'll be gone in a couple years......

and what you do in your own home does affect me. you may be my next door neighbour. you may watch porn all day in the privacy of you own bedroom. you may do it for years but one day that may cause you to abuse one of my family, or friends. It may not either, but I dont want that risk. the good you do has an affect on society in general and the bad too. sodomy is not healthy or normal or natural. validate gay marriage, you normalise sodomy as sex is normal in a heterosexual marriage. so if its normal, lets teach our kids its normal....when we teach our kids about sex, dont miss out normal old sodomy too....

sadly traditional marriage is not held in high esteem in general anymore.....society is suffering for it now..and america will carry on down the slippery slope til some new great american president takes office and turns thing around.

You cannot make that statement and prove that statement in any way, shape, or form.

People act like homosexuality is some 'new fad' or something. It has been actually quite common snce the dawn of time and has been a part of nations that have been around ALOT longer than the United States has. The only reason why homosexuality isn't prevelant in Western Culture over the course of the past couple of centuries, is due to the fact that Christianity and the Catholic Church have gotten their way with soceity and its morals. Homosexuality has been around in the United States forever, it's just people had to live in seceracy for fear of being 'shamed' or considered a sinner...

You can't sit here and lump sum people at all. Children are plenty likely to turn out like dumb asses from coming from a heterosexual family that is 'normal' by your standards. We see it each and every day. What matters is that a child is loved and nourtured and not treated like #######. Hell, even then that doesn't always matter because the child is still his or her own individual.

Your statement makes the assumption that just because a child is raised a certain way, means they are going to turn out a certain way. I was raised by a single mom, didn't know my dad. Had my mother and sometimes my grandmother around. So basically two women around and guess what? I'm a guy in every aspect of my life. It's not about who's raising the kid, it's about the way the kid is raised. As I said though, even then it's not a guarantee.

I'd much rather see a gay couple adopt a child and give it a loving home, rather than see it sit in foster care or bounce around from group home to group home. Love, attention, and nourturing are what a child needs. If someone or a couple of the same sex can give that to a child, more power to them and if heterosexual couples are awarded for 'those' reasons, then gay couples should be as well.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

If you were familar with the history of Constitutional interpretations and the primary sources used, you wouldn't deny that cherry picking happens in judicial circles, so I know you're unqualified to discuss it in depth.

Are you even listening to yourself and how 'unqualified' you make yourself sound?

I understand quite well and that's the point I'm making.

You're choosing to Cherry Pick because 'some other guy did before, so that makes it ok.'

The constitution isn't about cherry picking or changing it at your will for what you believe in. The constitution is what it is through and through.

You actually invalidate any argument that you have in the matter of gay marriage, the moment you say you can cherry pick what you want to listen to and what you don't want to listen to.

I suppose we should toss out freedom of speech then, because I don't feel people should be able to speak up against government. How does that work for you? I bet I could find a few judges that agree with me because people speak out too much. Cmon, how 'bout it?

Wow. I seriously think you need to step back and take a look at what you're saying and how damned ignorant it is of our constitution.

[Peikko 1,575]

I dont believe we should redefine marriage. I would say the majority of americans dont want marriage to be redefined to include gay couples either. so we get labelled as homophobes and bigots......name calling designed to foster guilt, but meaningless really. The family is the core of a healthy society. Some may disagree with that but it would be hard to prove otherwise. And i mean a husband and wife with the vast majority of them having children.

Children grow into more well adjusted people with male and female input in a traditional marriage. sanction gay marriage, sanction gay adoption, you sanction a union that will have a negative effect on society. The more you strip traditional marriage of its high calling the worse the effect on society. Its not that a gay cant be a good parent. Its that a child NEEDS male and female input to balance the psychological and physiological wants and desires built into their genetic make up.

So the government should protect traditional marriage, and protect it fiercely. Wont happen with Obama of course. Hopefully he'll be gone in a couple years......

and what you do in your own home does affect me. you may be my next door neighbour. you may watch porn all day in the privacy of you own bedroom. you may do it for years but one day that may cause you to abuse one of my family, or friends. It may not either, but I dont want that risk. the good you do has an affect on society in general and the bad too. sodomy is not healthy or normal or natural. validate gay marriage, you normalise sodomy as sex is normal in a heterosexual marriage. so if its normal, lets teach our kids its normal....when we teach our kids about sex, dont miss out normal old sodomy too....

sadly traditional marriage is not held in high esteem in general anymore.....society is suffering for it now..and america will carry on down the slippery slope til some new great american president takes office and turns thing around.

The bolded is demonstrably untrue, no study has concluded that gay couples are less 'worthy' than staight couples or that they provide less of a home, or less satisfacatory role models.

As for your demonization of porn, again, studies of these predelictions do not back up your claims that only those who watch porn are prone to sexually predatory behaviour so there is no more 'risk' to you from those people than there is from those who only engage in 'approved' sexual behaviours.

Your fear that allowing ####### sex to be part and parcel of a normal sexual life somehow forces, demands or seduces everyone to engage in that particular sexual activity is silly, and even if it were true so what? No one is forcing anyone to engage in sexual practices that they do not feel comfortable with, or partners with whom they have no compatibility. Allowing gay partners legal contractual rights does not mean that more and more people will experiment with homosexuality either, it hasn't had that effect since allowing gay couples to engage in sexuality legally, and it will not do that if one allows gay couples to enjoy the legal benefits of coupledom.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Simply repeating the "no cherry picking" mantra doesn't make it so. The Constitution has been cherry picked in the past, as I have noted, and will be in the future. Bet on it, if you're smart.

Are you even listening to yourself and how 'unqualified' you make yourself sound?

I understand quite well and that's the point I'm making.

You're choosing to Cherry Pick because 'some other guy did before, so that makes it ok.'

The constitution isn't about cherry picking or changing it at your will for what you believe in. The constitution is what it is through and through.

You actually invalidate any argument that you have in the matter of gay marriage, the moment you say you can cherry pick what you want to listen to and what you don't want to listen to.

I suppose we should toss out freedom of speech then, because I don't feel people should be able to speak up against government. How does that work for you? I bet I could find a few judges that agree with me because people speak out too much. Cmon, how 'bout it?

Wow. I seriously think you need to step back and take a look at what you're saying and how damned ignorant it is of our constitution.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Simply repeating the "no cherry picking" mantra doesn't make it so. The Constitution has been cherry picked in the past, as I have noted, and will be in the future. Bet on it, if you're smart.

and you didn't even read what I said.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Btw, Paul & Vanessa, freedom of speech is not absolute. It is, in fact, infringed by gay marriage, as is freedom of religion. How can either fare well if barred by a demand that one accept gay marriage and stand silent against if it is against one's religion? How can one refuse their child's indoctrination to embrace it if pressure from the law hampers resistance? How about the rights of those who don't want this change to overtake them?

Your rights end where my nose begins, but not with this.

[~happyndinlove~ 540]

So far the argument is just skimming the surface. Consider this......

If achieving "minority"/suspect status looms as the "fulcrum" gay activists need most to leverage the rest of their "gay rights" platforms into place, the presupposition that gays do constitute an "oppressed minority" is the first to examine. Securing suspect status in one form or another would allow gay activists, through taxpayer-funded lawsuits, to silence or punish their critics and coerce businesses and society at large to grant benefits to their "spouses" or domestic partners.

Got your checkbook ready?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I did. I just didn't comment on all of it.

and you didn't even read what I said.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Btw, Paul & Vanessa, freedom of speech is not absolute. It is, in fact, infringed by gay marriage, as is freedom of religion. How can either fare well if barred by a demand that one accept gay marriage and stand silent against if it is against one's religion? How can one refuse their child's indoctrination to embrace it if pressure from the law hampers resistance? How about the rights of those who don't want this change to overtake them?

Your rights end where my nose begins, but not with this.

Freedom of Religion = Govenment may not have a set religion. It does not protect you from being offended in your views.

Freedom of Speech = Government may not prohibit the people speaking out agains the government/for the government. It does not protect yuo from being offended in your views.

There you go again, trying to define something based on how you 'feel' about it instead of what it actually is. No one is making you 'accept' anything, but they are telling you that you cannot stop them from their beliefs just as you cannot stop them from their beliefs. It's not the job of government to intervene in such matters.

Just as many Christians may be offended by Muslim displays or Muslims may be offended by Christian displays, that doesn't mean you get to do anything about it, because the constitution grants the freedom to practice ones religion as one chooses on their own time without government involvement.

So far the argument is just skimming the surface. Consider this......

If achieving "minority"/suspect status looms as the "fulcrum" gay activists need most to leverage the rest of their "gay rights" platforms into place, the presupposition that gays do constitute an "oppressed minority" is the first to examine. Securing suspect status in one form or another would allow gay activists, through taxpayer-funded lawsuits, to silence or punish their critics and coerce businesses and society at large to grant benefits to their "spouses" or domestic partners.

Got your checkbook ready?

Public employees shouldn't get benefits for their spouses or domestic partners at the taxpayer expense no matter what their sexuality is. That's abuse of taxpayer dollars and overspending in ways that are not necessary.

[Dan J 277]

So far the argument is just skimming the surface. Consider this......

If achieving "minority"/suspect status looms as the "fulcrum" gay activists need most to leverage the rest of their "gay rights" platforms into place, the presupposition that gays do constitute an "oppressed minority" is the first to examine. Securing suspect status in one form or another would allow gay activists, through taxpayer-funded lawsuits, to silence or punish their critics and coerce businesses and society at large to grant benefits to their "spouses" or domestic partners.

Got your checkbook ready?

Many businesses already grant the same benefits to all couples, regardless of orientation. The federal government and most state governments do not.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Your analysisis incredibly sophomoric, but I don't have time now to adequately dissect it.

I'm not arguing from "feelings". Libs do that and it's abhorrent to me. Good try, tho.

Freedom of Religion = Govenment may not have a set religion. It does not protect you from being offended in your views.

Freedom of Speech = Government may not prohibit the people speaking out agains the government/for the government. It does not protect yuo from being offended in your views.

There you go again, trying to define something based on how you 'feel' about it instead of what it actually is. No one is making you 'accept' anything, but they are telling you that you cannot stop them from their beliefs just as you cannot stop them from their beliefs. It's not the job of government to intervene in such matters.

Just as many Christians may be offended by Muslim displays or Muslims may be offended by Christian displays, that doesn't mean you get to do anything about it, because the constitution grants the freedom to practice ones religion as one chooses on their own time without government involvement.

Public employees shouldn't get benefits for their spouses or domestic partners at the taxpayer expense no matter what their sexuality is. That's abuse of taxpayer dollars and overspending in ways that are not necessary.

[~happyndinlove~ 540]

Many businesses already grant the same benefits to all couples, regardless of orientation. The federal government and most state governments do not.

Please explain further. As a business owner, I cannot provide family health insurance to a same sex couple. Nor can I offer a survivor pension benefit. Institutionalizing same sex marriage will open the door for minority status and rights. That's the real fight. The domino affect.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Your analysisis incredibly sophomoric, but I don't have time now to adequately dissect it.

I'm not arguing from "feelings". Libs do that and it's abhorrent to me. Good try, tho.

Really? Every one of your posts have been based on how you 'feel' about gay marriage and you are adamently against it from what you've shown.

There's nothing wrong with you being against it/not liking it, but you can't use an argument to 'bend' things your way just because it helps fit your argument. It's disingenuous.

I'm 'anti-gay' in plenty of ways when it comes to certain aspects of society, but I can't deny someone the right to something just because i 'feel' a certain way about it and that's exactly what you're doing.

You sit there and try and distract from your own beliefs/feelings by saying, "I don't do that, that's what liberals do." and you make comments calling my general analysis sophomoric because you don't agree with it because it doesn't 'fit' your agenda in denying couple of the same sex the same rights that heterosexual couples have.

You can spin/cherry pick/point to times when its been done in the past all you want, that however does not make it right.

Your argument this whole time with the constitution has been: "Well Johnny got a cupcake in 1943, but had that cupcake taken away by a judge, so peter shouldn't be able to get a cupcake here in 2010 because johnny had his taken away in 1943." saying this regardless of whether that was right or wrong at the times based on that persons interpreation to their benefit. Just because it was done before, doesn't make it right and doesn't make it acceptable consitutionally.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Please explain further. As a business owner, I cannot provide family health insurance to a same sex couple. Nor can I offer a survivor pension benefit. Institutionalizing same sex marriage will open the door for minority status and rights. That's the real fight. The domino affect.

Where is the problem with this? If people want to be together on an insurance policy, they can be. It happens all the time with auto insurance policies, even for 'friends' who live in the same house. Hell, in some states you HAVE to have insurance coverage if you are a liscensed driver in the same house even if you don't drive.

A Survivor benefit should be offered to all couples no matter what their orientation if that's indeed something you offer for the 'family.' It's no different than the fact you can put your mom, or even your best friend down on your life insurance policy as the benefactor....