Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Overturns Defense of Marriage Act
12 U.S. states have adopted same-sex marriage over the past decade, and many other states have adopted legislation specifically intended to prevent same-sex marriages from being performed or recognized within their borders. The landscape has just changed on that front, though: the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which barred federal recognition of same-sex marriages, has been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court; here's the ruling itself. From the NBC News version of the story:
"The decision was 5-4, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
“'DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others,' the ruling said. 'The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.'"
One major area this affects is tax law; that's one of the salient points in U.S. v. Windsor, the case that drove the court's conclusion. There's more on the story at many major news outlets, and at law-centric sources like SCOTUSblog. The Boston Globe is also live blogging various reactions.
Update: 06/26 16:58 GMT by T : In a separate decision, the court disappointed supporters of California's Proposition 8, a law passed by voter initiative, under which "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The court ruled that the private parties which had taken up the Prop 8 banner did not have standing to do so; as the story says, "The 5-4 decision avoids, for now, a sweeping conclusion on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutional "equal protection" right that would apply to all states."
Update: 06/26 16:58 GMT by T : In a separate decision, the court disappointed supporters of California's Proposition 8, a law passed by voter initiative, under which "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The court ruled that the private parties which had taken up the Prop 8 banner did not have standing to do so; as the story says, "The 5-4 decision avoids, for now, a sweeping conclusion on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutional "equal protection" right that would apply to all states."
You should no more be able to deny rights to people because of their sexuality than you should be able to deny the right of blacks to vote and hold property.
That Scalia dissented means he's not looking at the right parts of the Constitution but is just being selective.
Believing one group should be able to dictate the rights of another group makes you no better than the Taliban.
Say you have a same-sex marriage in a state that recognizes it or a country that recognizes it. Now you move to Alabama. Are you unmarried? And can Alabama still discriminate against your marriage? Or does this just apply to the federal government?
So basicly we are were we were before the 'OMG Hawaii might let gay people get married!' moral panic.... states set their own marriage rules, the federal government respects state laws, and states have to respect each other's laws (was that last part covered by this decision? I am unsure on that point).
Sounds good.
Just for the sake of shits and giggles, I took screenshots of the three big cable networks (CNN, Fox and MSNBC) about half an hour ago when the first notice came out. I wanted to see how each would report on the announcement.
As predicted, CNN and NBC had nice big, red banners claiming the Supreme Court had a ruling and results would be forthcoming.
Fox, on the other hand, had no notice except for a small box on the right side of their web site which, if you didn't know what to look for, you would have missed.
Now, half an hour later, the Fox headline rules the decision is a victory for gay marriage, NOT that the law was ruled unconstitutional.
So the next time someone whines about the liberal bias in the media, kindly remind them of the twisting of facts by the conservative media.
NOTE: I have a moderate leaning though I do have positions which some might consider on the far side of both political spectrums so this isn't about one or the other. Just the hypocrisy of those who claim bias.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Will the republicans finally pull the jesus buttplug out of their ass and start being conservatives and start getting rid of all the inheritance bullshit they've built up over the years to protect their vision of what a family is supposed to be?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I say, have at it. More married people the better, it helps the economy.
It IS stuff that matters!
The "Left" once again upholds limited central government and states' rights. The "Right" once again argues (unsuccessfully) for central planning taking a larger role for the "common good" at the expense of individual liberty and states' rights to govern and set their own policies.
Three cheers for the Left (i.e. conservatives) winning again!
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
WE SPY ON EVERYONE EQUALLY
This is great. The majority opinion repeatedly makes the point that DOMA stepped on states' toes specifically to HARM a certain group, instead of help it, and that was unconstitutional. The US shouldn't be in the business of denying rights to citizens that states want them to have.
"DOMA’s avowed purpose and practical effect are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the states."
"When the State used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community. DOMA, because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage"
"DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government."
Anyway, this is great. People think that preventing gay marriage is somehow taking a stand against homosexuality or something. News flash: gay couples live as married couples whether you like it or not. The only thing banning the marriage certificate does is punish them for being gay, which is ridiculous beyond belief.
Nothing distracts the sheep from the unlimited surveillance than homosexuality and abortions.
HEY LOOK GAY SQUIRREL!
stuff that matters.
this is supposed to be 'news for nerds'
Where does it say that?
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
The first half of Kennedy's statement is wholly pointless; it's not the federal government's job to decide what is or isn't disrespectful to the people. That attitude is what gets us into problems like this in the first place. The second half is the part that matters: the federal government has no business arbitrarily telling States what laws they may enact unless said laws remove the rights of the people: life, liberty, and property.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Yes but still in the context of 'news for nerds'.
Most readers of Slashdot are introverted, basement dwelling, pale skinned, nocturnal beasts - the prospect of a spouse who makes them get a haircut, put out the trash, and stop dressing like a slob, is probably the most horrible thing imaginable! Run away!
Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters
In the title?
Nobody's free until everybody's free.
This really isn't news for nerds......
Marriage can be either or both a religious activity or a civil one. There are civil benefits for being married. Put simply, if marriage was not a civil thing, there would be no regulation at all on it.
~Jarmihi
this is supposed to be 'news for nerds'
This site is not, nor has it ever been, only news for nerds. To claim otherwise is bullshit, pure and simple.
A wedding may be a religious ceremony. Weddings happen without religion and happened long before religion.
Marriages too.
If 2 or 3 or 10 consenting adults wish to share their lives, so be it. Beyond the emotional component of marriage, which the government can add no value, the rest should fall under contract law.
This "deserve" word you are using. What are you basing that on? Anything beyond your own personal preferences?
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Speaking of Taliban, does this mean polygamy is now legal?
Life is not for the lazy.
Still crazy that California of all places was the state to bad same sex marriages.
As to the DOMA, it was still a cop-out by the Obama administration to refuse to defend the law and require the court to overturn it. The AG's office should defend the laws on the books and allow Congress and the courts to decide on the laws.
Again we see that the Courts are saying that citizen groups do not have standing to support laws placed on the books by their elected officials. Much as Obama refused to defend DOMA, the CA AG and Governor decided not to defend a duly passed statue. This is beyond the pale. IF you don't like a law, get it changed through the process outlined in the Federal and most State Constitutions. This imperial head of state nonsense must end. For the record, I have no objection to the outcome, I just feel there is too much wrong with the way these outcomes are coming about these days. You have no moral standing to complain about FISA, the NSA or the Patriot Act if you defend the way the executive branch in CA and the US acted and the manner SCOTUS came to this ruling.
Nerds can't have an interest in their domestic politics? This is, after all, an American oriented site.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Yes, and this IS stuff that matters in all contexts.
Section 2 still stands, allowing states to not recognize same-sex marriages from other states. IMO a state with Same-sex marriage should pass a law where they don't recognize marriages from states that define marriage differently (AKA as "Between a man and a woman") to force the issue. Worst case you get a lot of new marriage license income as couples have to get remarried for tax/legal reasons.
Newsflash: Nerds care about political issues too. Not just technology.
Congratulations!
JESUSBUTTPLUG.COM
is available. Snap it up before someone else does.
Just putting it out there...
You ever been to a wedding? That marriage certificate thing they have to sign, and the guy who says "By the power vested in me by the state of..."? That's the civil aspect of it. It just happens to be something where, traditionally, we combine civil and religious all in one big party. Plenty of people get married with zero religion involve. And while it's possible to have a purely religious marriage, it holds no civil rights so you never see it done because it's not recognized outside of the church.
I'm afraid that your pet goldfish has zero (0) ring slots. Not only does this totally nerf his ability to use enchanted items, it makes marrying him more difficult.
Obamacare has many parts to it, but as with many things (such as interstates), it's a trade off. The state agrees to how the fed wants something done and in exchange, the fed gives it a big ol' wad of cash.
It's entirely possible for a state to build their section of an interstate differently... but then the fed won't give them any money for it. There's been a few cases of interstates not built to the fed spec and, as a result, the state has to pay for it entirely.
Both nerds and gays rarely associate with the opposite sex ;p
On a more serious note, laws, politics, economics, and government can be seen as just another system, with engineered rules and processes.
combo deal: turntheothercheek.com for half off!
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Anyway, this is great. People think that preventing gay marriage is somehow taking a stand against homosexuality or something. News flash: gay couples live as married couples whether you like it or not.
You clearly have not been following this issue. This wasn't just about a marriage certificate. This was also about the thousand or so federal laws that applied only to heterosexual couples now also applying to homosexual couples that are married.
Now they can truly be viewed as equal couples in the eyes of the federal government and, most importantly, receive the same exact treatment -- good or bad -- in the federal legislation for married couples.
The only thing banning the marriage certificate does is punish them for being gay.
What rock have you been living under for the past decade?
My work here is dung.
Voluntary relationships between consenting adults are none of the government's F****** business!
It should be totally illegal for the government to discriminate against or give preferential treatment to anyone (including for tax or government benefit purposes) based on their personal relationships. Single people, married people, polygamists, homosexuals, heterosexuals or whomever, should all be EQUAL under the law.
And today is exactly ten years since SCOTUS issued its Lawrence v. Texas ruling, another landmark case in getting the government out of people's bedrooms.
Liberty in your lifetime
It would be straightforward to have "marriage" be separate from "legally joined in the eyes of the state"
Marriage is a religious activity
Atheists don't get married?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
So is the price of peanut butter in Connecticut.
Simply making your assertion with one sentence doesn't work.
Slashdot hasn't been news for nerds for quite a while now nor stuff that matters. Get your head out of the sand.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Two higher earning people getting married pay *more* tax than the same two people committing to one another without the government's blessing.
You don't have to file jointly just because you are married. There's no 'marriage penalty' because it's completely up the couple whether they want to file jointly or separately. So if filing jointly is worse, then file separately.
They took that off the title recently.
I don't know what you see in your browser, but I don't see News for Nerds or Stuff That Matters anywhere on the slashdot page. They took that down quite a while ago from what I understand.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
More to the point: speaking of Taliban, does this mean pedophilia is now legal?
1) I completely concur on government staying out of marriage. For sake of argument, let's call "marriage recognized by the state" as "civil union". Two people who enter into a civil union are recognized by the state as having certain benefits, including tax and legal.
2) The question citizens should ask themselves is this: Does allowing homosexual unions into the definition of a "civil union" harm or benefit society? If there's clear evidence that homosexual unions harm society, then let's ban it. But, in the absense of such evidence, the state should not restrict liberties of its citizens.
The reason why I bring up the subject of harm is this: if we allow homosexual unions to be recognized as civil unions, then what is there to stop advocates of other taboo-unions from petitioning for the same opportunity, such as unions of incest or bestiality? Using harm to society as a metric for evaluating these other relationships allows us to allow the former while filtering out the latter. It can be easily argued that incest harm society by its affect on the human gene pool, and bestiality can be negated for either animal cruelty or risk of exposure to disease. But I have yet to see clear justification (beyond biblical refernece) as to harm inflicted upon a society for permitting homosexual unions. Norway and Sweden have allowed them for over a decade, and quality of life in both contries appears to be substantially high.
Are you using a time machine? That hasn't been part of the title for a long time now.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
what the hell does any of that even mean??
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
View the source
Sure, but there are plenty of other places to go for 'normal' news. I'd hate to have to wade through mounds of 'normal' news to find interesting technical and science related news. Don't be so defensive, just an observation.
Who are you to decree how many ring slots his goldfish has? Aren't you being a little judgmental there?
Of course we do, but there are plenty of other places to find news regarding political issues. Just my opinion, which last I checked I'm still entitled to have. I feel like these topics would be better suited for a different venue.
it is about destroying the family, teaching kindergartners to masturbate to "find out" if they are gay.
Wait, what? Is that what was going on before DOMA was passed? Citation please?
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Country music is music that country music fans like to listen to; news for nerds is news that nerds like to talk about. The reply count was 191 just now...I'd say this story makes the cut.
So you are saying there is not a fraction of the /. readers that have Same Sex partners??
heck if it was an option there are Geeks that would have partners from different PLANETS.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Yes but still in the context of 'news for nerds'.
I've been around these parts a long time, and I fully expected Slashdot would post this story.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Very cool. The question is whether there remains a subversive nerd element at slashdot or whether they just did a shitty job changing the site!
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
I would never say anything of the sort. I'm merely stating that I feel like political news should be excluded from this venue.
because in the west marriage is of christian origins and that makes religious nuts nervous. Whenever you try to call relationship of gays, lesbians or polyamoric peeps a marriage, the bible alert goes off: "bible says marriage is 1man+1woman! error! error!" and that gets you nowhere in a country split roughly in half.
Why would you care about label when it's the perks you are after (inheritance, visitations in hospitals, etc)?
As an immigrant who came to the US under a K-1 fiance visa, DOMA has always seemed to me to be one of the very worst pieces of active Federal legislation.
Gay citizens have never been able to sponsor their partners for immigration as my now wife did for me. If she happened to be a guy, we would probably be in a different country right now, even though I came here so she could take her dream job. Make no mistake, DOMA was designed to keep gays out of the country. It should never have been made law, and it should have been repealed long ago. It will be a shameful part in the history of the United States.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Who are you to decree how many ring slots his goldfish has? Aren't you being a little judgmental there?
Don't blame me, I just read the character sheet. I fully respect the right of a goldfish to have built a character that sucks less; but this one apparently didn't.
I see where the gay marriage ban in California will be overturned because the found that the people didnt have the right to appeal to a lower court. Why did the people do this? Because the AG refused to appeal because he didn't like the gay marriage ban. So what kind of precedent does this set? If the officials of the state don't appeal a ruling then the citizens are pretty much screwed? What kind of crap is that?
Why don't we just get the govt (state and feds) OUT of the marriage business?
I've wondered this for many years. No government at any level has any business creating financial incentives or any kind of restrictions on marriage at all. I see no reason why I should enjoy or be prohibited from any benefits (financial or otherwise) due to my marital status. If we want to say that marriage is a way to bundle certain estate benefits in order to save time then fine but marriage should not be required or incentivized for any of those very same benefits.
Where I live it is impossible for a man to own a house in just his own name if he is married. However a woman can own a house in her own name if she is married. I'm astonished that discriminatory laws like that remain in effect.
Marriage is a religious thing...if someone wants to get married, let them find a church to do it.
No it isn't about religion. I'm married but I'm definitely not religious nor was I married in, around or by a church. A marriage is a just a public acknowledgement of a private fact. I have someone in my life who I care very deeply about and so I made a public commitment to her. Has nothing to do with religion or children or financial benefits at all. You can get married and never involve a church at all. Power to conduct marriages is given by the state to individuals, kind of like being a notary. The fact that the individual so empowered happens to be a member of a church is incidental.
Why blaspheme when you can buttblastpheme?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
because in the west marriage is of christian origins
Bollocks.
The concept long pre-dates Christianity.
I'm fairly positive that the site redesign didn't change the focus - there have always been a handful of political posts. I have always questioned their relevance. There are people from other countries that read slashdot as well, if we cram in too many US Political posts it must be pretty boring for them.
I feel like it is a function of the scripting that allows you to see how many 'new' posts there are that changes the title. If you search for 'slashdot' on google, it still clearly states the full HTML title. Judging by how well the rest of the site appears to be crafted, I highly doubt that it was a re-branding mistake.
You are missing the point. Say stuff that matters as a generic excuse means slashdot might as well just run all news becasue some of it matters to someone.
What it seemed to mean at the beginning was nerd specific culture news. New Star Wars, for example.
Yes, there are gay nerds, but THIS issue isn't really a nerd culture item. Its an all cultural item, as opposed to s sub cultural item.
Nerd where pants, clearly we should run articles on new pant styles . . .
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
true but on the flip side of the coin. when "civil unions rights" were offered in some places to homosexuals, that wasnt "good enough" for them, even though it gave them the exact same rights just under a different word. So its not just the religious who have an issue here.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Those of us from the beginning beg to differ.
You could look at the archives..if you are brave enough look into the face of how wrong you are.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Marriage is a religious activity, therefore how can the state discriminate on its basis?
Curious. I'm married and I've never been involved with any church in my entire life. Exactly how is it that I'm married if "marriage is a religious activity? Oh, that's right, churches have no legal power whatsoever aside from power delegated to individual members of the church by the state for that purpose.
You can be married without ever involving a religious institution. Marriage has nothing to do with religion aside from the fact that many marriages are officiated by members of churches.
Of course, but it isn't a Nerd subculture item.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Sadly, though, it used to be a site where a decent percentage of people could tell the difference between a JFET and a BJT. Or explain the reasons for chosing a J-K Master-Slave instead of a D-Type.
Unfortunately, "IT" became the craze, and all you need to feel empowered in that is a phillips screwdriver.
does this mean polygamy is now legal?
It is legal if the State you live in says it is legal. Only then can you attempt to claim Federal benefits under this ruling.
Nope.
There are a great many harms that come from polygamy. Real scientifically proven harms, not 'My religion doesn't like it their for it should not be allowed' harms.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Don't like alcohol? Don't drink it.
Don't like porn? Don't watch it.
Don't like sex? Don't have it.
Don't like guns? Don't buy them.
Don't like gay marriage? Don't get one.
Don't like your rights taken away?
Don't take away someone else's.
40% Funny, 40% Insightful, 40% Informative, 40% Dolomite
The Bible says nothing of the sort. The Bible says your wife's servant should sire you an heir if your wife can't. If you wanted to defend a definition of marriage that says one man + one woman, the Bible is that last book I'd use.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
"gave them the exact same rights just under a different word" has never actually happened. Ever. So it's a little hard to verify your hypothesis.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
While I cannot comment on the specifics of the research... the article you cite is pretty weak, even saying that the original study "indicated a link" (ie did not 'prove a link')... and that a later 1999 study could not confirm the original results.
Last I checked, in science... proof is had through repeatability, predictability and being widely accepted/recognized... something I do not see here.
Is there a 'gay gene'? Perhaps... but the evidence does not yet prove that Xq28 is that.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
You're forgetting those participants who bring Frisbee dogs along with them to the ceremony. Let alone that black lab with the tennis ball in it's mouth.
People who believe the government's marriage certificate is a religious sacrament are worshiping in the wrong building.
The reply count was 191 just now..
Unfortunately, Slashdot isn't just for nerds anymore. It got too trendy to pretend to be a nerd, and besides nerds are too good at blocking the ads. So the scope had to be broadened to encompass other forms of perversion as well. For better or worse, that's the deal.
The Bible says your wife's servant should sire you an heir if your wife can't.
No it doesn't and the consequences for Abraham doing that were pretty damaging to the Jewish people down through history. Modern day Arabs trace their lineage back to Ishmael and the debate over who are the "true sons" of Abraham has been one of the most fracturing ideological dichotomies in the present day. This split, you will note, is an actual fact regardless of whether or not you acknowledge the underlying story as true or not. In either case I don't think any of the Abrahamic religions would claim that "your wife's servant should sire you an heir if your wife can't" is the moral to be taken from that story.
except that is has. at least in NY 2 gay people could get the same rights as a married couple simply by living together for XX amount of years. in fact they dont even have to be gay they just have to live together for XX years to get the same rights as a married couple. so yes, at least around me this was an option that the gay crowd did not find to be acceptable.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
That is very probably the worst argument an AC has ever made on /. When did you stop beating your wife by the way?
No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
no, it is not. a rose by any other name is still a rose, a civil union by any other name (marriage) is still a civil union.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Unfortunately, "IT" became the craze, and all you need to feel empowered in that is a phillips screwdriver.
Bullshit. You also need at least 3 different sizes of Torx to get anywhere these days ;-)
Only closeted, very repressed gay men talk like you. Set yourself free.
Marriage gives you certain benefits - taxes, insurance rates, access rights, etc - that no other 'grouping' does.
While that is presently true that does not imply that it should remain that way.
You're never going to get government out of all of the things that marriage gives benefits to.
Possibly true but that doesn't mean we should not try to get the government out of something that is none of the government's business.
Rights are given by the government.
In the USA rights are inherent to the people and power is granted TO the government for select purposes. Have you actually read the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independence?
If marriage gives you extra rights, then the government says what those are.
Marriage doesn't give any rights. I didn't gain any rights when I got married. It does give certain benefits which arguably most or all of which should not require a marriage to obtain.
the concept in general yes, but that's ignoring how the thing evolved
marriage -> religious version becomes the only existing form when christianity becomes the state religion in the west -> the state recognizes the christian version granting non-religious perks by default
Companies pay a single person the same salary as a marriedperson but they pay the married personTHOUSANDS more in health and other benefits. Why?
Those of us from the beginning beg to differ.
You could look at the archives..if you are brave enough look into the face of how wrong you are.
Been reading it daily for over 10 years, since at least 2000 I think. Your memory is selective.
I would never say anything of the sort. I'm merely stating that I feel like political news should be excluded from this venue.
Then stop putting it up there.
Wait, what's that? It's not your website? Then why should anyone care what you think about the content?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Marriage has about as much to do with christianity as toilet paper does to taking a shit. People were shitting long before it's invent and won't stop when it goes out of style.
If you really want to make concessions we should abolish all marriages and get the church out of the institution entirely.
I got here through a series of tubes
Because until gay people can be married their relationship will always be second class. Less than the relationship of a straight couple. That was the point of this ruling, in fact.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
the laws of marriage mostly protect women, that is very much the government's business.
No unconstitutional act should be passed by a government. Proper research and legal opinion should be required before passing any act. That said, to enforce this and require proper research and study any act found to be unconsitutional should make those who supported the acts passing legally and fiscally responsible for any consequences of the act.
Don't Pass Unconstitutional Acts
Both the Left and the Right should support that.
Only Section 3 of DOMA has been ruled unconstitutional (the definition of marriage)
Section 2 - where anti-gay-marriage states do not have to recognize gay marriages from other states - is alive and well (and awful).
When the dust settles, people on both sides have to admit that maybe there was a problem with a homosexual judge ultimately deciding Proposition 8's fate. And before anyone says, "A straight judge could've been equally subjective," read the text of that judge's original decision to toss Prop 8. I find it hard to believe that a judge on either side of the issue could've been any less objective w/o outing themselves as a crusading activist.
... where is the problem with same sex marriage?
The solution to the "separate but equal" problem isn't to force churches to accept gay marriages. That prioritizes an implied right in the 14th amendment over an explicit right in the 1st amendment. If we do it that way, we arrive at gay couples successfully suing a church because the church refuses to allow them to marry there. That's a clear violation of one of the founding principles of the country - the freedom to practice whatever religion you wish.
The solution is to shift all federal statutes regarding married couples over to civil unions. Turn "marriage" into a purely ceremonial term. Let churches retain use of the term "marriage" for their purposes however they wish, it will just be inconsequential for legal or tax purposes.
No. What you're trying to say is it's only marriage if it conforms to what you say it is, and nothing else... and prior to it being exactly what you want it to be, it wasn't marriage. That is a bullshit argument.
Some years ago there was a fucked in the head christian group that conned/lied it's way into government grants to cure recidivism in parolees. The went before congress and boasted that their program had a 100% success rate for inmates who completed the course. Their program consisted of doing prison classes, religious worshiping, and their conversion to Christianity bullshit. So how did they get that 100% success rate? Easy. The final step of their program was to not commit another crime ever. Therefor, if someone was paroled and later committed a crime, they obviously never completed the course.
Your argument is the same kind of bullshit. Marriage was 700 wives and 300 concubines long before it was 1 man 1 woman; it wasn't "something else," it was marriage.... and probably a whole lot of fun until the in-laws came around.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Oh yeah, I totally forgot I don't own slashdot. Thanks for reminding me.
Wait, I was just told yesterday that the US Supreme Court was irredeemably conservative-biased and packed with old-school racists that want to take away the rights of black people to vote?
Now the other channel is telling me that the US Supreme Court is *actually* made up of leftist communists that want fags to get married?
Which IS it?
-Styopa
....try the idea of two mother-in-laws. Now we know what Marlon Brando was really talking about.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
I see where the gay marriage ban in California will be overturned because the found that the people didnt have the right to appeal to a lower court. Why did the people do this? Because the AG refused to appeal because he didn't like the gay marriage ban.
The (democratically elected, BTW) AG, in her professional opinion as, you know, an attorney, determined that the law was unconstitutional and refused to enforce it.
Suppose that, say, the Mississippi legislature, passed a law making it legal to hold slaves in that state. (Again, I mean.) By your standard, the AG of Mississippi couldn't say, "No, sorry, we tried this already, and it's not legal under the US Constitution. Anymore." He or she would have to attempt to enforce it, up to and including going before Federal judges and saying, "Yeah, look, my constituents are idiots, I know this is illegal, you know this is illegal, but I am totally going to try it anyway because state law."
So what kind of precedent does this set? If the officials of the state don't appeal a ruling then the citizens are pretty much screwed? What kind of crap is that?
Well, yes, there is always the potential for the abuse of elected (or appointed, however your AG works) power.
Supposing the officials of a state failed to enforce some law, any citizens who were, in fact, screwed would be able to sue. But they'd have to show standing; they'd have to demonstrate that the state actually screwed you in some way. Which these folks from California failed to do, because "OMG the state totally allowed these two dudes who live here to get married!" does not constitute "harm."
In this case, "the people" were not screwed. That was the meat of the decision: The Supremes carefully considered whether anyone was screwed, and decided that the people complaining had, in fact, not been screwed.* Whether anyone had been screwed was crucial to the decision; had there been anyone who could show that they were screwed, they would have standing and would be able to sue.
(*The only people getting screwed** were the gay newlyweds, and, hell, that's why they got married. So they could, you know, screw each other. At least until that whole newlywed glow wears off and they sette into the everyday grind of married life.)
(** Yes, I am enjoying the double entendre of the word "screwed." Glad you noticed.)
Why shouldn't any two people be able to enter into a contract and receive these kind of tax/pension/health/inheritance benefits? What about two elderly sisters who only have each other in the world? Why is marriage, now that everyone's coming around to the idea that it's not solely - or even mainly - about procreation, still limited to couples who can legally have sex with each other*?
*Counter examples welcome, so don't be a dick just because you can prove me wrong. That doesn't automatically make you better than me.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
That is an argument from ignorance: in the bible, marriage is between a man and a number of wives and concubines and slaves...
In the West marriage comes from Roman and Greek institutions, altered by Germanic traditions, and a post hoc sanction by the church -- inheritor of the Roman tradition.
No worries, glad to be of service.
Just do us all a favor, and try to keep that in mind the next time you're tempted to complain about what other people do with their own property.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
If you allow churches to use "marriage" as purely ceremonial term, what prevents some church wedding gays? :)
- Raynet --> .
Marriage has always been a social institution, serving all the societal ends you mention, plus also the more "mundane" purposes of raising children and providing security for women. Marriage wasn't designed by society or a church specifically to do these things, they were (and still are) things for which marriage is used, the de facto "purpose" as practiced.
Now, throughout most of history, religion - whether the official state-sponsored or just practiced by vast majority - was at the center of social and cultural practices. Now, in the USA, we have instead of state-sanctioned religion, federally-mandated absence of official religion, guaranteeing free selection of any or no denomination. But the cultural practices remain. This is why I think it's a fair description to describe the US as a "Christian nation": because our culture and customs still primarily reflect those of (most of) our Christian ancestors.
I think the current tussle over gay marriage is a good example of the inevitable result of freedom of/from religion - there isn't anymore one social institution that defines how marriage is practiced, and as popular opinion about how it should be practiced change, there's no good reason that the laws of a secular state wouldn't change to reflect it.
None of that is an argument for or against gay marriage. Some people (even some religious people) think that the state should not be involved in marriage at all - let the churches define what they're going to call marriage and don't do anything special about it. Others think that society as a whole has enough interest in the institution of marriage to have some legal protections for it, myself included, but these people need to understand that in a secular state, "because the Bible says so" isn't a reason to pass a law, amend a constitution, or issue a ruling. If Christian denominations want to make the case that a particular form of marriage is the only one deserving of legal protection, they need to make a different argument. And frankly, support for artificial contraception and serial polygamy seriously undermine any Christian's attempt to do so, because they've already reduced marriage to an arrangement of convenience.
Personally, I think marriage is about kids. Raising kids, who need the influence of a mother and father. At least that's what it should be about. Note that this doesn't strictly preclude gay marriage or infertile couples, but when the court hears a case about a "civil rights issue", and it's about visitation rights and pension benefits, I see a huge disconnect in the debate on this topic. Legal convenience, even tax penalties, != civil rights issue. I've come to the opinion that creating legal shortcuts for some of these issues is fine, call it "civil union", "designated legal family unit" or whatever, the tax/pension/benefits/visitation-type issues can all be resolved totally independently of any "heterosexual concept of marriage is discriminatory" claim.
But I still think there's a benefit to society to protect/promote specifically the man/wife/kids arrangement where the union is permanent. How a secular state such as the US should do that in the fairest way, while upholding the principiles of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution & still respecting the rights of religious believers is an open question. But I don't have high hopes for a good outcome, especially given the way the discussion usually goes, coming from "both" sides of the debate.
I recall that at one point the church was against marriage (in Europe around the middle ages).
- Raynet --> .
Yes but you could say that since the bible goes back to Adam and Eve, therefore... However, who performed the ceremony for Adam and Eve? Did they have to build a church first so that they had a proper church wedding and not some hedonistic hippie love in?
As Jimmy Carr said, 9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape.
So either you admit that even an overwhelming majority IS NOT IN ITSELF enough evidence to show that the rights of another can be infringed because of the majority opininon, or you are admitting you think gang rape is cool.
No, the OP is either the victim or the perpetrator in your scenario.
If you allow churches to use "marriage" as purely ceremonial term, what prevents some church wedding gays? :)
There are churches that currently marry two people of the same sex, so I'm not sure of your point.
Marriage has just been redefined. Before all this buffoonary, there was no such thing as Gay Marriage, it was created by those that wanted to redefine the word marriage for their personal agenda and succeeded by Liberal ideology.
What next, should I be allowed to marry my dog? How about my sister, my brother, my daughter? Are you going to deny those that wish to?
i don't give a shit what 'marriage' is because it's only a word and the perks are important. It's the conservative christians, who cling to their holy book and appeal to tradition, you have to convince in order to get shit done, not me. Drop the label and see your chances of change shoot through the roof or get bogged down in a fucking stupid ideological war, the choice is yours.
Marriage has about as much to do with christianity as toilet paper does to taking a shit. People were shitting long before it's invent and won't stop when it goes out of style.
If you really want to make concessions we should abolish all marriages and get the church out of the institution entirely.
While the first paragraph you make has a lot of wisdom, your last sentence does not. Why does anything a church do or say about church ceremonies bother you? Church marriages only bestow legal rights because the government says they do. It is the government that should get out of the marriage business since it is so cluttered with other baggage and enter the civil union business because it better describes the legal situation of what is happening from the government's position. Dropping the language of marriage, means the government can do what it likes with civil unions. As for church marriages, there are two choices either they can remain a purely religious ceremony but you still need a government sanctioned civil union for the legal benefits formerly known as marriage or the government is free to recognize church marriages as an acceptable form of civil unions, just like they recognize them now as a legal form of marriage.
You will find examples of both solutions in various countries throughout the world. And if people had left out their own personal agendas and focused on the civil rights issues, the US would probably have already chosen one of those two solutions instead of trying to fight a losing battle over what the definition of the word marriage is.
How many wives did David have again?
No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
Because until gay people can be married their relationship will always be second class. Less than the relationship of a straight couple. That was the point of this ruling, in fact.
If this is about civil rights, as it is purported to be, it is about individuals, not about their relationship. Anybody who needs a piece of paper from the government to validate their relationship with another human being is why their relationship is second class, not because of the definition of some word.
Yeah, I'll try to refrain from expression opinions too - opinions suck!
Just that if someone wants to protect the term "marriage" from gays by turning the government backed marriages into civil unions and only allowing churches to do "marriages", they will be suprised that it wont prevent gays from getting married.
- Raynet --> .
All i am saying is that it doesn't matter that marriage existed in dozen different forms in 50 'pagan' cultures. The West is Christian for 2 thousand years, all other forms were extinguished and what the state finally recognized for its non-religious purposes was the only existing form of marriage, the Christian one. Common folk hearing 'marriage' think 'i now announce you husband and wife' marriage in church, before God and shit and many of them vote along these lines.
If you had 100% socially liberal society there would be no problem but the reality on the planet Earth is that to change things you have to route around hardcore traditionalists who vote en masse.
There is that thing called continuity. If you can convince all the religious hardcores to discard all the existing laws we got a deal. But that is much harder than coming up with a parallel form with another name.
You must be a republican from texas!
I got here through a series of tubes
ask any Bible belt Christian what the definition of marriage is, because that's what he will defend and vote for, and where he got it from.
Judging from what you've expressed thus far, I'd say that's probably for the best.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
and what the point might be?
- Raynet --> .
Did the gay married couples in New York enjoy federal recognition of their marriage and all that it entails? Guessing not, as stipulated in the DOMA act. Not sure why it's notable that this was deemed unacceptable by "the gay crowd".
while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done
I think people are too ready to make the concession of handing the word "marriage" over to the sectarians when the root of the establishment of marriage is civil and not religious. I personally don't think secular people should make concessions to the sectarians at all let alone over who you love or to whom you choose to make a legal contract with.
Concessions to the church on the grounds of redefinition of the word marriage smacks of Jim Crow to me. If people want to have non sanctioned religious union ceremonies, they are more than welcome to that already, but marriage is now, has been, and always should be the milieu of the the state.
If we're going to go down that road, it really seems like the church should be making the concessions to the state and not the other way around. I've never heard anyone argue for "sectarian unions" so why should civil liberties be the ones to cede the word when the church has inappropriately co-opted the word. As always, you do have some good points though, thank you.
I got here through a series of tubes
There's an even simpler solution. You don't allow gay couples to sue a church that refuses to perform a religious ceremony for them. I see no reason why a church should be forced to marry anyone as long as they can make a reasonable argument that the ceremony runs counter to their religion. I see no reason why any couple needs religious approval for a marriage, it's a civil matter. Churches are only in charge of the "religious ceremony" part of a marriage. The ceremony means nothing without the civil paperwork and the paperwork can be signed without a priest looking over your shoulder.
Of course, after a church has refused to many a couple, maybe the couple will take their faith and donations to a church that doesn't hate them.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Nevermind that... what was Eve's son's mother-in-law's name?
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
These types of questions just speak volumes to the ignorance that is prevalent in society in regards to this issue. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. I think and hope that you are.
Basically, all the Supreme Court said today was that "If a state recognizes a same-sex marriage, then the federal government must also recognize that marriage."
So at this point, it's up to the individual states to define what is a marriage within their state. The federal government MUST accept that definition of marriage. No more. No Less.
So basically, if a state were to recognize polygamous marriages as legal, then I would think that the federal government would have to accept them. If a state were to recognize a marriage and one (or more) of the participants in the marriage were under the age of 18, then I would think the federal government would be required to recognize those marriages as well...in fact, many states do recognize marriages between people under the age of 18 and the federal government does recognize them.
I do believe that there are no states that currently recognize polygamous marriages. But some states do allow marriages by persons under the age of 18, some of them require parental consent and other various requirements to be legal.
Now, as a completely separate issue, pretty much all of the proponents of same-sex marriage haven't been advocating for polygamy or pedophilia. The argument has always been, and this is my view as well, "As long as the marriage between two consenting adults, it should be legal."
This means that bestiality isn't being advocated for, animals aren't capable of giving consent. It also means that pedophilia isn't being advocated for, since minors are typically unable to give consent in many legal situations and they aren't adults. It also means that polygamy isn't being advocated for, since it involves more than two people.
But, for me, marriage is viewed as more of a life-long contract of commitment to each other. So, in my view, bestiality shouldn't be legal, since animals don't have the legal or even the mental capacity of giving consent. Marriage with minors also shouldn't be legal, since minors don't have the legal capacity to enter in to most contracts by themselves, and are often times not developed enough to make those decisions in the best way anyway (which means they lack the ability to make a properly informed consent).
Marriages with 3 or more partners is more of a grey area for me. If everyone is capable of giving consent and they all consent to the arrangement, and everyone is an adult, then I see little issue with it since it doesn't really impact me in any meaningful way. "Pursuit of happiness" and all that...do whatever you want. My only doubt on it would be the fact that there are no real "three-way relationships". There are only all of the possible two-way relationships that can exist between the three (or more) individuals.... i.e., you can't have one relationship with 2 other people, you can only have 2 (or more) relationships with one other person.
Marriage has about as much to do with christianity as toilet paper does to taking a shit. People were shitting long before it's invent and won't stop when it goes out of style.
You're waiting for the three seashells too? I thought I was the only one!
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
Nerds get married too.
Traditionally, marriage has always been between a man and a women. Now personally, I hold that definition as in fact culturally 'traditional'. However, I do not personally hold it against anyone that wish to be recognized as a married homosexual couple or a polygamous family. For me, this issue is one out of legality. The goal-post of the definition of "Marriage" did not get moved to include homosexuals. That goal-post got knocked down to include...well...whatever the states want. Which BTW is how to should be; a state right.
Life is not for the lazy.
Incidentally, some gay couples do choose to be biological parents. Marriage, sexual orientation, and having children are three distinct things that really don't have much to do with each other.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
Expressing, silly spell check.
Probably so!
Just that if someone wants to protect the term "marriage" from gays by turning the government backed marriages into civil unions and only allowing churches to do "marriages", they will be suprised that it wont prevent gays from getting married.
The issue isn't about protecting the term "marriage" from gays. The actual issue is about equal protection under the law. That is a civil rights issue. Whether one needs to change the definition of marriage to achieve that or to use a different term is secondary.
The churches do have every right to defend their definition of marriage. While marriage existed long before the church, it was the marriage of church and state (no pun intended) through the Holy Roman Empire (ie. the catholic church) the gave midevil Europe its widespread understanding of marriage that has been spread everywhere that the european colonies spread, including the US. So, while, marriage existed prior to christianity, our modern notion of marriage, like it or not, has its roots in the christian concept of marriage (some states in the US even have Holy Matrimony on their marriage licenses!).
Whether people want to admit it or not, religion heavily influenced the development of the US and most western countries. Even if that influence has weakened in recent years, the roots of religion permeate just about everything in our modern society. As such, it makes more sense to drop the baggage associated with the word marriage and use the modern term Civil Union. For one, it better describes the legal arrangement and leaves no doubt that it is something recognized by the civil authorities.
But, the moment the discussion moves from civil rights and equality under the law and changes to things like redefining the word marriage, well, then we are just as guilty as the churches who strive to hold on to their position. Rights should be granted to everybody, but nobody should be able to force their definition on another group, religious or otherwise.
...
Bit of a glutton for punishment, aren't we?
Lol, you're alright with me, man.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Sure sure, I was just pointing out that it is silly to demand civil unions and say that marriage is reserved for churches as if current churches wont allow gay marriage one can just create a new church that will allow it. So there is no point in doing that.
- Raynet --> .
I think people are too ready to make the concession of handing the word "marriage" over to the sectarians when the root of the establishment of marriage is civil and not religious. I personally don't think secular people should make concessions to the sectarians at all let alone over who you love or to whom you choose to make a legal contract with.
Concessions to the church on the grounds of redefinition of the word marriage smacks of Jim Crow to me. If people want to have non sanctioned religious union ceremonies, they are more than welcome to that already, but marriage is now, has been, and always should be the milieu of the the state.
If we're going to go down that road, it really seems like the church should be making the concessions to the state and not the other way around. I've never heard anyone argue for "sectarian unions" so why should civil liberties be the ones to cede the word when the church has inappropriately co-opted the word. As always, you do have some good points though, thank you.
That is only partially true. While in the abstract, marriage existed long before organized religions, by the middle ages, in Western Europe, the Church and State were one under the Holy Roman Empire. Much our modern laws and concepts come from that period and marriage is no different. So in the West and every country that was settled by Europeans or the Catholic Church, marriage has been handed down in one very particular way, at least for the past 1000 years. So, yes, marriage existed before then, but from the end of the dark ages until recently, it has been viewed by most of society, even atheist countries, one way.
The religious definition of marriage, at least in the West has pretty much been unchanged in that entire period. What has changed is the non-religious notion, so I do not see why you would hold the position that churches should change their definition.
As for Civil Unions, look at what the argument is, from the government perspective (thus leaving out the emotional arguments). Should gay couples have the same civil rights as heterosexual couples? The answer is yes. So initially we are talking about something civil. Now, the traditionalists will say that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and the progressives will say it is a union between any two people. So marriage is about a union.
Thus, we have a government recognition of certain rights bestowed upon two people when they enter into a Civil Union. It does not matter what their gender, race or creed. The government is blind to those things. The government is also free to recognize a religious ceremony (ie marriage) as a legal form of civil union (just as they recognize them as a legal form of marriage now) or they can leave them as a religious ceremony and people will need to go to the courthouse to garner the rights estabilished in through a civil union and then go to a church if they want a religious ceremony (many countries do this now).
Forcing religions to abide by a new definition of a term they have used consistently for 1000 years simply won't work. First and foremost, the government has no power to force religions to recognize any marriages. If married Catholics have certain "rights" in the Catholic Church, the government cannot force those rights be granted to married Baptists? Nor can the government force churches to accept members who don't follow their teachings.
The gay community understands this. Today's rulings and all of the same sex marriage rulings have zero impact on churches. Those that are in favor of gay marriage already perform those ceremonies, even in states that don't recognize same sex marriages. Those that are opposed don't. By forcing the change in the definition of the word marriage only serves to antagonize the churches and push them further away. Polls show that many church goers are in favor of civil unions but not in changing the definition of marriage. If the concern is really about equal acces under the law (civil rights), then
Yes, because "separate but equal" has always been the way to go. I once thought the same way. After all, if they can get the same benefits and responsibilities with a "civil union", then why are they so up in arms over calling it "marriage"? It's just a word, after all... Oh, wait.
Scalia was outraged that SCOTUS hadn't dismissed Windsor for the pretty much the same reasons that they dismissed Perry. There was no case. The district court said that DOMA(3) was not constitutional. The government agreed. Should have been end of story with DOMA(3) in the trashcan (in that district ... but with more to follow from other cases like Golinski, Pederson, Gil, and a dozen others). The supreme court exists to resolve disputes - and there was no dispute here. Both parties to the case were in full agreement.
The only fly in the ointment was Speaker John Boehner sending in the BLAG (bi-partisan legal advisory group - which is anything *but* bi-partisan since the authorization came from a 3-2 committee vote of Republicans vs. Democrats) to make the appeals to the circuit court and then to SCOTUS.
So Scalia's preferred outcome would probably have been to deny Cert in the first place, or to ditch the case on standing grounds - either of which would have still resulted in DOMA(3) being struck down.
The latter part of his dissent makes it clear that he isn't a big fan of same sex marriage
Effectively, the US Constitution is a negative constitution. Most constitutions enumerate rights with a list, like the UN Declaration of Rights. The US Constitution gives all rights to the people except the ones that it has enumerated to belong to the government.
You are correct, and that is why our current president dislikes the Constitution. In complaining that the Constitution is "a charter of negative liberties," he expresses a goal that's completely at odds with the Founders’ vision.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
It's key to the whole idea of a unified country that states recognize each other's legal actions. That's why it's in black and white.
Ignoring another state's marriage violates the spirit of the constitution, its plain language, and hundreds of years of precedent, including precedent about marriages and divorces (see history of Nevada).
Considering the number of religions that use marriage, the number of societies that use marriage, the number of governments that use marriage and the history of marriage existing before many of the currently popular religions (including Christianity) - would it not make more sense to separate marriage from religion?
When you get married in a civil service you are proclaimed to be married.
When you get married in most religious services I have seen, the key phrase seems to be "Joined Under God" - even during the service the word marriage is secondary.
So lets let each religion define their own term, and let marriage be the socially acceptable form that incorporates all races, creeds, colours, and orientations.
Of course this wont happen, because a group of people who follow a man who preached tolerance, generosity and hope all spend their lives practicing discrimination, greed and fear.
Car analogy time!
So then I take it you would find it acceptable if a state introduced the ability for anyone to get a drivers license simply by owning a car for XX years, but then stripped men of the ability to get a drivers license by any other means? I mean, why would anyone possibly find that unacceptable? You'd still be able to get the same license as a women, it'd just take a little longer.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
especially the unalienable ones!
lol
The world continues as it is, because of differing opinions... think of how boring it would be if we all agreed on everything.
nothing! And thats the beauty of the entire idea!
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
But not if they move to Alabama or North Carolina. You would be well served to read the opinion - it specifically allows the *each state* to decide marriage in a manner binding upon the federal government. The most cogent arguments are made not by the majority, but by the dissenters, which point out, among other things, that this precedent would allow couples formerly considered married to lose that status if they moved to a state which did not recognize them as married.
A marriage is organized around extending to others the very same gift of life they received from their parents. A gay couple, by their choice, avoids even the possibility of having children.
As a state provides for itself by taxing the incomes of people, it would better serve its own interests to encourage the former arrangement and discourage the latter. While there are many arguments in favor of traditional marriage, the fact that a traditional marriage is arranged for the material interests of the state is all the justification needed for a state to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The religious, civil, and social aspects of this arrangement can be completely irrelevant. Likewise, what DOMA did was codify the definition of marriage for the sake of government efficiency and uniformity - and believe it or not, judicial precedent considers this reason alone a legitimate reason for a law. There is nothing in the Constitution which would prevent Congress from changing the law to recognize gay couples as married. But they have not done so.
Instead, the Supreme Court has changed the meaning of the law in a way the original authors did not intend. This is a very bad precedent to set in general, but even worse when one recognizes that this ruling makes a law limiting marriage to one man and one woman Constitutionally valid, so long as it is passed at the state level, rather than the federal. How the federal government deals with a surviving spouse who moves to a state where their marriage is considered invalid, we have yet to see. But it seems to me that instead of settling the issue of marriage, the decision today allows for the polarization of the issue along state lines. It further allows for a time in which, after public backlash, the states decide that gay marriage was a mistake, and subsequently invalidate - by legislative fiat - many "gay marriages" - opening the door for the federal government to prosecute for back taxes and denial of government benefits. If the state in which one resides does not consider a couple legally married, from the federal point of view, they are not. And this decision strengthens the state's case, rather than the individual's.
Under this ruling, the partner of a gay soldier from California would be entitled to a surviving spouse pension, whereas one from Alabama would not.
Under this ruling, Utah could allow a man to marry multiple wives, and the federal government would be required to pay a social security pension *to each one of them* upon his death.
However, if the man moved to Illinois before he died, none of his wives would be eligible for a social security pension. Worse, they would all have to pay taxes on his estate because Illinois doesn't recognize polygamy as valid.
From a legal perspective, this is a really bad ruling. There are better ways of changing the law than judicial activism; Congress passed the Civil Rights act of 1964 in a time when racism was still very much a large part of American culture. They did it because it was the right thing to do. But redefining marriage to specifically include immoral relationships is particularly prejudicial against Christians, Jews, and Muslims, and infringes on their rights to live according to their faith. Congress could have chosen to recognize unions other than marriage, or not to recognize it at all, but again, they have not done so. Instead, our laws are being vetted not by our elected representatives, but by appointed judges.
What will happen when, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, gay marriage is unconstitutional? Or an affront to liberty?
Regardless of whether you agree with the outcome or not, this decision came at the cost of our ability to self-govern.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
So when did you chose to stop loving the cock and focus on boxes instead, since sexuality is a choice? When you were 13? 16? 30?
That is an argument from ignorance: in the bible, marriage is between a man and a number of wives and concubines and slaves...
In the New Testament Paul stipulates that a leader should be "the husband of but one wife". Polygamy in the Old Testament is typically considered to be a historical record, not actually condoned by God.
On the other hand even the New Testament isn't that clear. It's not certain that phrase refers to monogamy at all, but possibly divorce and possibly simple integrity. Discounting OT polygamy may be wishful thinking, but by the time of the NT polygamy wasn't really practiced in the Roman Empire.
The issue is that 'homosexuals' and their supporters want equality, the 'religious' want inequality and discrimination.
It's disingenuous to suggest that civil unions are the same as marriages. They are clearly a second-class union, otherwise the compromise of calling them 'civil unions' would never have been made to placate the 'religious'. It's "separate but equal" all over again.
You can't compromise on equality.
The Government should not interfere in the denial for Rights. What God has joined together, let no man put asunder! Creeping control into individual Rights in the name of "fair", or "tax deductions" is onerous! But, what do I know, having married in a hetero relationship, and having been raised in the military, and then serving over 20 years in the USAF! I have served in foreign lands, in a dozen countries. None havethe Rights that only Americans enjoy, and we are right now under attack by politicians and beaureaucrats who would use the law to further their own ends! they make themselves irrelevant, but the time to bring them to lawful conclusion is too long and harmful to all of us! Here's what I do know, "When they came for the Baptist, I ws silent, for I was Catholic..." I say, we all have the exact same Rights, and none can be infringed, or else, all are infringed! "The Right of Way" is NOT something anyone OWNS, it is only something you can surrender! Same with all other Rights! Consideration will result in the conclusion that any person or office of government which imposes on Rights need be removed from the field!
Except in the case of Jacob where marriage is 1 man + 1 woman + her sister + the woman's handmaiden + the sister's handmaiden. Or were the handmaiden's not Jacob's wives and he just slept with them (and had kids with them) out of wedlock? I can't remember the details but either way this doesn't fit with the "Bible Says One Man One Woman" folks.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Forgot one thing in my other reply:
Really? So I guess those ancient Israelites weren't getting married at all. They'd just shack up and bear children outside of marriage. And all of those other cultures that existed outside of Christianity's circle had no concept of marriage before the enlightened Christians taught them about it?
In truth, marriage is a widespread concept but one that has evolved over the centuries from a pre-arranged "property rights" issue (the woman would be assigned a mate by her parents - or other people - and she would become his property) to a matter of love (a woman is asked for her hand in marriage, can refuse, and is the man's partner, not property). Those who claim that marriage has always existed the way it is today without ever changing (and thus it can never change from its current form) have no sense of history.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Thus my larger point that Marriage in the West is really from the Roman/Greek tradition rather than the Judaic.
It means he wants a fiscal conservative party, not a religious conservative party. Right now, the two are mixed together in the Republican party.
And no, I don't count the libertarian party. They're more like... the borderline anarchist party.
I want a party that has financial responsibility without saying they want to gut everything to do with government.
Sam
So in NY, 2 gay people could live together for long enough to file their federal taxes jointly?
That's remarkable, but even if that's the case, that's not "the exact same rights". Straight people can be married and enjoying the perks within an hour or two of meeting each other, if the courthouse isn't crowded. Having to wait "XX years" isn't "the exact same" thing.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
To get equal rights you have to get equal access to the word. That's why gay people find the lukewarm alternatives like civil unions unacceptable, not because they fetishize the word "marriage," but because the government does.
There most certainly is a marriage penalty. Only the 10% and 15% brackets are identical between the married filing seperate and single. This year a married couple with roughly equal incomes totaling over $146,400 will pay a penalty over filing as two singles.
stuff that matters.
By that token there is almost no standard for what runs on Slashdot then.
First off, the west has not been christian for 2000 years, probably closer to 1500 and pagan cultures have nothing to do with it. Marriage has been an administrative way to manage and finalize certain property transactions for over 4000 years of history. The fact that a bunch of zealots have co-opted the term and tried to make it theirs doesn't give them rights to it. Let the churches have sectarian unions and leave marriage where it belongs, with the state.
I got here through a series of tubes
We may not agree with religion, but like the other rights protected under the constitution, it is a basic right. People are free to believe and practice their faith, even if we don't agree with it. Telling millions of people that what their faith teaches them about marriage is wrong, well, how is that any different then telling to lesbians their life style choices are wrong?
I can appreciate this argument. I think the core of that issue is separate but equal which we all know doesn't work, and the attempts of the church to usurp the power of the state and use it in an abusive and bigoted way. The freedom to practice religion, like all other rights granted by the constitution, ends when religion starts to negatively impact the lives of people not included in the church. Individuals have a right to worship, but not to inquisition. The basis of 99% of the argument against gay marriage or a gay lifestyle in general is and always will be "the (insert your favorite religious text) says it's wrong." That means that if you are trying to make an argument in support of religion in the face of the state, you lose on the basis of the freedom of religion. Gay people are not actively persecuting religious people the way religious people have been actively persecuting gay people which is a violation of their freedom of religion. That means if your faith is teaching you that something is wrong when it has been defined by the state as perfectly legal, then the church is likely the one that is wrong, therefore it's teachings are wrong.
Taking the word "Marriage" away from the state is not going to solve any problems or change anything. Much like segregation in the south, the only thing that will solve this issue is time. Making concessions to bigots is never going to help you advance your position which is why gay marriage advocates have never settled with "civil unions." Anything less is an insult in the same vein of separate drinking fountains. Taking the word "Marriage" away from the state is not going to solve any problems or change anything. Much like segregation in the south, the only thing that will solve this issue is time. Making concessions to bigots is never going to help you advance your position which is why gay marriage advocates have never settled with "civil unions." Anything less is an insult in the same vein of separate drinking fountains.
I got here through a series of tubes
....try the idea of two mother-in-laws
Hmmm, what if you married someone who had been adopted at birth by a lesbian couple? Wouldn't that mean you had two mothers-in-law and no father-in-law? Not biologically speaking, of course, but biology doesn't matter much on the topic of in-laws.
You would be correct if marriage was not defined in law. If a gay couple had a ceremony and considered themselves "married", it would make no difference.
But to use your analogy, imagine for a moment that the FDA required all beef - even that mixed with pork or chicken products - to be marked as kosher. And further made it illegal to disclose to the customer, or for the customer to select beef based on the presence or absence of pork products. Such a law would definitely infringe the rights of Jews and Muslims because it would make it impossible for them to eat any beef product. Redefining the term kosher would render it meaningless in a way insignificant to the general public, but very significant to those who use it as a means of compliance with their religion.
Christians, Jews, and Muslims consider marriage an act of God, not of mankind. Surely you've heard the term, "A match made in Heaven", which alludes to God's involvement in bringing a man and a woman together. To call two men or two women married profanes a relationship considered sacred, and reduces marriage to mean, more or less, that two people are simply fucking each other on a permanent basis. It reduces the societal esteem of all marriages, because marriage no longer means that something sacred and wonderful has occurred between a man and a woman, but only that two people have decided to live with one another.
To further put this in perspective, consider how offensive it would be, if a police officer were to inquire about your wife, "Is that your bitch, or is she someone else's ho?" If it would be offensive to regard your relationship with your wife as nothing more meaningful than that of a prostitute, how much more offensive is it that the Supreme Court of the United States considers your marriage to be roughly analagous to two men committing sodomy.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
"married filing separately" deprives you of the EIC and a few other tax credits and deductions IIRC.
If you try to file as single to avoid those penalties, you get tossed in PMITA for tax fraud.
So same sex marriages come into effect.. what next? the right to murder without penalty? The right to marry pets or children? Seriously think about this, if everyone throw out the natural order or the foundation rules just get get what they want, the result is simply CHAOS. From now on everyone is going to believe that what they selfishly desire is their right to get.
That's not true. They may have received the same state benefits (although I doubt that), but they didn't receive the same federal benefits (taxes, immigration, etc.) because DOMA prevented it. That's why DOMA was repealed.
because in the west marriage is of christian origins
Marriage has no basis in Christianity. There are hundreds of non-Christian cultures all over the world that have practiced marriage for a very long time. You might more accurately say that "in the west there are a lot of Christians, so many marriages are performed using Christian rituals."
Why would you care about label when it's the perks you are after (inheritance, visitations in hospitals, etc)?
Why would you care if you have to sit in the back of the bus, because all you care about is getting the ride right? Why would you care about being put in a separate part of the restaurant, all you care about is getting the food right?
Or, to put it another way: selling something as "kosher" when it's not is false advertising and falls under (secular) consumer protection laws, while calling gay marriage marriage does not, since no one's trying to sell you something.
Yes, but the government does make significant decisions with respect to marriage. To call two gays married is to misrepresent their relationshiop; they want to be afforded the social status and respect of being married, without actually making the same committment that heterosexuals are making. I didn't buy gay marriage; I can't take it back for a refund should it turn out to be defective. Instead, whether you agree with it or not, the Supreme Court has told a lie: that two gays can be married. There isn't a society in the known history of the world that has ever done this. Not even Sodom and Gomorrah.
In marriage, the spouses participate in the continuum of life that brought each of them into the world; when two gays get together, they do so with the understanding that they will not ever be a part of this continuum. Whether or not you consider such a relationship worthy of respect is a personal, subjective opinion. By contrast, the government has to make decisions on objectively determinable criteria; by that standard, a marriage does something that no gay union ever will: it provides the future generation of citizens.
The subjective feelings of individuals and how they esteem various relationships doesn't change the objective reality that the next generation of society comes largely from marriages, and in the rare cases when it doesn't, creates burdens which must be shouldered by the rest of society. On that basis alone, marriage and gay unions are objectively different, and thus an objective, rational reason exists for the government to differentiate between unions which are merely personal commitments to one another and those which are directed toward, and arranged for the purpose of, bringing new life into the world.
You might believe that gay relationships are wonderful, but even so, they are not marriages, and to fail to make the distinction glosses over a very important difference between the two. Failure to make the distinction disregards the fundamental dignity of the human being.
What the Supreme Court has just done is something truly awful; they have based a judicial precedent upon a lie, and an irrational one at that. Their assertion that gay unions are equivalent to marriages is provably false, and not done to accommodate any particular religious practice or constitutional freedom, but rather, the anti-religious sentiment of secular progressives. If DOMA was passed "for no legitimate purpose" except commit "bare harm" to a class of people, one must wonder how Congress and the President expected to implement the thousands of federal laws respecting marriage if there was no official definition of marriage. One IRS auditor could regard your cohabiting girlfriend as a "common-law" marriage and require you to pay taxes on your combined income; a different one could reject your claim to marriage because you and your spouse were not married in a church.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
So if they went on vacation in Texas they'd have all the rights of a married couple in Texas?
Each would qualify as a spouse of the other for social security benefits purposes? What about after they enjoyed their vacation in Texas so much that they moved their domicile there?