DOMA @ SCOTUS - Oral Arguments

Yes, I realize that a couple can create their own vows in a secular marriage ceremony however, 99.9% of marriages are between a man and woman because that is the norm so, expectation is that the minister will be joining a man and women in matrimony.

 

What's your point?

 

Ministers are much smarter than pinhead anti-gay bigots; so worry not. They'll know if it's a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and a man, and adjust accordingly, if on the off-chance, the couple does not provide their own vows.

Sleep tight.

 

OK...I realize anyone can 'marry' anyone or anything with a marriage ceremony. (I think I heard of a guy 'marrying' his car!) That being said, the issue is about State recognition of that marriage.

Marriage is seen as beneficial to the State when it is between a man and woman because the expectation is that children will result which furthers that society's continuance and without the caveat of a man and woman being so joined, there is no reason to sanction marriage because it will have been made meaningless IMO. However, I do not believe that the Federal Government should have any say in marriage whatsoever. It should be left to the individual States. If a State decides it wants to open marriage up other than a single man and woman...Then so be it. We The People decide, not SCOTUS.

 

Where did I post that a minister would not know if he/she is marrying a man and woman? Most marriages are between a man and woman and that is the expectation and always has been. Just because one points out the obvious (most marriages are between a man and woman) is no reason to bring up bigotry...Unless you think that Nature is a bigot too.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought it was obvious but then it seems you agree.

 

For the benefits. While I can see that one the one hand, it's potentially dangerous if a falling out occurs and spousal support is ordered. I personally would never take the risk. I doubt it will happen very frequently, but as I've pointed out repeatedly, there will be no "are you really gay" tests, so if two hetro dudes want to, there would be no legal imposition to it.

 

Nowhere, but since you typed, "expectation is that the minister will be joining a man and women in matrimony" and you're a pinhead, I fear you might worry that when two men show up, the minister, being expectin' to marry a man and woman might get confused and say, "Do you, man, take this woman to be your lawfully wedded husband," or some such. But worry not. They're real clever and might instead, if for example Jack and Dave are gettin' hitched, go this way:

Minister/Episcopal Bishop/JoP/Etc: Do you, Jack, take Dave to be your lawfully-wedded husband?

Jack: I do.

Minister/Episcopal Bishop/JoP/Etc: Do you, Dave, take Jack to be your lawfully-wedded husband?

Dave: I do.

Then just go from there ...

 

In the states that allow same-sex (gender) marriage there is no requirement for them to be homosexuals under the law. In fact sexual orientation isn't mentioned in any laws prohibiting same-sex (gender) marriage either. The prohibitions and authorizations for same-sex (gender) marriage are based exclusively upon the gender and not the sexual preferences of those involved.

Gender discrimination against an individual is already considered a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment but I suppose that fact goes unnoticed.

 

Polls show that the majority of Americans believe the Constitution should decide the issue, not the states.

Basically SCOTUS has disregarded "states rights" on the issue of marriage many times - the issue of interracial marriage bans and bans on prisoners marrying being the two notable examples.

 

Marriage is anything but "natural". State-sanctioned rights ranging from immigration to taxes to hospital visitation rights aren't recognised by nature. Animals don't have marriages, but they do have homosexuality.

- - - Updated - - -

Marriage is anything but "natural". State-sanctioned rights ranging from immigration to taxes to hospital visitation rights aren't recognised by nature. Animals don't have marriages, but they do have homosexuality.

 

What marriage represents is natural. The joining of a man and woman who will 99.9% of the time create new human life. Marriage is a societal institution that has always assumed the natural joining of males and females. We The People have always supported the traditional American family unit and still do. I am also against State sanctioned rights when it comes to marriage. The issue should not be before SCOTUS in the first place because whatever decision they make will violate someone's rights.

 

Interesting... You frequently invoke "we the people", but you apparently haven't seen the polls showing that a majority (58%) of Americans agree with same-sex marriage. That doesn't indicate that all of those people oppose the "traditional" family unit - it means they believe limiting such a wonderful institution to opposite-sex couples, many of whom also cannot have kids, is unfair, and SSM will strengthen not weaken it. The majority of the people also believe it's a Constitutional issue, not a state one.

Saying nature limits a man-made institution like marriage to heterosexuals is absurd. It doesn't even represent the "natural way", since animals in nature are rarely monogamous. Monogamy actually hinders procreation and is therefore anti-nature.

Lastly, I appreciate you think that the government shouldn't regulate people's relationships in the first place, but the reality is that they do and this isn't about to change anytime soon. There must be parity.

 

This is a blatantly false statement that cannot be supported by any evidence related to either marriage or sexual relations between a man and a woman. While marriage can result in children in tens of millions of cases it doesn't. Not all married couples can or choose to have children so the 99.9% number is purely fictitious

When it comes to sexual relations between a man and a woman it rarely results in pregnancy. A woman is only "fertile" about four days a month so the chance of pregnancy is only about 12% to begin with related to sexual intercourse. Then, even if the egg is fertilized the odds are that it won't attach in the womb (disputing claims that life begins at conception) or the zygote/embryo while self-abort by miscarriage normally within the first two weeks. The odds agianst pregnancy naturally occuring and going full term resulting in a child are actually very high based upon heterosexual relationships.

Even if we took a hypothetical "ideal marriage" with children (e,g, a couple gets married in their early 20's, has two children, and live together as a married couple and die around the age of 75) the percentage of that marriage related to procreaion and child-rearing is only about 36% of the marriage. Almost 2/3rds of the marriage is completely unrelated to procreation and child rearing even in an hypthetically ideal case.

Marriage is far more about love and financial considerations than it is about procreation and child-rearing. We can assume that all couples that marry share a love for each other and all couples that marry receives special financial considerations related to the marriage.

"Love and money" are the only two criteria that apply to 100% of all marriages.

 

Whether or not marriage is "natural" isn't the point, IMO. There are many things people consider to be unnatural yet are quite 'legal' (consider what we do to something as important as our food); medicine is right up there at the TOP of the list on that as well. Why aren't vasectomies illegal or verified/authorized by the state, if procreation is such an interest where marriage is concerned?

Even IF we did get around to accepting the perception of many that gay sex/marriage were unnatural... that would not necessarily justify withholding or diminishing the rights of homosexual people by NOT allowing them to marry. As some have suggested, the legality marriage isn't more/less justified by how 'natural' it is.

That is not anywhere near absolutely true; consider this.

And you're wrong for this reason as well.

Sorry, but societal definitions, assumptions and values do change over time; and in modern times that should certainly be expected. Things change faster now than they used to.

Things are not and have not been as we perceive accepted norms. I mean, it is 'comfortable' to think/imagine things are as we have been taught or conditioned to believe, but I'd say it takes a modicum of courage to zoom OUT from our comfort zones and learn more of what is and has been.

Even IF that were true (and it is not necessarily so)... that would NOT justify the discrimination against homosexual people in marriage and other aspects of living in America as a citizen. Honestly, I'm completely tried of the kinds of things you and others continue to promote as direct or indirect justification for the same. It's gotten very OLD and it will be in our courts, until the systemic oppression of homosexual people overall ceases; bet on it.

Well, when it comes to "State sanctioned" rights... we live with those (as defined by law) on a daily basis. People do not enjoy absolute liberty, freedom or autonomy; we simply DO NOT. What we have are a limited and typically acceptable RANGE of liberties that are BY LAW available to the vast majority of American citizens (of course exceptions exist).

And the argument that many proponents of gay marriage and opponents of DOMA (and laws similar to it), basically hinge upon the State actually coming up with a (valid) compelling interest to prohibit the LEGAL marriage of two people of the same sex. Now, there are other possible forms of marriage which can be argued for, but they won't likely gain traction by piggy-backing upon the campaign to see that right extended to homosexuals.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/another-gop-senator-endorses-same-sex-marriage/

It is my understanding that other Republicans in the Senate are also beginning to endorse same-sex marriage as the only way to ensure equality for all people under the marriage laws in the United States. The opposition is crumbling as more and more Republican politicians are finally coming to realize that the prohibitions against same-sex marriage violate the fundamental Rights of the Person, something that others have know for quite some time. The walls of bigotry are crumbling among the Republicans as they start to actually address the issue as a Right of the Person.

 

I 'felt' this coming many years ago... but I surely didn't not expect to see anything like this, by this time.

It's amazing.

 

Copy that!

 

From the opposite perspective I'm somewhat surprised it's taken this long. We must admit that virtually all of us that now support marriage equality for gays and lesbians typically had to overcome our own bigoted prejudice at some point in the past. Of course as soon as we came to that realization we couldn't understand how anyone couldn't see the facts that would overcome their bigoted prejudice.

It was the civil rights movement in the mid-1960's that ultimately lead me to see the bigoted prejudice I had related to gays and lesbians but even that took at least ten years before I realized how invidious my prejudice was. As the States began passing the first prohibitions against same-sex marriage in the 1970's it became a political issue that I needed to address as a US citizen. I look for the reasons behind these prohibitions and found no rational explanation for them and realized that they were based upon bigoted prejudice that even I had held because my Christian up-bringing, which I had be then abandoned, had told me homosexuality was a "sin" but it wasn't. A person cannot reject Christianity and then use Christian teachings as a foundation for prejudice and discrimination against people in their beliefs.

Of course my personal opinions that changed based upon the "civil Rights" of the person became more solidified when I later learned about the founding of our nation and that it was based upon protecting our inalienable Rights. I had to understand what an "inalienable Right" was and that eventually lead me to abandon the Repubilican Party which advocated the violations of the Inalienable Rights of Persons.

So it's been a long political evolution just for me but I'm amazed that the top Republican politicans, those that should know and understand the foundation for our government based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person, remain so ignorant of the ideals upon which America was founded and stand against them. By analogy I've always attempted to learn more about everything related to my job when I've been employed. I have to wonder why politicans seem to disregard the history and purpose of the United States once they're elected. We should be able to assume that the longer someone is in Congress the more they would support the Classic Liberalism political philosophy that was the foundation for our government but instead they seem to move further and further away from that over time

Anyway, it's been roughly 35 years that I overcame my bigoted prejudice against gays and lesbians so I do wonder why it's taking so long for Republicans to overcome their bigoted prejudice. 35 years is a very long time to retain bigoted prejudice IMHO.

 

There's only two more Republicans in the Senate I can see switching for the foreseeable future.. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine). If those defect as expected it will take the number of marriage equality supporters in the chamber up to 55.

 

Kinda moot. SCOTUS does not put its rulings up to a vote in the Senate.

 

I have often heard that quite a few Republicans have privately supported equality in marriage for gays and lesbians behind closed doors for a long time. Basically they're "in the closet" with their support because they've believed, and possibly rightfully so, that it would be political suicide to "come out of the closet" on this issue. They are often politically dependent on the "evangilical Christians" that oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons and so the Constitution takes a back seat to the Bible for these politicans.

 

That is true but its a lot easier for the Supreme Court to rule that DOMA Section 3 violates the 10th and 14th Amendment if they happened to know that Congress would repeal it anyway. The majority support of the people for same-sex marriage and the support in Congress just lightens the mental burden on the Surpeme Court to rule Prop 8 and DOMA Section 3 are unconstititional. It doesn't change the criteria that the Supreme Court must use in making their decision.

 

This is what I hope to understand, and I hope somebody can explain it:

1: You cannot deny the marriage rights of gays and lesbians.
2: You cannot deny the marriage rights of the church.
3: You can only grant marriage rights if/when the people are asking for them.

I don't think I'm the only one who notices that, there are many smart people on here, but it seems to me, in the whole realm of America, and there are dimensions of powers and authorities, something like zones, the People, the States, and the Capitol. Why can not the People of United States make up their own States as they go? What else is marriage for, what else could it be to the federal government? What else does the federal government know? How else could they even perceive or recognize it?

I hope somebody does figure it out someday, though.

 

Yeah, the whole thing is (unfortunately) complex. And there are more than a few court cases left... before a more solid, equitable and fully constitutional solution is generated.

 

Personally I don't see it as being complex at all. The States can "define marriage" as they've always done but any State law or Constitution must also comply with the US Constitution. Every State agreed to this when they became a State as it is contained in the US Constitution. The 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9. 1868 and was subsequently ratified by all of the States in the United States at the time if was submitted by the States and, of course, it was a part of the US Constitution for any State that joined the United States after 1868. There is no disagreement to the conditions of the 14th Amendment by any State and it requires equal protection under the law for ALL persons.

What some seem to not realize is that our Rights are individual Rights and when addressed they're addressed on an individual basis. For example if "Joe and Bill" want to marry but are prohibited from doing so under the law then both Joe and Bill each have their individual Rights violated based upon their gender. Joe's being denied equal protection based upon his gender because he's a male and Bill is being denied equal protection because he's a male. Two separate cases where each person is being denied equal protection based upon "their gender" because their gender has absolutely nothing to do with the gender of anyone else. If Joe becomes a female then "She" would be allowed to marry Bill and visa versa. The discrimination, and violation of the 14th Amendment, based upon their individual gender is against the person and not the couple.

The prohibitions against same-gender marriage are exclusively based upon the gender of the individual person even though the Rights of two different people are adversely affected by the law.