Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Oh that is way cool!
DOMA Is Unconstitutional
- Thread starter Bonestorm
- Start date
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
You're pretty much right.....it's just a matter of time. The younger generation rejects the bigotry of DY's generation and even if the change occurs one funeral at a time......change it will. They days of Gays being the last minority that it was ok to hate are officially over. It's not an "If" it's a "When".
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
No shit Wacko. Why do you think they precipitated the Civil War? The rest of the nation new that all they had to do was isolate slavery to the States where it all ready existed and that it would die of it's own dead weight. The leaders of the Southern aristocracy new that too and that's why they fought so hard for the expansion of slavery into the territories and the new States and ultimately they went to war when they failed to do so as they knew that this peculiar institution, they were so invested in, was doomed.
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Oh not that canard Wacko! The only people who oppose affirmative action are white pussies who are either to stupid or to lazy or to lacking in talent to compete in our society cause if you're white and middle class and can't compete in this society you are a truly hopeless mother fucker.
Affirmative Action has been intended as a hand up to those who had been traditionally barred from full participation in our society to help right a historical wrong. Note that giving these oppressed minorities a hand up didn't prevent you from getting into USC. Also, thanks to the middle class upbringing my parents gave me and the support I recieved from my family, community and society and through my own work ethic I've had no problem what so ever being able to compete and succeed and I'm seriously glad that we have programs like AA to give disadvantaged minorites the awesome opportunity to compete and be succesful in this great nation of ours.
That is the moral basis of AA and you know what? It's worked and it has worked well. AA has done more to lift racial minorities, particularly African Americans, out of poverty and into the middle class than single program has and the only white people it may have concievably hurt are the lazy, talentless and stupid to which I say "My heart pumps piss for you!". If you're white and you can't make it in white America you are one serious fucking loser.
Last edited:
The SCOTUS did not rule that all of DOMA was unconstitutional, only that the Fed Gov't must recognize the marriages where it is legal. It did not strike down the parts where states that do not recognize it suddenly have to or that gays can now get married everywhere..
Basically, they ruled that the people in CA that were defending the law had no standing to defend it, and that the Federal gov't must recognize marriages of gays where it is legal.
They didn't even rule on whether some couple married in Boston would be suddenly unmarried if they move to another state that doesn't recognize that marriage...
You fundamentally misunderstand the Bill of Rights and the meaning of those rights if you think there is a difference between human rights and those enumerated rights.
The constitution does not say you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's in the Declaration of Independence which the SCOTUS has ruled is not a governing document.
Steelplate
New member
Yes....in the Constitution it's "life, liberty and property".
The Liberty part is where this falls.
The Liberty part failed when the government defined the relationships of free consenting adults in the first place. The government's place is to protect your right, not to define away liberties on some false moral premise.
Steelplate
New member
You're right. DOMA should never have been created in the first place.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Damo! Good to see you. Where you been hiding lately?
Too much work... I hate it.
You are way too limited in the idea of liberty. Government doesn't exist to define your relationships at all, that mess began long before DOMA. The first question government should ask is "Where is the victim?" In the case of marriages, there are several places victims can exist and government would have a right to interfere in the actions of a free citizenry.
For instance, women/men are not slaves the choice must be consensual made by people who have the ability and knowledge necessary for consent. The idea that a 14 year old girl can get married if their parents consent for them is blatantly wrong, IMO. The 14 year old hasn't the ability to make those life altering choices, and the parents do not have the right to force them into something, or to give "consent" for them as if they were slaves. They should wait until they are capable of those decisions... However, if seven 21 year old women want to marry the same man with full knowledge of the other six wives (or husbands in polyandrous relationships)... not so much.
The "one man/one woman" thing is based in a mess of morality, of which the government shouldn't be playing a part.
Apparently he's been at a I Hate Gays meeting with Alec Baldwin.
Last edited:
You don't know me very well. Your aim is just a bit "off" in this circumstance.
tekkychick
New member
Agree, which is why there will need to be more court cases. Right now, the situation is ridiculous; someone married in Massachusetts can't get divorced if they move to Texas. And while they can federal benefits if they live in Texas, they can't get access to anything the state might grant to a spouse. Or file taxes jointly in a state that has state taxes but doesn't recognize same sex couples.
It's still messy. But it's better than it was.
also, that the military must recognize a same sex marriage performed in a state where it is legal regardless of where a military member is posted.
tekkychick
New member
Re consenting adults being able to come together in any grouping that pleases them and that they all consent to - in general, I agree on that point. I have no problems with polyamory, assuming the adults really are old enough and mature enough and it really is consensual - three things hard to prove, I admit.
The problem with the mormon fundamentalist polygamy is that it's inherently sexist and inequitable because only a man can marry multiple wives; a wife can't have multiple husbands or a mix of husbands and wives. Also, many of the fundamentalist groups use this to get young brides for old men - and a girl raised in the religion does NOT choose freely, at the age of 14 or 15, to marry a guy who has other wives, particularly one in his 50s or so, who is an elder in the church. And from a social welfare perspective, if you read about those groups - a lot of the women are living on welfare, because their "husband" can't support them and they legally are single parents... .usually of a lot of kids. So we end up supporting them.
Would I "legalize" polyamorous relationships? Not personally. All our laws are drafted for a two person couple. As far as I've read, there are very few people in group relationships, so it's not worth the work to redraft all the laws to cover them to me. (If someone else wants to take up that cause, that's cool.) In addition - if the people really are mature enough to handle a group "marriage", they should be mature enough to draw up wills, power of attorney, and other legal documents to cover who takes care of which kids, what happens when someone leaves, etc etc etc.
The "consent issue" is why in general I'm against a parent marrying their adult child; not just "incest" but because if the child was raised by the parent expecting to marry them, can they truly "consent" or have they been conditioned to think it's their only option?
The problem with the mormon fundamentalist polygamy is that it's inherently sexist and inequitable because only a man can marry multiple wives; a wife can't have multiple husbands or a mix of husbands and wives. Also, many of the fundamentalist groups use this to get young brides for old men - and a girl raised in the religion does NOT choose freely, at the age of 14 or 15, to marry a guy who has other wives, particularly one in his 50s or so, who is an elder in the church. And from a social welfare perspective, if you read about those groups - a lot of the women are living on welfare, because their "husband" can't support them and they legally are single parents... .usually of a lot of kids. So we end up supporting them.
Would I "legalize" polyamorous relationships? Not personally. All our laws are drafted for a two person couple. As far as I've read, there are very few people in group relationships, so it's not worth the work to redraft all the laws to cover them to me. (If someone else wants to take up that cause, that's cool.) In addition - if the people really are mature enough to handle a group "marriage", they should be mature enough to draw up wills, power of attorney, and other legal documents to cover who takes care of which kids, what happens when someone leaves, etc etc etc.
The "consent issue" is why in general I'm against a parent marrying their adult child; not just "incest" but because if the child was raised by the parent expecting to marry them, can they truly "consent" or have they been conditioned to think it's their only option?
Yet we have laws that blatantly obliterate the rights of those 14 year old girls... In many states the parent can "consent" to the marriage "for" them. It's, IMO, a gross misuse of government power.
The number of people who can benefit from such a "Marriage" is again, IMO, a government overstep itself. That is where the Liberty in these situations began to fail. "We" thought to make incentive towards relationships built on the morality of society. That is a step in the wrong direction.
Correct government action is to protect the rights of an individual, not define your choices away in an attempt to incentivize a more "moral" lifestyle.