It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional by Supreme Court

page: 9
33
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
There is not one 'Group Think' for homosexuals or anyone of the LGBT community, some may want it only for the benefits just like straight people, some may want it for religious reasons like straight people, some may want it for various other reasons like straight people,

i believe a major issue was not so much about 'Marriage' but about the 'freedoms' we sit here and wait for others to 'vote' and decide what we are allowed to do legally, yes laws exist that are anti discriminative, but if people didn't discriminate there wouldn't need to be laws. if people thought of all of us as Human regardless of sexuality gender or race we may not need 'laws' or to be told how to behave,

Indeed we have pride parades, you want a parade start one, i believe Brazil has a 'Straight Pride Parade' nothing wrong with that

and if those want to be protected by the 'Laws Of Marriage' and the 'Benefits' how does it affect your life?


it's easy to sit there and talk about a group of people and never have lived their life, or what it may feel like to be judged or have legalities based on your sexuality,

we will remain divided until we can unite in equality, equality for Everyone




posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   


DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional by Supreme Court


I think DOMA is a somewhat narrow approach to the subject of how people can live. That it was struck down is no real surprise. The troubling part inches in when you have a state that held a referendum that was attended by millions that can then be set aside by a court of a few... or nine.

I have personally always held that this subject should be left to the states to decide. This allows the people to decide a subject that is not constitutional but institutional. Some would approve, some would not but in the end, the majority vote of the states would have their final say. In sum, We the People get to choose.

This comment does NOT take sides on the subject. I don't give a ruddy cow's udder who marries who.

But, unfortunately, like so many, many, many subjects anymore, it was voluntarily corrupted by politics and then tossed at courts where a judiciary that is no less politically slanted than anyone else, gets the final call.

For the moment, the outcome will please a certain segment but... someday, these same courts could very well take a bite that hurts and there won't be any avenue to contest the outcome. The voice of the people being set aside now has precedent. Once something like this is lost... or given away, it is almost impossible to get it back.






edit on 27-6-2013 by redoubt because: code typo



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 





You're damn right I am insulted by your continued marginalizations.


oh yes, I must have marginalized you when I posted arguments on BOTH sides of the issue. It just shows how intolerant some people are to differing opinions. Liberals are not tolerant of conservatives in any way shape or form, and I am constantly amazed at the small mindedness and outright intolerance of liberals and Progressives for any opinion which does not match their own. You have proven yourself to be one of those intolerant types as far as I can see.
I even posted a disclaimer, while providing the argument from the Heritage site. Perhaps you are one of those reading impaired? Do you understand the concept of compare and contrast, and that I purposely posted that to promote fair and balanced dialogue? Compare and Contrast is a viable form of writing composition, in case you never got that in our crummy government run indoctrination camps.
My personal view is that I hope government gets out of everyone's personal business, but then one would have to forgo having taxpayer subsidies for one's choice of lifestyle, wouldn't one?



that showcases discrimination


And you also have no problem claiming something that a single person without children cannot have. Let's add smokers, pedophiles, and murderers to this list shall we? As Jason Lewis said on his radio show yesterday, this is pretty much what is happening now to any number of categories of people. And as I have said, people enjoy such only when their particular group is included.
Oh yes, and did I mention that Democrat President Clinton is who signed that DOMA into being in 1996? I think someone else posted it as well.

Here is President Clinton's statement on it


I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse".
This legislation does not reach beyond those two provisions. It has no effect on any current federal, state or local anti-discrimination law and does not constrain the right of Congress or any state or locality to enact anti-discrimination laws. I therefore would take this opportunity to urge Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an act which would extend employment discrimination protections to gays and lesbians in the workplace. This year the Senate considered this legislation contemporaneously with the Act I sign today and failed to pass it by a single vote. I hope that in its next Session Congress will pass it expeditiously.

I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination, violence and intimidation for that reason, as well as others, violate the principle of equal protection under the law and have no place in American society.


www.cs.cmu.edu...

So why did the President of the Party of Tolerance make that statement when he signed DOMA into law?
edit on 27-6-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal


Why should married people get benefits to begin with?


It is a good and relevant question. The best answer I can give you is that ideally promoting marriage, promotes economic and social stability. So the State does have an interest in promoting marriage as a generalized concept. In practice in today's world however it is a mostly meaningless and quickly becoming an irrelevant institution. The problem with gay marriage isn't so much in the monetary benefits; i.e. tax breaks, inheritance laws. But lie in the various legal benefits; i.e. making life altering medical decisions for your spouse, not being compelled to testify against your spouse among scores of others. Living wills and trusts are all well and good but they are easily and often easily contested by disapproving family members. As gay couples do not have a familial legal status, the courts often cast them aside. Marriage isn't something that you could ever get Government out of without causing complete chaos. So if they have to be involved then it is best that the State recognize whichever pairing couples choose they are treated the same.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 


Yes, we have an increasing number of cases where activist judges are seeking to use their power to legislate from the bench. Some people love it though when the decision personally favors their positions.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Darth_Prime
 





you want a parade start one, i believe Brazil has a 'Straight Pride Parade'


The point of the parade comments is to show that gays have as much right to have a parade as the Irish do. Maybe Harrison Ford can do a remake of The Fugitive and use Gay Pride instead of St. Paddy's Day.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 





Originally posted by cconn487
The world didn't end did it?

Did everyone spontaneously stop pursuing heterosexual relations and now we face the decline and eventual extinction of the human race?

Yep, didn't think so


This decision contributes to the demographic winter we're in, contraception is against God too. Laugh all you want, only for a time. God's just judgment for our nation is coming.

Marriage is between a man and woman, not a woman and woman or a man and a man.

Marriage is a Sacrament, it is holy.


Good for you colbe! You said it well with out attacking. There is nothing wrong with saying what you believe even if others don't care.
In reality the world will end, unless you plan on un-naturally growing children!? Matrix and Superman, anyone out there?????

Below is a link to a short movie, please ignore the Muslim references. I'm posting this for the facts of reproduction. Our world is already headed for the fall! Thank you to the my Muslim brothers out there living for GOD!

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


F&S for the OP, Heretic.

The only thing that I don't understand about this ruling is the fact that they're saying it only applies to couples in states where same sex marriage is legal. How the hell does "federal" law and/or recognition in this case, only apply to certain states? Does this mean that if a same sex couple gets married in New York and then moves to Texas, they give up those federal rights? I have a funny feeling that this battle for equal rights is far from being over.

In comparison, we don't see the feds being shy about enforcing federal marijuana laws in states where it's been legalized. Kinda funky if you ask me.

IMO, it shouldn't matter where a person lives. If they were legally married, they should enjoy the same protections as any other married couple regardless of where they currently reside.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 





You're damn right I am insulted by your continued marginalizations.


oh yes, I must have marginalized you when I posted arguments on BOTH sides of the issue. It just shows how intolerant some people are to differing opinions. Liberals are not tolerant of conservatives in any way shape or form, and I am constantly amazed at the small mindedness and outright intolerance of liberals and Progressives for any opinion which does not match their own. You have proven yourself to be one of those intolerant types as far as I can see.
I even posted a disclaimer, while providing the argument from the Heritage site. Perhaps you are one of those reading impaired? Do you understand the concept of compare and contrast, and that I purposely posted that to promote fair and balanced dialogue? Compare and Contrast is a viable form of writing composition, in case you never got that in our crummy government run indoctrination camps.
My personal view is that I hope government gets out of everyone's personal business, but then one would have to forgo having taxpayer subsidies for one's choice of lifestyle, wouldn't one?
edit on 27-6-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-6-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-6-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


You didn't post 'both sides' of the issue. You wrapped your bias in a ribbon and tried to pass it off as enlightenment. I notice that you have once again refused to acknowledge the idea that homosexuals are still being fired from jobs in some state simply because they are gay. But like I said, that doesn't really sit well with your image of homosexual as entitled.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Perhaps in this way they don't overstep other laws, and overstep State's rights. Even Clinton mentioned State's rights in his statement when he signed on to DOMA. It is more complex than perhaps it looks. Here is an segment on Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion


Justice Antonin Scalia harshly criticized the verdict delivered by the Supreme Court Wednesday morning striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and accused his colleagues of suffering from an overly inflated sense of importance in a 26-page dissenting opinion.
“We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation,” Scalia wrote. ” The court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America.”


The justice’s dissent centered around the issue of jurisdiction. Two lower courts had previously arrived at the decision that federal regulations should not override state definitions of marriage, and President Barack Obama instructed the Department of Justice in 2011 that it should no longer defend DOMA.


Read more: dailycaller.com...



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 


ohhhPSSHHHH!!! I did so, it's just that I only posted the link for the alternate opinion and I posted an obvious disclaimer.

You just wanted to intimidate me with accusations of being biased and unfair, but you cannot as the evidence is for all to see.

Perhaps you just read what was in text and did not look at the link because you thought you knew what you would find.
edit on 27-6-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 





Originally posted by colbe
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by colbe


Originally posted by colbe
Marriage is a Sacrament, it is holy.


My husband and I, both atheists, disagree. Marriage CAN be a religious union, but secular marriage is a state contract between two consenting adults.


What do you mean "CAN be?" The basis for the family is Sacramental marriage, a historical fact. This is God's plan. You recognize the "state" but not God, don't do that BH. The "state" does not have and so obvious today, a perfect history of protecting and lifting up humanity.

In your heart, you must realize, God loved you first, He created you.


may the Two Hearts J+M keep you safe,


Are you married? If marriage is merely a scarament, did you get a legal license to wed? Why? Oh, because it is also a civil contract? But wait.. can I get married without any religious affiliation? Yup. Can I get married in a church without a legal license? Yup.




This is to Colbe, MichaelPHammer, and the OP.
True marriage, according to the Bible is holy. So Colbe is right, however, the Bible gives it's instructions (Torah) to the Hebrews for the LAND of Israel. Basically the Bible is YHWH's people's constitution. But the US constitution was set up for freedom, including religious freedom (which maybe no religion), it gives rights to the citizens and is suppose to control the fed. govt., with that being said, the OP is also correct. Which also means that according to "state marriage" Mr Maccabee is correct, according to the US constitution.

But Colbe, IMHO has the better belief. According to the Bible there are 4 things needed for a marriage to take place. Woman (1) was created for man (2) by YHWH with a built in covenant of blood (a hyman). Marriage in the Bible is a commitment (3) between a man and woman, consummated with sex, sealed with a blood covenant (4) before YHWH HIMSELF. In HIS marriage there is no need for a license! I in no way support state marriage. It reaches that you can do what ever you want until you get married. Then and only then can you not commit adultery (sex with another mans wife) or be an adulteress (willfully having sex with a man if you have a husband). Besides, last time I checked the US Constitutions says that we are not to be licensed......

With that said, we are not talking about Biblical marriage. We talking about people under a system that has already left HIS ways. As a believer we are to obey the law of the land (as long as it does not cause us to sin), our law of the land is the US Constitution that states the fed govt is not to be interfering in peoples homes. They are not allowed to define your "family". If they want to live as a gay couple here, that is between them and YHWH. Until they have infringed on any of your rights, it is not your problem. If you choose to live above our US Constitution you will be rewarded.

I support this decision. What I do wonder though, will the gay society support me in getting all governments to allow me to have more than one wife?

edit on 27-6-2013 by BelieveInEnoch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Ultimately what will end up happening is that if you are married in New York and move to Texas you will still be qualified for your Federal Benefits. Just changing jurisdiction is not going to be a reason to disqualify you. It will end up following the same path as Prop 8. The Government will not be able to prove that it has a vested interest in removing rights it once secured. In other words they can't just say today we recognize you as being married tomorrow we don't based on something as arbitrary as geographic location.

At the State level it is a bit different.The Prop 8 case in California is a unique case in that the State had already sanctioned same sex marriage, and then Prop 8 passed revoking that right. In other States where it was Constitutionally banned the State hadn't already sanctioned it escaping that particular situation.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by CalibratedZeus
It may not be the full package yet, but at least it is a giant leap towards even more equality for those who choose a different lifestyle.


"...those who choose..."

Nice to see someone admit this is a behavioral choice, not something genetic, and not something that makes a "minority".

Behavior is regulated all the time by the law. People don't have a right to do anything they please. There are limitations. Five people screwed up here.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 



Originally posted by Flatfish
Does this mean that if a same sex couple gets married in New York and then moves to Texas, they give up those federal rights?


Hey, fish.
From what I've heard and read, the answer to that question is quite sticky and is being discussed and will be litigated, most likely. We may have to wait until that happens - someone loses their federal rights, and sues, unfortunately...



In comparison, we don't see the feds being shy about enforcing federal marijuana laws in states where it's been legalized.


Agreed. Funky. But that law is MUCH simpler than the over 1000 federal benefits and rights, having to do with SS, etc., that are intertwined with state laws.

As it is now, if you're straight and married in FLA, you are still married no matter where you move, because each state has decided to recognize straight marriages from other states. This issue may not be settled until all 50 states decide to grant marriage licenses to gay people.

As many have said, this is just a step in the right direction. There's still much work to be done.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by BelieveInEnoch
 



Originally posted by BelieveInEnoch
With that said, we are not talking about Biblical marriage.
...
I support this decision. What I do wonder though, will the gay society support me in getting all governments to allow me to have more than one wife?


It's clear you are highly religious and I wanted to thank you for stating your position, because you are right. We are talking about secular, LEGAL marriage here. Nothing to do with God or religion.

On your second statement, again, "gay society" does not think with one mind. I'm sure some would support polygamy and some would not. I am not gay, but I support your freedom to have as many "spouses" as you like, as long as they are willing adults.

I think it's interesting that after African Americans went through such a struggle to gain their civil rights in this country, so many of them are against gay people doing the same... It's a contradiction that I don't understand. But it just goes to show that not all members of a particular "group" agree on these issues.

Thank you for your post.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 



Originally posted by KeliOnyx
The Government will not be able to prove that it has a vested interest in removing rights it once secured. In other words they can't just say today we recognize you as being married tomorrow we don't based on something as arbitrary as geographic location.


Some people are discussing the idea that this ruling may have even more impact that we commoners originally thought. And that is that other states (like Texas, in your example) will be forced to recognize a gay marriage from New York. Because, if they recognize straight marriages from New York, to not recognize gay marriages from New York would be to create a group of "second-class" citizens and that violates the Fifth Amendment.

People are talking a lot about the dissenting opinion, but this is from the majority opinion:



Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy points out that history and tradition have given the states the power to determine their own rules for marriage without significant federal interference. Kennedy goes on to say that by not recognizing same-sex marriages that have been legally performed in various states, DOMA “rejects the long established precept that the incidents, benefits, and obligations of marriage are uniform for all married couples within each state.”

In addition, the court ruled, DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of “equal liberty.” Kennedy’s majority opinion states that DOMA “singles out” legally married same-sex couples and imposes a second-class status on them even though their own states have accorded them full marriage rights. Furthermore, Kennedy writes, DOMA advances no government policy or purpose that justifies its discriminatory impact. “The statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those who the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.”


Source

This will be interesting.

edit on 6/28/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Yeah it is gonna be a messy fight any way you slice it. But ultimately I think that is how it is going to go down.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   
On the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, we should take a moment to realize how far we have come on the fight for equality, obviously we have many more steps to take, and the fight continues on, not for 'Special Rights' but for equality for us all, for we are all Human

whilst it may seem inconsequential to many as there are far more issues happening in the world, genocide, hunger, lack of clean water, wars, death etc, but this is an important issue to unite for equality, if we are to be strong enough to fight these other causes, we must come together in unity, as equals, not based on sexuality,gender,race, or religion

we are not forcing 'Gay' upon you, we are not trying to 'convert' you to become homosexual, we are not trying to pervert the children, or destroy America,

if a bigot was down, i would help them up, because one day i may need that help, and i would hope that someone would overlook my sexuality to help me, as a fellow Human

i will defend anyone's rights and beliefs, even if they don't agree with mine, as i would hope we can unite in equality and defends each others rights and abilities to thrive in this world for the short amount of time we have

DOMA was one step, and we continue to walk on
edit on 28-6-2013 by Darth_Prime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by BelieveInEnoch
I support this decision. What I do wonder though, will the gay society support me in getting all governments to allow me to have more than one wife?

edit on 27-6-2013 by BelieveInEnoch because: (no reason given)


Yup, have as many spouses as you want. I don't care if you marry two men and a woman. Everyone should get in on the fun. I would totally support polygamous marriages. It would cause absolute chaos and it would cause the government to rethink it's entire position on marriage benefits.

If I had 5 wives, each had 4 husbands, with a single kid from each husband, and each of their husbands had at least 2 more wives, each with varying degrees of children, to which my child with my first wife grw up and married the daughter of my 4th wife and her 3rd husband, what is the legal tax claim according to article XXII sectio B paragraph six, items 9-12?

Can't WAIT for government to get out of it, but until then, everyone should get the benefits, including single people that marry themselves.



new topics




 
33
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join