DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional by Supreme Court

I do not see why there is so much commotion over this whole issue. Why are so many people offended because gay people want to get married? For anyone who is a student of the Constitution, it should be obvious that as soon benefits began to be conferred to married couples, gay couples were being discriminated against, therefore it is not Constitutional. Common sense really, imo.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I think this whole issue is the result of our Government sticking its nose into our personal lives. Specifically the IRS. Why on earth is there any tax benefits given for being single, married, or as a business. Shouldn't all taxes be based on a per head rather than a relationship? Our tax laws are out of control, just like the rest of government.

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by MrWendal

 

I agree.

And we need to remember that "benefits" always come at the expense of somebody else.

That may be discriminatory.

Exactly!!! What a nightmare our government has become. Always trying to right some social inequality by implementing some imposed inequality to right the perceived social inequality. Government never ever gets it right.

reply to post by MrWendal


It's absolutely about benefits. There is a human story that's attached to fights like these but what it boils down to is the state gives married couples a bunch of goodies. By denying same-sex couples these goodies it pisses them off because they pay into the tax system the same.

I have a girlfriend and have pissed off a lot of people in gay community by saying that marriage is pointless unless you want the goodies afforded in the contract. I really don't like governments in general and if they weren't stealing half of people's money through taxes then people wouldn't be as worried about having a state issued sexual intercourse/mating license.

With that being said I am also slightly paranoid and don't want to get married because I think this country is going down the toilet and I don't want to be on some gay list ready for roundup. The only reason I would get married is if I got desperate enough job wise to join military.

reply to post by LadyofGlass

Originally posted by LadyofGlass
It's absolutely about benefits.

I just wonder if you and Mr Wendal think straight people get married for the benefits, too.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Marriage ceremonies and state issued contracts are two separate things. Gay people have been getting ceremonies for years. It is the state issued contract with benefits that was the subject of this legal battle.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by LadyofGlass

 

Originally posted by LadyofGlass
It's absolutely about benefits.

I just wonder if you and Mr Wendal think straight people get married for the benefits, too.

I think a good chunk of people that apply for marriage licenses do so for the legal protections and benefits. Can't speak for everyone, but that's the big reason my marriage is happening. My partner and I have been awaiting this decision for years. We have a child together, and while being married would make our family unit a little more secure, we have waited until anyone that wishes to be married can be legally recognized on the federal level to do so.

We are getting married next Spring in Minnesota.

reply to post by LadyofGlass


Ah, I understand. Thank you. I agree.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


Congratulations on your upcoming nuptials.

I guess my point is that yes, THIS legal battle is about rights and benefits. But there are many gay couples (I think) who have other reasons for wanting marriage equality. For one, simply equal treatment - to not be seen as a second class citizen. And there are also those who simply want to get married for the "romantic" side of it.

RT@jonesinforjason: A friend just asked me what DOMA stood for. I said, 'Nothing'.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by LadyofGlass

 

Originally posted by LadyofGlass
It's absolutely about benefits.

I just wonder if you and Mr Wendal think straight people get married for the benefits, too.

Hmmm well the Heritage Foundation suggests that the institution of marriage being sanctioned by the government is for the purpose of an ordered family unit and the raising of children by the biological representatives of both sexes for the benefit of the whole society, so that children of the next generation have a better chance at living without poverty, and marriage encourages the father to stay with the mother and children which result from their union. So, in a word, marriage benefits society(as children from broken families or out of wedlock often require the intervention of the state to provide for their welfare in some way or another). Heritage further states that government sanction of marriage is not required for gays to live together or join in a religious community that supports them, but gay marriage will end up forcing clergy to marry them even when they recognize marriage as being one man and one woman.

Government can treat people equally—and leave them free to live and love as they choose—without redefining marriage.
While respecting everyone’s liberty, government rightly recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for childbearing and childrearing. Adults are free to make choices about their relationships without redefining marriage and do not need government sanction or license to do so.

Government is not in the business of affirming our love. Rather, it leaves consenting adults free to live and love as they choose. Contrary to what some say, there is no ban on same-sex marriage. Nothing about it is illegal. In all 50 states, two people of the same sex may choose to live together, choose to join a religious community that blesses their relationship, and choose a workplace offering joint benefits. There is nothing illegal about this.

What is at issue is whether the government will recognize such relationships as marriages—and then force every citizen, house of worship, and business to do so as well. At issue is whether policy will coerce and compel others to recognize and affirm same-sex relationships as marriages. All Americans have the freedom to live as they choose, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

Heritage also suggests that redefining marriage contributes to the breakdown of the purpose of marriage for the benefit of society and childrearing and minimizes it as for the purpose of gaining benefits or enjoying emotional intensity.

Appeals to “marriage equality” are good sloganeering, but they exhibit sloppy reasoning. Every law makes distinctions. Equality before the law protects citizens from arbitrary distinctions, from laws that treat them differently for no good reason. To know whether a law makes the right distinctions—whether the lines it draws are justified—one has to know the public purpose of the law and the nature of the good being advanced or protected.

www.heritage.org...
All of the above excerpts come from this Heritage link and are for the benefit of those who question what the purpose of marriage is for society. It is not to suggest that the concepts are the way for society today to go, but to understand the roots of the social order of marriage, and Heritage also suggests that even irreligious societies recognized marriage as between a man and a woman, even when "homoerotic relationships" were of no issue to them.

(in past centuries apparently royalty had to approve of certain marriages to be valid in society, but likely that is only for the nobility and for the preservation of the court and I do not personally approve of this approach either, but it had certain significance for peoples of that time frame-this approach was demonstrated in the movie, "The Other Boleyn Girl")
As a disclaimer, here is an alternate view of marriage by an advocate of gay marriage, and everyone can compare and contrast on their own.

sites.psu.edu...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

But there are many gay couples (I think) who have other reasons for wanting marriage equality. For one, simply equal treatment - to not be seen as a second class citizen.

So, are people who choose not to marry at all and are single considered second class citizens? The purpose of marriage in society is to protect children which may come from a sexual union between a man and a woman. The purpose of a wedding ceremony performed by clergy is to sanctify the union before God.

Gays are currently enjoying plenty of opportunities in employment and government has already stepped in to make certain that they are not discriminated against in the workplace. They now have coveted places in the movie industry. They currently enjoy special parades just for them, and certain protected status not particularly reserved for other people, just like the environmentalists have given protected status to wolves, spotted owls, and various types of organic plants. (or even fishes, as demonstrated by the protection of smelts in California to the detriment of human farmers).

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

But there are many gay couples (I think) who have other reasons for wanting marriage equality. For one, simply equal treatment - to not be seen as a second class citizen.

So, are people who choose not to marry at all and are single considered second class citizens? The purpose of marriage in society is to protect children which may come from a sexual union between a man and a woman. The purpose of a wedding ceremony performed by clergy is to sanctify the union before God.

Gays are currently enjoying plenty of opportunities in employment and government has already stepped in to make certain that they are not discriminated against in the workplace. They now have coveted places in the movie industry. They currently enjoy special parades just for them, and certain protected status not particularly reserved for other people, just like the environmentalists have given protected status to wolves, spotted owls, and various types of organic plants. (or even fishes, as demonstrated by the protection of smelts in California to the detriment of human farmers).

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

The gays also enjoy being fired simply for being gay in many states, but you want a parade. I see how bad you have it.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Some gay people coming together and making a parade isn't having something special made for them, it's making something for themselves. You could make a straight parade as well, no one is stopping you.

In regard to marriage being an institution set up simply to protect children that's not the case. Historically marriage has been an institution of female ownership, like buying a horse and getting a receipt. It has evolved over the years and has shifted from a private sale to a religious one and from religious sale to being controlled by the state. The concept is still the same. The only difference now is that both partners are giving a receipt of ownership instead of just one.

My opinion of how children fair in gay families is that they do better. It's not that gay people are superior but that as a gay couple you don't just mistakenly have a baby. It takes an enormous amount of planning and hurdles to overcome. It is very rare to find a gay couple under the age of 30 with a family (not counting any previous heterosexual relationships that produced children). Children need attachment with their primary caregivers at least for the first five years of life and they tend to get enormous amounts of attention in families where the parents are gay. That's just my own anecdotal experience but I believe there was a large study of lesbians that concluded the same thing.

Either way if we weren't slaves to the state I wouldn't have to get permission from you or anyone else to keep or get my money back. The only reason rights are granted is because we're a bunch of cattle that have to beg for feed from the ranchers.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


I appreciate your sense of personal insult at the discussion of the purpose of family for society and the protection of children. For that reason I have included an argument on the other side of the spectrum, if it pleases you. As to your comment that I "want a parade", it was not me who wanted parades, but now gays can have the same status as the Irish.

reply to post by LadyofGlass

Some gay people coming together and making a parade isn't having something special made for them, it's making something for themselves

I thought we were talking about acceptance and equality. Are single persons now having the same equality as married gay people, considering the taxpayer subsidized benefits involved?

My opinion of how children fair in gay families is that they do better

Better than what? A family comprised of a father, mother and child or children? Or better than a broken family with divorce or children out of wedlock?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

I appreciate your sense of personal insult at the discussion of the purpose of family for society and the protection of children. For that reason I have included an argument on the other side of the spectrum, if it pleases you. As to your comment that I "want a parade", it was not me who wanted parades, but now gays can have the same status as the Irish.

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

If you didn't want a parade, why bring it up? I see that you decided to ignore the part of my post that showcases discrimination. Am I to assume it is because that doesn't fit in with your world view of just how good the gays have it now?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
So, are people who choose not to marry at all and are single considered second class citizens?

No, people who are not given a CHOICE are seen as second class citizens. It's not necessarily about the act or institution of marriage, it's about having the CHOICE.

The purpose of marriage in society is to protect children which may come from a sexual union between a man and a woman.

That may be a general purpose, but it's certainly not necessary to bear children to be married.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


We're talking about legal goodies afforded by the government. The government violently takes half of earnings through taxes and marriage is a contract afforded by the government to couples that gives some of that money back at the end of the year. There is also the aspect of a cheaper streamlined living will/power of attorney afforded in the contract as well.

Does that mean that single people are being robbed at a higher amount compared to their married counterparts? Absolutely.

In relation to what I am comparing is the comparison between two people of the same sex having children vs. two people of opposite sex having children. Divorce, single parent households, or any other familial status is included. If there is issues with many men leaving women for instance to care for a child they had together, that would be included as opposite sex child creation. Opposite sex best friends who got married, went to college, and planned before having a baby would be included. Two gay guys using a surrogate mother to have a baby are included. Two opposite sex people adopting a baby from a mother addicted to crack would not be included.

Again my opinions are based anecdotal experience. There are no studies that I found that compelling on either side of the argument. For me it is just a common sense thing because as a gay person you have to go through so much to have a baby. When you're in a same sex relationship there's no having a girlfriend at 17 and getting her pregnant for instance. Me and my girlfriend are going to have a baby in a few years after she finishes nursing school. I already have a remote job so that means baby won't be going to day care programming centers or public schools. I don't believe in spanking, hitting, or verbally abusing and neither does she. If I had a baby by accident at 20 or 22 I would have raised it a lot differently because I had not matured mentally to be a great parent. Now I feel more ready, that is the primary difference in my opinion of the gay families I have encountered. They are older and more established and had to fight to have the baby in some way.

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

This means that married gay people in states that approve gay marriage will now get federal benefits that they have previously been denied.

This right here is why I have a problem with marriage. Why should any company or government give benefits to married people? Can anybody answer me this?

Maybe I should get double the benefits because I remain single and don't tax the system as much.

edit on 26-6-2013 by TDawgRex because: Just a ETA

I think a long time ago it was proven that married people are more productive as a while than singles. so it was a national security thing to wave a carrot in front of people to get married overall.

Your less reckless when you got to get to work and support junior and the spouse kind of thing, and that translates into tax dollars. Its a fairly understandable system to push overall in a society. There is a argument to be made against it for personal privacy reasons of course, but that's generally (if I remember correctly) why it was recognized to begin with.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

As far as I understand, there is no recourse against this ruling at the federal level. It's unconstitutional to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

That is correct! Which also means I can have more than one wife, according to the constitution and YHWH, if I choose!

The problem is not the benefits, it's the IRS. You people are praising the tax benies when we ALL should be stopping the IRS. The IRS can go to hell!

As for what the constitution says about federal taxes..... IS THERE DECLARED WAR??????????????????????

By the IRS's own tax code, US citizens are NOT to pay federal income taxes! Watch the videos. Wake up!
www.piercingtheillusion.org...