If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Is DOMA doomed? It's your big f'ing hubbub over something that will seem silly in 50 years thread, Day 2   (cnn.com) divider line 221
    More: Obvious, DOMA, supreme courts, same-sex marriages, Theodore B. Olson, Paul Clement, American Law, Tammy Hollingsworth, United States Code  
•       •       •

4112 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Mar 2013 at 8:27 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



221 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-27 08:50:04 AM

verbaltoxin: Right, but it's not a proper SCOTUS thread unless we mock Antonin Scalia for being the sh*t-heel troll that he is.


It sounded like he is trying to defer a ruling. During the child-rearing arguments, he suggested that there isn't enough evidence to determine the effects of same-sex parenting. Seems like an opening to kick the can down the road for another few years.
 
2013-03-27 08:50:18 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.


The bold bit is the problem.
 
2013-03-27 08:50:31 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Book of Armaments,

Chapter 2, verses 9-21

...And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, "O LORD, bless this Thy hand grenade that with it Thou mayest blow Thine enemies to tiny bits, in Thy mercy." And the LORD did grin and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats and large chu... [At this point, the friar is urged by Brother Maynard to "skip a bit, brother"]... And the LORD spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it."

\see, I can throw in random-ass crap too
 
2013-03-27 08:50:39 AM

VoodooTaco: MrBallou: The problem is that what the same-sex people are asking for isn't the freedom to love who they want, it's access to the extra perks married couples get, like tax breaks, inheritance rules, etc. The more I think about this, the more it seems that what's really unfair is that hetero couples get so many special financial breaks from a government that is not supposed to be involved in that sort of thing at all.

"Marriage", as opposed to "civil union", is fundamentally a religion-based concept. Maybe what we should be rethinking is whether married people deserve all the benefits they get. Small Government types should be all over this.

I wonder if, in 50 years, what will seem silly is that marriage was ever supported by the government at all.

I'd like the state (read nation) to abandon the Marriage aspect in favor of Civil Unions in the first place.  Marriage is a religious sacrament.  It comes with state perks and a whole lot of emotional/spiritual considerations.  I think what is most fair is to offer the same state benefits to both hetero and homosexual couples via civil unions (separate from your suggestion to reduce benefits, that's a whole different discussion).  That'd give the gay marriage opponents even less ground to stand on too, and take out the God/Bible-factor all together.


It's a nice idea in theory, but after a couple of centuries of governmental recognition of marriage I don't think that genie is ever going back in the bottle.
 
2013-03-27 08:51:36 AM

HotWingConspiracy: MrBallou: The problem is that what the same-sex people are asking for isn't the freedom to love who they want, it's access to the extra perks married couples get, like tax breaks, inheritance rules, etc.

Why is that a problem?


Because don't you realize how many people are just waiting for it to be legal so they can marry their roommate for the perks?! We all know that type of thing is endemic among straight roommates, and there are even more same gender roommates! It will break the system!!!
 
2013-03-27 08:51:46 AM
I still don't see how that "Bi-Partisan" group has standing.  The Executive branch said they won't defend it... so that means a faction of the Legislative branch can step in and take over?  If the Supreme Court says they have standing, that likely sets a new precedent... and a very broad one at that.
 
2013-03-27 08:52:06 AM
We're protecting marriage like it represents the gates of heaven or something sacred.  According to the Forest Institute, 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second, and 74% of third marriages end in divorce.  Getting married carries all the ceremonious weight of a coin flip.  Personally, some of the most miserable people I've ever met were miserable because they were staying in a marriage - for the kids, for the money, for whatever reason -- long after it should have ended.  As an institution, protecting marriage is on par with moving the grave of the unknown soldier to a Burger King parking lot to be forever guarded by men in chicken costumes who buy gold.

Marriage is just like everything else that modern culture has sunken its rotten teeth into - Mother's Day, Veteran's Day, Christmas, Easter - all just excuses to market crap Chinese products, sugar, and passive aggressive greeting cards.  The average wedding in Manhattan (which is by no means a representative sample) is $78,000.  That's a college education for some people - all so two idiots can ride into a once holy place on the backs of parade horses.  What's worth protecting in that?

I say, if the homosexuals want marriage and equal rights, give it to them.  They should be welcome to fall out of the same windows as the rest of us.  It's akin to Rosa Parks making a stand on a city bus, or the four black students who sat in at the Greensboro Woolworth's lunch counter.  It's a shiatty farking city bus.  It's a shiatty farking sandwich at a greasy diner.  There's no point in protecting any of it, including marriage, because it's a shiatty farking idea that nobody really likes long term unless forced into sticking with it.  Protecting marriage is like protecting gas station bathrooms from Mexicans.  Forget it.

What we need is a new, nobler institution, more highly valued, respected, and benefited than what marriage is today.  People who manage to stay together, happily and respectfully, shouldn't have to wear the tarnished badge of regular marriage.  I don't know what to call it, Super-Marriage, or whatever, but it should earn you rights above and beyond what the average shiat bag who pays $65,000 for a wedding and then gets divorced two years later gets on their taxes.  It should be a graduated scale with the greatest benefits coming in the 40th and 50th anniversary years.  Make it further than that, and still pass a basic happiness test, then everything is farking free.  You get to walk on the backs of the newlyweds if you'd like, as they squat down to biatch about their new husband not making enough money for them to belong to the same massage club as their bestie.

Why is everything in this country geared toward shoring up the debilitated, worn-out, and poorly scalable?  Is there no one left with a forward thing, incentive based, goal-oriented plan to make this a better country, rather than shoving more floaties on its obese arms as it struggles to just not drown?
 
2013-03-27 08:52:37 AM

dennysgod: For the "party of small government" Conservatives sure like to make laws that dictate how you should live your life.


It's been said before by many other people on FARK, but Republicans aren't really Conservatives.

/ Libertarians are, however.
// If it wasn't for my belief that we should have a strong social safety net, I'd be with them....
 
2013-03-27 08:52:39 AM
If gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage, why is divorce still legal?

/so, if DOMA is struck down, can I marry my turtle?
 
2013-03-27 08:52:49 AM

HotWingConspiracy: MrBallou: The problem is that what the same-sex people are asking for isn't the freedom to love who they want, it's access to the extra perks married couples get, like tax breaks, inheritance rules, etc.

Why is that a problem?


It's not, it's just conflating a right to happiness with demanding benefits that are not specifically guaranteed to anyone. Now, personally, I believe that all people are equally bound under the law and equally entitled to benefits as the law should be blind (and also erring on the side of more freedom for the people and less draconian control, but I digress), but that's a different argument.

I think it would be more akin to an argument about demanding that all benefits and perks granted to, say, blacks under affirmative action equally apply to all races (which they should).

What these arguments really come down to is a pie fight over semantics, and highlighting the fact that up until now, "marriage" was recognized in a certain way because the concept of same-sex marriage was just not ever even considered, therefore the working definition of marriage was used by the government as it was the only assumed "natural" possible meaning.  Now that we've expanded our view of what is natural and acceptable, you run into the issue of how one defines marriage and how the old definitions apply to new concepts.
 
2013-03-27 08:53:25 AM

sakanagai: verbaltoxin: Right, but it's not a proper SCOTUS thread unless we mock Antonin Scalia for being the sh*t-heel troll that he is.

It sounded like he is trying to defer a ruling. During the child-rearing arguments, he suggested that there isn't enough evidence to determine the effects of same-sex parenting. Seems like an opening to kick the can down the road for another few years.


Which is an out and out lie by Scalia.
 
2013-03-27 08:53:56 AM

FirstNationalBastard: If gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage, why is divorce still legal?


Because Henry VIII
 
2013-03-27 08:53:59 AM
7 -2 with Alito and Thomas voting wrong. Maybe 6-3 with Scalia. I look forward to the butthurt, although it would have been nice to see a slow death at the ballot box.
 
2013-03-27 08:54:15 AM

alywa: /discuss


The federal government isn't restricted by the 14th, only the states. Federal Due Process results from the 5th amendment.
 
2013-03-27 08:55:00 AM

Teiritzamna: Philip Francis Queeg: Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

The bold bit is the problem.


No it really isn't. DOMA goes far beyond prescribing the effects thereof, all the way to allowing the complete negation of the public acts, records and judicial acts records and Judicial proceedings of the States. Futhermore they are not doing this by general laws, but by a law which makes exception for one very limited and specific class of proceeding.
 
2013-03-27 08:55:35 AM

lohphat: MrBallou: Marriage", as opposed to "civil union", is fundamentally a religion-based concept.

[citation needed]



I guess the Seven Sacrements are a largely a Roman Catholic thing, but here they are:

EnumerationThe numeration, naming, understanding, and the adoption of the sacraments vary according to denomination. Most Protestant denominations recognize at least two: baptism and the Lord's Supper. However, Roman Catholics and some Protestant denominations list seven sacraments:

BaptismConfirmationEucharist (or Communion)MatrimonyHoly Orders (Ordination)Penance, Confession, and/or ReconciliationAnointing of the Sick (or Extreme Unction, Last Rites) http://www.theopedia.com/Sacraments

But there are other scriptures that talk to marriage directly, even if not in the form of  here are the sacraments dummy. Non Roman Catholics may not share the same sacramental requirements, but still believe in the basic concept, union of man and woman will bear children (aka fruit of their marriage) and make the church stronger etc...
 
2013-03-27 08:55:49 AM
Marriage in of itself should not be legal.

What's the point?
 
2013-03-27 08:56:38 AM

Carn: VoodooTaco: MrBallou: ......

And the benefit there is nothing would prevent some churches from opening their doors and saying "you can get gay married here, we're cool" and leave the bigots to themselves.


Very true.
 
2013-03-27 08:58:15 AM
Here's what I'm thinking.   Scalia is against gays, no doubt, on some personal, visceral level the man is inherently prejudiced against them, so he wants to find some way to prevent gay marriage.  On the other hand, the guy's massive ego is having him reflect on how history will judge him, and the guy has to know that public support for gay marriage is a virtual tsunami with the younger generation (those who will be in power, and writing the history books, in 30-40 yrs) absolutely behind gay marriage by a huge percentage.

Unless he wants to be held in contempt for a stupid ruling that did little but postpone the inevitable in the history books, like his predecessors in the Dredd Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson cases he will have to find some procedural point in the argument and attempt to hang his hat on it.  That way he won't have come down one way or another on the underlying legal question.

Roberts on the other hand, I do believe knows that it's inevitable and doesn't want his name as Chief Justice, being tied to limiting rights and holding up progress.  Especially when, given his age, this is not going to be the last time there's going to be a legitimate challenge to DOMA, if it doesn't pass muster this time.  It's just a matter of time before a few of those old justices die off and more progressive types are appointed.  DOMA will fall eventually, of that I am certain, the question is whether Roberts is going to be dragged into accepting it kicking and screaming, or whether he will want his legacy to be much more positive.
 
2013-03-27 08:58:18 AM

Teiritzamna: I dont see a holding on standing to be a punt - as, frankly, I think the standing issue is the only reason they took up the case in the first place.


I'm still trying to wrap my head around how a private party ie not the state, could argue for a law being constitutional when the state wants nothing to do with the law. Especially in a case like this where allowing something wouldn't deprive them of the full enjoyment of their rights nor place any burdens, let alone undue burdens, upon them. They're arguing for the validity of a law that lacks any semblance of personal relevance except for making them feel good.

UNC_Samurai: couple of centuries of governmental recognition of marriage


A couple? Try the entire history of English common law, which is what 800 years just about, plus the law across Europe before then. The oldest known law we know of pertaining to marriage is a civil law, not a religious one, and it takes back 3700 years. Government has been recognize marriages for a long long time. As for religious recognition? The Catholic Church while calling marriage a sacrament didn't have anything to say about actually performing weddings until the Council of Trent in the mid 1500s, before then it didn't matter where you married, the church saw it as valid.
 
2013-03-27 08:58:37 AM

spentmiles: We're protecting marriage like it represents the gates of heaven or something sacred.  According to the Forest Institute, 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second, and 74% of third marriages end in divorce.  Getting married carries all the ceremonious weight of a coin flip.  Personally, some of the most miserable people I've ever met were miserable because they were staying in a marriage - for the kids, for the money, for whatever reason -- long after it should have ended.  As an institution, protecting marriage is on par with moving the grave of the unknown soldier to a Burger King parking lot to be forever guarded by men in chicken costumes who buy gold.

Marriage is just like everything else that modern culture has sunken its rotten teeth into - Mother's Day, Veteran's Day, Christmas, Easter - all just excuses to market crap Chinese products, sugar, and passive aggressive greeting cards.  The average wedding in Manhattan (which is by no means a representative sample) is $78,000.  That's a college education for some people - all so two idiots can ride into a once holy place on the backs of parade horses.  What's worth protecting in that?

I say, if the homosexuals want marriage and equal rights, give it to them.  They should be welcome to fall out of the same windows as the rest of us.  It's akin to Rosa Parks making a stand on a city bus, or the four black students who sat in at the Greensboro Woolworth's lunch counter.  It's a shiatty farking city bus.  It's a shiatty farking sandwich at a greasy diner.  There's no point in protecting any of it, including marriage, because it's a shiatty farking idea that nobody really likes long term unless forced into sticking with it.  Protecting marriage is like protecting gas station bathrooms from Mexicans.  Forget it.

What we need is a new, nobler institution, more highly valued, respected, and benefited than what marriage is today.  People who manage to stay together, happily and respectfully, shouldn't have to wea ...


You sound angry.  And bitter.

/And do I detect the echoes of Mom's basement?
 
2013-03-27 08:58:59 AM

Bravo Two: HotWingConspiracy: MrBallou: The problem is that what the same-sex people are asking for isn't the freedom to love who they want, it's access to the extra perks married couples get, like tax breaks, inheritance rules, etc.

Why is that a problem?

It's not, it's just conflating a right to happiness with demanding benefits that are not specifically guaranteed to anyone. Now, personally, I believe that all people are equally bound under the law and equally entitled to benefits as the law should be blind (and also erring on the side of more freedom for the people and less draconian control, but I digress), but that's a different argument.

I think it would be more akin to an argument about demanding that all benefits and perks granted to, say, blacks under affirmative action equally apply to all races (which they should).

What these arguments really come down to is a pie fight over semantics, and highlighting the fact that up until now, "marriage" was recognized in a certain way because the concept of same-sex marriage was just not ever even considered, therefore the working definition of marriage was used by the government as it was the only assumed "natural" possible meaning.  Now that we've expanded our view of what is natural and acceptable, you run into the issue of how one defines marriage and how the old definitions apply to new concepts.


The definition problem is moot is it's been redefined numerous times in history.  As other have pointed out, the very same arguments against gay marriage were made against interracial marriage decades ago, and inter-religious unions before that.

At any rate, this is a clear example of sexual discrimination.  A man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot marry a woman.  Gender, being a protected class, this causes a clear violation of gender related rights.
 
2013-03-27 09:00:18 AM

dinch: I find it equally humorous and sad when somebody wearing clothes made up of blended fibers is quoting Liviticus to put down gay marriage.


Or someone with a tattoo:
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-27 09:00:27 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Article. IV. Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.


And in this case, the Effect prescribed for gay marriage is "diddly".
 
2013-03-27 09:01:53 AM

UNC_Samurai: VoodooTaco: MrBallou: The problem is that what the same-sex people are asking for isn't the freedom to love who they want, it's access to the extra perks married couples get, like tax breaks, inheritance rules, etc. The more I think about this, the more it seems that what's really unfair is that hetero couples get so many special financial breaks from a government that is not supposed to be involved in that sort of thing at all.

"Marriage", as opposed to "civil union", is fundamentally a religion-based concept. Maybe what we should be rethinking is whether married people deserve all the benefits they get. Small Government types should be all over this.

I wonder if, in 50 years, what will seem silly is that marriage was ever supported by the government at all.

I'd like the state (read nation) to abandon the Marriage aspect in favor of Civil Unions in the first place.  Marriage is a religious sacrament.  It comes with state perks and a whole lot of emotional/spiritual considerations.  I think what is most fair is to offer the same state benefits to both hetero and homosexual couples via civil unions (separate from your suggestion to reduce benefits, that's a whole different discussion).  That'd give the gay marriage opponents even less ground to stand on too, and take out the God/Bible-factor all together.

It's a nice idea in theory, but after a couple of centuries of governmental recognition of marriage I don't think that genie is ever going back in the bottle.


I was hoping the power of Fark would convince the nation, but agreed.    I'll add this one to the list of shiat I need to fix after I borrow Obama's Magical Time Machine....
 
2013-03-27 09:01:53 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: No it really isn't. DOMA goes far beyond prescribing the effects thereof, all the way to allowing the complete negation of the public acts, records and judicial acts records and Judicial proceedings of the States. Futhermore they are not doing this by general laws, but by a law which makes exception for one very limited and specific class of proceeding.


I am not saying your argument is dead, just that the effects clause makes things tricky.  All I am saying is that there is a fair legal argument that Congress gets to determine the "effect thereof" and nothing in that clause says they cannot state the effect is "nothing."  The general laws argument you made, i think is a much better one.

Of course, the public policy exception to FFC would likely mean that this is a moot point anyway, as - quite depressingly - we have a lengthy history of states refusing to recognize the marriages of other states.
 
2013-03-27 09:01:54 AM

propasaurus: dinch: I find it equally humorous and sad when somebody wearing clothes made up of blended fibers is quoting Liviticus to put down gay marriage.

Or someone with a tattoo:
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 700x446]


I wonder if anyone has ever gotten a tattoo of Ezekiel 23:20...
 
2013-03-27 09:04:54 AM

Teiritzamna: In its opinion, the Second looked to the Supreme Court's prior jurisprudence in Romer and Lawrence and claimed it embraced an intermediate level of scrutiny for gay issues.


Didn't both Romer and Lawrence use the "rational basis with bite" test instead of intermediate scrutiny?
 
2013-03-27 09:05:22 AM

lawboy87: Roberts on the other hand,


Roberts put together the case that was presented to the Supreme Court in Romer v Evans, on the side of gay rights. And he did that because he chose to do it, he wasn't told to do it, hell he wasn't even paid to do it, was pro bono
 
2013-03-27 09:05:52 AM

Teiritzamna: Of course, the public policy exception to FFC would likely mean that this is a moot point anyway, as - quite depressingly - we have a lengthy history of states refusing to recognize the marriages of other states.


So what is the effect these days if first cousins get married in New Mexico (where it's legal) and move to a state like Kentucky (where it isn't)?
 
2013-03-27 09:06:32 AM

WhyteRaven74: I'm still trying to wrap my head around how a private party ie not the state, could argue for a law being constitutional when the state wants nothing to do with the law. Especially in a case like this where allowing something wouldn't deprive them of the full enjoyment of their rights nor place any burdens, let alone undue burdens, upon them. They're arguing for the validity of a law that lacks any semblance of personal relevance except for making them feel good.


Yeah the standing stuff here is really very interesting, and i would think if the court allows standing - rather terrifying.  I know the oral arguments focused on the fact that these parties were likely designees under California law, and that the whole point of the referendum process was to short circuit the power of the legislature/executive, but i think the reults are so close to taxpayer standing as to possible open a giant can of "improper party" worms.

/is there ever a can of worms that is proper for a party?
//worm party!!
 
2013-03-27 09:07:53 AM

cattmandont: MrBallou has it right. Instead of spreading marriage rules to gays, let's remove all marriage rules from gummint. Civil Union for everyone. Wanna be married? Go to the church of yur choice. Want a civil union? Write a contract and get it notarized. Any  two adults, for reasons iterated in the contract. (For purposes like tax treatment, inheritance, child care and custody; even duration.


That makes too much sense and is logical. Both sides won't accept that the fight is simply about the legal recognition of gay marriages, not whether they have a right to exist.

Here's where I'm curious: what about polygamy? Personally, I'm fine with legalizing it. If we define marriage as being between consenting adults (let's go ahead and knock the Warren Jeff's counter argument out of the way), why not polygamy?
 
2013-03-27 09:07:54 AM

propasaurus: dinch: I find it equally humorous and sad when somebody wearing clothes made up of blended fibers is quoting Liviticus to put down gay marriage.

Or someone with a tattoo:


If I ever got a tattoo, it would be Lev. 19:28.
 
2013-03-27 09:07:56 AM

RexTalionis: Didn't both Romer and Lawrence use the "rational basis with bite" test instead of intermediate scrutiny?


Yes.  But the Second Circuit called it intermediate scrutiny.  Hence why i think there will be a split on the liberals over scrutiny - some will say "IS" others will say "RBR w/ B."
 
2013-03-27 09:08:16 AM

nekom: It already seems silly.

alywa: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


If only it were just that easy. It should be, but apparently it isn't.


If you think that determining what constitutes politically "equal" treatment is a question that's either philosophically or politically easy to answer, you haven't been paying attention for the last 8000 years or so.   Well, the last 200 for "equal protection" specifically, but this is the same kind of argument the peers in Athens used to have and it's what Hummarabi's code was attempting to address.

Not that the answer isn't fairly clear in this context (it is), but the question not being a trivial one to resolve shouldn't surprise anybody.
 
2013-03-27 09:08:41 AM

abb3w:
So what is the effect these days if first cousins get married in New Mexico (where it's legal) and move to a state like Kentucky (where it isn't)?


That's actually a very good question, and one I had never pondered. Someone will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong, but there are some states that allow gay marriage, some that recognize it, and some that both allow and recognize. For example, California no longer allows them because of prop 8, but I believe they do still recognize them. So what's the deal with first cousins? Are their marriages similarly "recognized" state by state just as they are allowed state by state? There's definitely a parallel there.
 
2013-03-27 09:09:39 AM

abb3w: So what is the effect these days if first cousins get married in New Mexico (where it's legal) and move to a state like Kentucky (where it isn't)?


As far as I know, it is up to Kentucky whether they want to recognize the marriage.
 
2013-03-27 09:11:13 AM
DOMA is doomed, but they'll punt on Prop 8 .  Split the baby so to speak, but both wind up as at least partial wins for marriage equality.
 
2013-03-27 09:12:10 AM

Teiritzamna: Yeah the standing stuff here is really very interesting


The 9th circuit sent the issue to the California state supreme court before they actually heard the appeal just to figure out if there was even a case to hear. I found the state court's decision and while it makes a nice argument and points out similar things happening in the past, they were state cases not federal ones. Also the argument "We voted for it, we want it, ergo we get to defend it" which is the thrust of the state supreme courts decision is rather oddly flimsy.
 
2013-03-27 09:12:39 AM

VoodooTaco: lohphat: MrBallou: Marriage", as opposed to "civil union", is fundamentally a religion-based concept.

[citation needed]


I guess the Seven Sacrements are a largely a Roman Catholic thing, but here they are:

EnumerationThe numeration, naming, understanding, and the adoption of the sacraments vary according to denomination. Most Protestant denominations recognize at least two: baptism and the Lord's Supper. However, Roman Catholics and some Protestant denominations list seven sacraments:

BaptismConfirmationEucharist (or Communion)MatrimonyHoly Orders (Ordination)Penance, Confession, and/or ReconciliationAnointing of the Sick (or Extreme Unction, Last Rites) http://www.theopedia.com/Sacraments

But there are other scriptures that talk to marriage directly, even if not in the form of  here are the sacraments dummy. Non Roman Catholics may not share the same sacramental requirements, but still believe in the basic concept, union of man and woman will bear children (aka fruit of their marriage) and make the church stronger etc...


So?  the church didn't create the idea of marriage, nor is it's recognition of it at any point important.

The only thing that has ever mattered, in history, is the state recognizes the union as a contract.  Most nations couldn't have cared less about the religious aspect, if any, of the union.  Ours certainty doesn't.  Hell, nations used to use marriage as a bargaining chip in political negotiations.  Businesses used it to secure ties with suppliers/partners.  Families did it for purely economic reasons (and still do in some places).

It's a civil contract in the eyes of the state, always has been.  Any religious argument pro or against is effectively moot.
 
2013-03-27 09:13:04 AM

vudukungfu: Marriage in of itself should not be legal.

What's the point?


Women see it as a weapon of power in order to control men, gain wealth and property, and otherwise establish themselves in a lifestyle that befits their desired outcome?
 
2013-03-27 09:13:47 AM

WhyteRaven74: "We voted for it, we want it, ergo we get to defend it" which is the thrust of the state supreme courts decision is rather oddly flimsy.


yeah, injury in fact is pretty much non-existent there, and besides, I find it hard to believe that the Court will support an argument that boils down to "a state court can confer Article III standing if it really wants to"
 
2013-03-27 09:13:49 AM
You know, those mocking the red FB profiles (yes, this is Fark, we mock everything), I normally think changing your profile picture to "support" a cause is rather silly. However, I think in this case it's a bit different. No, changing your profile will not make any difference in how the Supreme Court rules. However, I think the single greatest cause of the huge shift in public opinion on gay rights and equality in the last two decades has been due to people coming out of the closet and, thus, people realizing they actually know and maybe love gay people. The more people come out, the more it becomes evident to those who know them personally through discussions that it is not a choice. Popular opinion is going to play a huge roll in equal rights (which is a shame it has to work that way, but it seems it does). The more obvious the shift in public opinion, the quieter the opposition to equal rights gets. Even now Official Party Republican opposition to gay marriage is getting quieter and quieter by the minute.

Someone opposed to gay equality seeing a sudden sea of red on his or her FB profile MIGHT, JUST MIGHT, cause him or her to pause. A politician taking note of the millions of people in red on FB might stop to consider. This really is a person by person battle.

The Supreme Court doesn't like to get out ahead of public opinion. The more obvious the shift is to them the better.

The most encouraging changes to red have been from the straight guys of my little, rural, conservative hometown area.
 
2013-03-27 09:14:01 AM

Teiritzamna: As far as I know, it is up to Kentucky whether they want to recognize the marriage.


Of course that assumes Kentucky would ever find out that it's two cousins that are married.
 
2013-03-27 09:14:11 AM

Bravo Two: vudukungfu: Marriage in of itself should not be legal.

What's the point?

Women see it as a weapon of power in order to control men, gain wealth and property, and otherwise establish themselves in a lifestyle that befits their desired outcome?


Umm, pretty much all of human history would like to have a word with you.
 
2013-03-27 09:14:30 AM

ArgusRun: they'll punt on Prop 8


Once again, not a punt.  Standing is the whole point.
 
2013-03-27 09:14:45 AM
I don't know if it makes me too much of a hipster or not enough, but I sisn't know what DOMA even ment until this morning.
 
2013-03-27 09:15:07 AM

ArgusRun: DOMA is doomed, but they'll punt on Prop 8 .  Split the baby so to speak, but both wind up as at least partial wins for marriage equality.


Even if they punt on Proposition 8, the most likely outcome is that Proposition 8 will be dead. If they, for instance, decide that the Prop 8 proponents lack standing, then the 9th Cir. appellate decision is wiped out because the Prop 8 proponents could not have brought the case before them, which means that the District Court decision finding Prop 8 unconstitutional will stand.

If SCOTUS decides to dismiss Proposition 8, then the 9th Cir. appellate decision will stand - which means Prop 8 will still be unconstitutional.

Only if SCOTUS affirmatively rules that Proposition 8 is constitutional and allowable will Proposition 8 stay in force, and a lot of observers think that is highly unlikely.
 
2013-03-27 09:15:54 AM
Done in one.

/ I got out of bed for all thus hubbub?
 
2013-03-27 09:16:23 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Bravo Two: vudukungfu: Marriage in of itself should not be legal.

What's the point?

Women see it as a weapon of power in order to control men, gain wealth and property, and otherwise establish themselves in a lifestyle that befits their desired outcome?

Umm, pretty much all of human history would like to have a word with you.


It was sarcasm. Deal with it.
 
Displayed 50 of 221 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report