Defense of marriage act struck down by SCOTUS

[Sylvan Dreams]

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/26/19151971-supreme-court-strikes-down-defense-of-marriage-act?lite


By Pete Williams and Erin McClam, NBC News
In a landmark ruling for gay rights, the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law blocking federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
The decision was 5-4, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. It said that the law amounted to the “deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.”
The ruling means that federal government must recognize the gay marriages deemed legal in 12 states and the District of Columbia. The law helps determine who is covered by more than 1,100 federal laws, programs and benefits, including Social Security survivor benefits, immigration rights and family leave.
“DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others,” the ruling said. It added that the law was invalid because there was no legitimate purpose for disparaging those whom states “sought to protect in personhood and dignity.”
President Barack Obama, in a post on Twitter, said that the ruling was a “historic step forward for #MarriageEquality.”
Kennedy was joined in the majority by the four members of the court’s liberal wing, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Dissenting were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Scalia, in his dissent, wrote: “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. 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.”
Cheers went up outside the Supreme Court, where supporters of gay marriage waved signs, rainbow banners and flags with equality symbols.
The ruling comes as states are authorizing gay marriage with increasing speed — 12 plus the District of Columbia now allow it — and with public opinion having turned narrowly in favor of gay marriage.
Under the law, gay couples who are legally married in their states were not considered married in the eyes of the federal government, and were ineligible for the federal benefits that come with marriage.
The case before the Supreme Court, U.S. v. Windsor, concerned Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a lesbian couple who lived together in New York for 44 years and married in Canada in 2007.
When Spyer died in 2009, Windsor was hit with $363,000 in federal estate taxes. Had the couple been considered by the federal government to be married, Windsor would not have incurred those taxes.
Kennedy, in the ruling, said that New York’s decision to authorize gay marriage was a proper exercise of its authority, and reflected “the community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality.”
President Bill Clinton signed the act into law in September 1996. A court ruling in Hawaii had raised the prospect that that state might become the first to authorize gay marriage.
At the time, some members of Congress believed that the Defense of Marriage Act might be a compromise that would take the air out of a movement to amend the Constitution to block gay marriage.
This story was originally published on Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:04 AM EDT
219comments

[Methais]

President Barack Obama, in a post on Twitter, said that the ruling was a “historic step forward for #MarriageEquality.”

http://tommyyoung.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/obama_evolved_poster.jpg

^ It's funny how people buy into that.

[Allereli]

^ It's funny how people buy into that.

Hey, if people buy into religion...

[jafo]

Gay marriage should be safe, legal, and hilarious.

[4a6c1]

Kennedy, that stone cold fox!

[BriarFox]

Gay marriage should be safe, legal, and FABULOUS.

Fixed.

[Taernath]

5-4 is a pretty scary margin.

[4a6c1]

Alitois a hardline piece of shit, Thomas does as he is told, Scalia is batshit fucking insane and Roberts no comment for love of the empire. They never even considered it.

[~Rocktar~]

So now we might can remove this smoke screen of a political position from the landscape of America and focus on real issues like the economy, foreign affairs and what e-mails the President whanks to when he goes to bed at night.

[Tgo01]

Thomas does as he is told

Give me a break. You read that "Uncle Thomas" tweet from that Democratic Congressman too huh?

[Lord Orbstar]

Religion is based on God, your creator, Alleri. I disagree with the ruling and hope one day, like abortion, it is overturned. But for now, enjoy your win and the fiddle music. This is why we have political process...to weigh issues then make consensus or rulings. We are a not some bannana republic or filthy muslim country, so I accept the law. Well, until we can have another go at it. Hopefully you rabid liberals out there are so accepting when it goes my way (aka the American way)

[diethx]

Fabulous.

[diethx]

Religion is based on God, your creator, Alleri. I disagree with the ruling and hope one day, like abortion, it is overturned. But for now, enjoy your win and the fiddle music. This is why we have political process...to weigh issues then make consensus or rulings. We are a not some bannana republic or filthy muslim country, so I accept the law. Well, until we can have another go at it. Hopefully you rabid liberals out there are so accepting when it goes my way (aka the American way)

LOL

[Lord Orbstar]

"Bruce, with this cock ring, I thee bed..." i made a funny.

[diethx]

"Bruce, with this cock ring, I thee bed..." i made a funny.

No, I assure you, you didn't.

[Fallen]

LOL

+1

Need appropriate MEME:

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/5583166208/h61C8715D/

[Lord Orbstar]

I want to start an Elanthian Crossfire. The E and Diethx on one side and... parkbandit and Rojodisco as the conservatives

[Whirlin]

Just thought I'd breakdown Orbstar's post a little bit.




Religion is based on God, your creator, Alleri.

Forcing one's own beliefs onto others.



...enjoy your win and the fiddle music.

Assumed that fiddle music is supposed to be a generalized insult to liberals, which would be a wonderful judgmental generalization.
...Isn't there some mythical verse about not doing stuff like that?



We are a not some bannana republic or filthy muslim country, so I accept the law.

Xenophobic and racist



Well, until we can have another go at it.

Stubborn.
Not respecting the result of the political process
Force one's own beliefs again, regardless of previous outcome.



Hopefully you rabid liberals

Generalizing, judgmental, and inflammatory.


out there are so accepting when it goes my way (aka the American way)
Not respecting the outcome of the political process
Discounting individuals with opinions that do not mirror one's own.
Not separating church (the emphasis of the post thus far), and state (emphasized by his religious way being the 'Merican way)

[BriarFox]

Rojodisco as the conservatives

:wtf:

[Tgo01]

:wtf:

It's because she loves long, black guns.

[Lord Orbstar]

Whirlin, stick to your sorceror's guide. zaza ziiing. "fiddle" referred to Rome, its decline and the mirrored slide of our culture. As for the rest...nevermind. I am gonna log in and play me some gemstone bitches!

[thefarmer]

Whirlin, stick to your sorceror's guide. zaza ziiing. "fiddle" referred to Rome, its decline and the mirrored slide of our culture. As for the rest...nevermind. I am gonna log in and play me some gemstone bitches!

Gay shit was totally the downfall of Rome.

[Whirlin]

I just got zazazung :(

[Buckwheet]

The question is did it get you any closer to selling your bow?

[diethx]

I'd just like to know how I beat out the likes of WB (and others) for most liberal on this forum.

Also, Whirlin, once again delivering one of the hottest posts on the forums. We ladies love it when you intelligently destroy an blithering idiot.

[Tgo01]

an blithering idiot.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mUJAltsTi00/T28c_KFQq3I/AAAAAAAAAQU/2-wxfkfDb2Y/s1600/shocked-face.jpg

[diethx]

Yeah, I decided to add blithering in there at the last minute. You know, to emphasize the idiocititititiy. NO EDIT NECESSARY.

[Wrathbringer]

Regardless of how one views the moral issue, the unconstitutionality of the law was never in doubt in my mind. Score one for personal liberties.

[AnticorRifling]

Regardless of how one views the moral issue, the unconstitutionality of the law was never in doubt in my mind. Score one for personal liberties.

Yup.

[Methais]

Hey, if people buy into religion...

The difference being that religion didn't suddenly come about during election season, whereas Obama "evolving" did, and people actually believe he was genuine about it and not just trying to grab more votes.

[Back]

How can you call it the Defense of Marriage Act when it STOPS people from getting married? Unbelievable. Call it what it is. The We Don't Want Gay Marriage Act. Or, The We Don't Tolerate Homosexuality Act. Or The We Can Get Married And Be Happy But You Can't Act.

[Tgo01]

How can you call it the Defense of Marriage Act when it STOPS people from getting married? Unbelievable. Call it what it is. The We Don't Want Gay Marriage Act. Or, The We Don't Tolerate Homosexuality Act. Or The We Can Get Married And Be Happy But You Can't Act.

Ask the first "gay" president, Bill Clinton.

[AnticorRifling]

Welcome to 17 years ago Back.

[Allereli]

The difference being that religion didn't suddenly come about during election season, whereas Obama "evolving" did, and people actually believe he was genuine about it and not just trying to grab more votes.

I'm just saying don't be surprised people buy into how a politician markets himself when they buy into mythology, salvation, heaven, and hell.

[Tisket]

(aka the American way)

How do you measure an American anyway? I'm an American. My family can trace it's roots in this country to 1789. We've lost members in almost every war. So trust me when I say, my way is not your way. Quit pretending to speak for me. You embarrass yourself.

[Methais]

It's because she loves long, black guns.

She made porn with Lexington Steele?

[Back]

Religion is based on God, your creator, Alleri. I disagree with the ruling and hope one day, like abortion, it is overturned. But for now, enjoy your win and the fiddle music. This is why we have political process...to weigh issues then make consensus or rulings. We are a not some bannana republic or filthy muslim country, so I accept the law. Well, until we can have another go at it. Hopefully you rabid liberals out there are so accepting when it goes my way (aka the American way)

American Way my ass. You mean your personal ignorant view on how other people should not have rights that you enjoy.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/quote2.png

THAT is the American way.

[4a6c1]

I want to start an Elanthian Crossfire. The E and Diethx on one side and... parkbandit and Rojodisco as the conservatives are you retarded.

[4a6c1]

It's because she loves long, black guns.

Mmmmm yeeaaah

[Candor]

American Way my ass. You mean your personal ignorant view on how other people should not have rights that you enjoy.

I also believe that pedophiles should be locked up and kept away from children, and that is based on religious principles. Wanna disagree with that too?

And you do realize that there are pedophiles who believe they have equal rights to act how they please, and that you have no right whatsoever to force them to act otherwise?

[Allereli]

Whether Obama personally believes in gay marriage or not is moot, of course he did it for votes, that's how he was going to be re-elected, that's how this country works. What does matter is that he publicly backed the cause, that his administration stopped defending DOMA and submitted amicus curiae briefs, and that actual progress was made. I don't pretend to know the President and I certainly don't agree with everything his administration has done, but I find that in this case, he did the right thing.

[Allereli]

I also believe that pedophiles should be locked up and kept away from children, and that is based on religious principles. Wanna disagree with that too?

And you do realize that there are pedophiles who believe they have equal rights to act how they please, and that you have no right whatsoever to force them to act otherwise?

statements like this are sad. I'll just post a link to a picture from a gay wedding that my cousin took:

http://issuu.com/gayweddingsfromtheknot/docs/gayweddingsfromtheknotedition2/39?e=8581564%2F3657413

[Back]

I also believe that pedophiles should be locked up and kept away from children, and that is based on religious principles. Wanna disagree with that too?

And you do realize that there are pedophiles who believe they have equal rights to act how they please, and that you have no right whatsoever to force them to act otherwise?

Your startling leap to that conclusion is frightening and questionable why you would use it to defend your point. There is no right to pedophile so you can't take that away from anyone. I don't travel in that circle so I have no idea what they believe nor do I give a flying fuck. As a society we have decided it is wrong.

What has happened here is that now all Americans can enjoy the same marriage rights as each other. Murica! Fuck yeah!

[AnticorRifling]

Candor is relating two people not hurting anyone to someone hurting a child. Excellent.

[Androidpk]

Candor is relating two people not hurting anyone to someone hurting a child. Excellent.

What if those two people are into BDSM?

[kutter]

Your startling leap to that conclusion is frightening and questionable why you would use it to defend your point. There is no right to pedophile so you can't take that away from anyone. I don't travel in that circle so I have no idea what they believe nor do I give a flying fuck. As a society we have decided it is wrong.

What has happened here is that now all Americans can enjoy the same marriage rights as each other. Murica! Fuck yeah!

Personally I could care less about this ruling, but just to be clear, years ago society decided that marriage was between a man and a woman, so much for that. The only constant is change. I wonder how long it will take until the first lawsuit is filed that does away with polygamy laws, or marriage of minor laws. It is a slippery slope that we are on now and I think we will all be heading down it with ever increasing speed.

[Methais]

statements like this are sad. I'll just post a link to a picture from a gay wedding that my cousin took:

http://issuu.com/gayweddingsfromtheknot/docs/gayweddingsfromtheknotedition2/39?e=8581564%2F3657413

Those lesbians aren't hot.

What gives?

[AnticorRifling]

What if those two people are into BDSM?

Totally safe, afterall that's what the safe word is for.

[AnticorRifling]

Those lesbians aren't hot.

What gives?

Welcome to anything that's not porn.

[Keller]

Regardless of how one views the moral issue, the unconstitutionality of the law was never in doubt in my mind. Score one for personal liberties.

Pretty much.

[Keller]

Religion is based on God, your creator, Alleri. I disagree with the ruling and hope one day, like abortion, it is overturned. But for now, enjoy your win and the fiddle music. This is why we have political process...to weigh issues then make consensus or rulings. We are a not some bannana republic or filthy muslim country, so I accept the law. Well, until we can have another go at it. Hopefully you rabid liberals out there are so accepting when it goes my way (aka the American way)

It is mind blowing how one could be so ignorant ("overturn abortion", that SCOTUS "makes consensus," that denying equal protection is "the American way") and simultaneously so sure of themselves.

[Tisket]

Personally I could care less about this ruling, but just to be clear, years ago society decided that marriage was between a man and a woman, so much for that. The only constant is change. I wonder how long it will take until the first lawsuit is filed that does away with polygamy laws, or marriage of minor laws. It is a slippery slope that we are on now and I think we will all be heading down it with ever increasing speed.

You need to get off your slope of ignorant fuckery.

[Buckwheet]

I for one would welcome a lawsuit that does away with Polygamy law as it stands and is replaced by just general "vice" laws that make people accountable for their actions and through taxation allows them to compensate society for said choices and any additional burdens it may place on the state.

[Whirlin]

Personally I could care less about this ruling, but just to be clear, years ago society decided that marriage was between a man and a woman, so much for that. The only constant is change. I wonder how long it will take until the first lawsuit is filed that does away with polygamy laws, or marriage of minor laws. It is a slippery slope that we are on now and I think we will all be heading down it with ever increasing speed.

That's what democracy is all about. If the majority of people are for it, and there's a strong enough movement behind it, it should become law. If 90% of people eleventy years from now want to marry their teenage cousins, who are we to judge with our current opinions?

[BriarFox]

Why should I care if six women want to marry the same man, or six men the same women, any more than I care if men are marrying men? Abuse is obviously a different category (a la the crazy Mormon Texans that got busted a few ago for underage marriage, rape, kidnapping, etc.).

[Candor]

Personally I could care less about this ruling, but just to be clear, years ago society decided that marriage was between a man and a woman, so much for that. The only constant is change. I wonder how long it will take until the first lawsuit is filed that does away with polygamy laws, or marriage of minor laws. It is a slippery slope that we are on now and I think we will all be heading down it with ever increasing speed.

Within 30 years, I believe we will see lawsuits to:

Repeal polygamy laws (IE group marriage will be fought for)
Repeal prostitution laws
Allow marriage of minors down to 14 years of age (certain religious groups will want it lowered to 10 years)
Allow marriage to animals (laugh away, but the lawsuit is coming)
Repeal pedophilia laws (from a small but extremely vocal group)

and that's just what I can think of offhand.

[diethx]

What if those two people are into BDSM?

....did you seriously just liken kink to pedophilia?

[Keller]

Personally I could care less about this ruling, but just to be clear, years ago society decided that marriage was between a man and a woman, so much for that. The only constant is change. I wonder how long it will take until the first lawsuit is filed that does away with polygamy laws, or marriage of minor laws. It is a slippery slope that we are on now and I think we will all be heading down it with ever increasing speed.

Pretty sure bigamy is illegal, so not recognizing a second marriage is not denying equal protection under the law.

Minors are not prohibited from marrying.

Anything else I can help you with?

[BriarFox]

Within 30 years, I believe we will see lawsuits to:

Repeal polygamy laws (IE group marriage will be fought for)
Repeal prostitution laws
Allow marriage of minors down to 14 years of age (certain religious groups will want it lowered to 10 years)
Allow marriage to animals (laugh away, but the lawsuit is coming)
Repeal pedophilia laws (from a small but extremely vocal group)

and that's just what I can think of offhand.

Prostitution laws will not be repealed; the sex trade is far too prone to abuse, especially in areas where prostitution is legal.
If the definition of the adult doesn't change, marriage laws won't change.
Marriage to animals will never be allowed unless animals have an autonomous legal status, which is ridiculous.
Pedophilia laws will not be repealed for the same reason as marriage laws won't change. Only adults can make informed, rational choices according to our legal system.

[Tisket]

Within 30 years, I believe we will see lawsuits to:

Repeal polygamy laws (IE group marriage will be fought for)
Repeal prostitution laws
Allow marriage of minors down to 14 years of age (certain religious groups will want it lowered to 10 years)
Allow marriage to animals (laugh away, but the lawsuit is coming)
Repeal pedophilia laws (from a small but extremely vocal group)

and that's just what I can think of offhand.

Candor is under the impression that just bringing a lawsuit results in a successful change of law.

And isn't it about time prostitution should be legalized, taxed, and regulated for health purposes anyway? Yes, it is.

[Keller]

Prostitution laws will not be repealed; the sex trade is far too prone to abuse, especially in areas where prostitution is legal.

I'd be interested in some sources for this statement.

[Tgo01]

That's what democracy is all about. If the majority of people are for it, and there's a strong enough movement behind it, it should become law.

That's why I'm glad we live in a Republic.

[ClydeR]

I wonder how long it will take until the first lawsuit is filed that does away with polygamy laws....

Negative 135 years, according to a Google search..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States

[ClydeR]

So now we might can remove this smoke screen of a political position from the landscape of America and focus on real issues like the economy, foreign affairs and what e-mails the President whanks to when he goes to bed at night.

It will be the complete opposite of that. The California decision, regarding "Prop 8," which was the second of the two marriage cases decided today, did not clarify the law. It muddied the waters. Although the court did not say there is a Constitutional right to same sex marriage, it hinted that there might be. The issue was dying down, but now marriage will be a big, big deal in Republican primaries, including the 2016 presidential primary. It will ensure that Republicans nominate an appropriately conservative candidate. That is the political consequence. So says Clyde.

[Keller]

The best part about Orbstar's post is that he wants the "American Way" to be based on his religion (Christianity) and, in the very same post, commends the U.S. government for not being "some filthy muslim country." So on the one hand he wants rules based on religion, but then calls countries with laws based on the prevailing religion "filthy."

Just outstanding logic from this amazing specimen of stupidity.

[Buckwheet]

Have you seen the feet the pope washed? They were pretty filthy. Also most Muslim countries are in a dirt bowl with sandstorms.

[BriarFox]

I'd be interested in some sources for this statement.

Here, make your own call, and read between the lines:

http://www.businessinsider.com/prostitution-legal-nevada-prostitutes-brothels-sex-2011-12?op=1
http://www.bayswan.org/Laura.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/apr/03/nevada-prostitution-tax

There are also a number of documentaries, such as _Whore's Glory_, _Trafficked: Slavery in America_, and, for the porn industry, _Naked Ambition_.

I was trying to find an expose from a former Nevada prostitute who said she felt like she didn't own her own body (most aren't allowed to refuse a customer or even to leave the brothel after hours, among other indignities), but I can't recall the name of the article. It wasn't too long ago that it came out.

If you're just referring to the "especially in areas where prostitution is legal" part, though, I said that because systems like Nevada's enshrine unjust treatment of the prostitutes in law, and no one looks twice at it because prostitutes have no moral authority.

[Tgo01]

The best part about Orbstar's post is that he wants the "American Way" to be based on his religion (Christianity) and, in the very same post, commends the U.S. government for not being "some filthy muslim country." So on the one hand he wants rules based on religion, but then calls countries with laws based on the prevailing religion "filthy."

Just outstanding logic from this amazing specimen of stupidity.

Don't be mad because Christianity is the correct religion.

[Whirlin]

Don't be mad because Christianity is the correct religion.

How to create your own religion in 10 easy steps!

http://www.apath.org/creating_religion.html

[Candor]

Candor is under the impression that just bringing a lawsuit results in a successful change of law.

Really? Where did I say that?

I personally think that in the next 30 years, polygamy laws stand a good chance of being modified.
Prostitution...not on a wide scale. It might become legalized in a few areas, not due to any moral outrage, but as a tax revenue source.
Marriage of minors, I don't see the laws changing.
Marriage to animals will be laughed out of court. The lawsuit will happen though.
Pedophilia, not a chance, but there will be a few people screaming for it

[Sylvan Dreams]

No, I assure you, you didn't.

He did. Just not where he thinks he did.

[kutter]

Ya'll, I couldn't care less who wants to have sex with whom as long as it is done in private. Everyone is saying, this or that will not happen, why, because it is against the law? Laws can be changed as we have just seen. All of you are in denial if you cannot see what the future holds. I would be shocked if we there are not already lawsuits in the works in Utah to repeal polygamy laws. Having said that, I COULD CARE LESS! Just don't live with your head in the sand.

[diethx]

I COULD CARE LESS!

How much less?

[kutter]

Wow, sorry, was typing in a hurry, is this all you have to do today is proofread my screw ups?

There I fixed it

[diethx]

Ya'll, I couldn't care less who wants to have sex with whom as long as it is done in private. Everyone is saying, this or that will not happen, why, because it is against the law? Laws can be changed as we have just seen. All of you are in denial if you cannot see what the future holds. I would be shocked if we there are not already lawsuits in the works in Utah to repeal polygamy laws. Having said that, I COULD CARE LESS! Just don't live with your head in the sand.

What did you fix?

Also.. lol.

[ZombiesDontRun]

For some of you (like Candor) who need some education on how laws work:

A law that treats similarly situated individuals differently will be upheld so long as it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Unless the targeted group is of a protected class or the law targets a fundamental right this is the test that applies. It's a simple balancing test weighted in favor of the government.

For DOMA, the issue is the arguments for not recognizing gay marriage are 1) not compelling and 2) come from a history of political animus against gays and lesbians. The "reasons" in support didn't not overcome the animus and the differential treatment.

Now contrasting this with other laws:
Prostitution: There is a legitimate government interest in preventing things like sex trafficking, disease, and exploitation that are inherent in prostitution. The government could decriminalize it, but legally it has a right to prohibit it:

Pedophilia: The legal age of consent in the country is 18. Individual states can craft their own age of consent laws, but at some point it becomes obvious that children lack the mental capacity and maturity to make decisions regarding sex and relationships. Pedophilic relationships are exploitive and potentially dangerous to the psychological well being of a child. The government will always have a compelling interest to prevent pedophilia.

Plural marriage: inherent in our common law are several covenants with regard to marriage, one of which is the covenant of mutual support. What this means is that, under the law there is presumption (just short of legal obligation) that spouses will support each other both financially and physically. In fact, marriage creates some duties with regard to tort law that other relationships don't share with regards to things like rescue. Proof of this covenant can also been seen in things like alimony awards. With a married couple, the covenant is shared equally. But when you have a situation where one person has multiple spouses, how does this covenant work. If a man has four wives, does the man have a 25% obligation to each and a the wives a 100% obligation to the husband? Issues like equity are impossible to process under our current legal framework for marriage. Laws can obviously change, but the government does have a legitimate interest in protecting the spousal equity of marriage and ensuring that unprotected spouses and children don't become financial burdens for the state. This reasoning is perhaps a bit antiquated but so is a lot of the common law surrounding marriage.

The long and the short of it is 1 person over the age of consent + 1 person over the age of consent does not equal 1 person + 4 year old + harem + goatsex. But hey, don't let logic prevent you from running around like chicken little if it makes you happy.

Apologies for any typos.

[Tgo01]

I feel educated.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

I count Supreme Court ruling regarding the Defense of Marriage Act as the latest victory for freedom in America. I think this is fucking outstanding. In fact, I drove all the way to work this morning with a stupid grin on my face while thinking about how I was going to word this. But before I get into why I think this is a good thing. Let’s just jump right into the argument against it.

The Bible says it’s wrong. Cool. Got it. Roger that. The Bible also strictly forbids us from eating a crap ton of different types of animals, getting tattoos, getting drunk, football, silly haircuts, eunuchs, stealing, lying, slander, revenge, holding a grudge, mistreating foreigners, selling land and getting divorced. Well…fuck. After all, according to the Bible, no sin is greater than another. Besides I’m in trouble for a number of those, as are plenty of you reading this. As least Hell won’t be lonely, I Guess. Some of the biggest detractors of Gay Marriage and supporters of Prop 8 were the Mormons who at one point or another allowed polygamy until the Government forced them to knock it off. And even a lot of them have changed their tune in regards to the Gay community. I’d even bring up the Catholic Church, but there are so many jokes associated with that one I dare not. You don’t get to pick and choose what sins are sins. It’s one of those all or nothing things. I am not a religious scholar, so if you have a solid counter argument I’ll listen to it, but probably blow it off anyway.

So here is the deal for me. As a staunch defender of Freedom, and make no mistake I would die to protect it, I can’t see this as anything but a victory. Why? Because the last time I checked, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” didn’t mean everyone except Gays. It says everyone. EVERYONE. EQUAL. What a concept!? Who knew?! All men are created equal by their creator. I will sarcastically assume that the word “Creator” means God. So why would be treat one group of people, who aren’t fucking hurting anyone I might add, so far below contempt?

Let’s get back to the point of this long rant - FREEDOM. The most important thing we can boast about as Americans. Anytime the Government makes a decision that involves them LESS in our lives, we should thank God. The 14th Amendment states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. I thank God every single day that I was blessed enough to be born in a country where I can have a different opinion than those in power or my neighbor and I am not killed or imprisoned for it. Not yet anyway. So how could you want to do anything but celebrate the fact that pretty soon now, the Government will have one less item on their list to use to divide and distract us as a nation while they do things like arm Syrian rebels (most of whom would probably stone openly gay people to death, ironically), Let Navy Seals and an Ambassador die, Send guns to the Drug Cartels, use the IRS as a weapon, and send our young men and women off to war while making them follow idiotic rules that just get them killed in the process all the while maintaining those wars because they’re invested in the companies that profit from the conflict. Don’t lose focus. Freedom is the most important part of all of this. A group of Americans now has equality and more freedom to live their lives. How can you find anything wrong with that?

And now a reading from the book of Mark...

30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

And one more completely awesome thing about today: I bet the Westboro Baptist Church is fucking pissed.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

Getting neg repped for typing too much in a posting on a forum made because of a text game is priceless.

[Tgo01]

Getting neg repped for typing too much in a posting on a forum made because of a text game is priceless.

I don't think you typed too much but honestly it does look like one giant wall of text. I started reading it but I wasn't sure if this was your personal opinion or if you just copy and pasted something so I stopped reading.

And no I didn't leave you the neg rep.

[ElanthianSiren]

I want to start an Elanthian Crossfire. The E and Diethx on one side and... parkbandit and Rojodisco as the conservatives

Clearly, your threshold for crazy liberal needs to be expanded. I'll keep this in mind. ;)

DOMA never should have been signed, and I'm happy to see it struck. The lack of substantial ruling in Cali is a bit of a pisser, but what can you do?

[Buckwheet]

If a man has four wives, does the man have a 25% obligation to each and a the wives a 100% obligation to the husband?


Current in that situation its 0% and 100%. Get your facts straight!

[Sylvan Dreams]

Getting neg repped for typing too much in a posting on a forum made because of a text game is priceless.

I didn't leave you the rep either. You say you put thought into your post but it's just a wall of stream of consciousness text. Just a long rant really.

[Tisket]

Getting neg repped for typing too much in a posting on a forum made because of a text game is priceless.

It's the lack of formatting that deserves neg rep.

[Keller]

Give

Us

More

White

Space.

[Back]

Give

Us

More

White

Space.

Racist.

[Paradii]

Now I don't want to get into childish name calling, but we got some real fucking ass backwards fucktards on this forum.

[Tgo01]

Now I don't want to get into childish name calling, but we got some real fucking ass backwards fucktards on this forum.

You can't say something like that without quoting said person(s) first.

[Methais]

That's what democracy is all about. If the majority of people are for it, and there's a strong enough movement behind it, it should become law. If 90% of people eleventy years from now want to marry their teenage cousins, who are we to judge with our current opinions?

How did that work out for Obamacare, which most people didn't want but was rammed through anyway?


The best part about Orbstar's post is that he wants the "American Way" to be based on his religion (Christianity) and, in the very same post, commends the U.S. government for not being "some filthy muslim country." So on the one hand he wants rules based on religion, but then calls countries with laws based on the prevailing religion "filthy."

Just outstanding logic from this amazing specimen of stupidity.

Maybe it's the muslims who are filthy, but their country itself is rather neat and tidy.

[Latrinsorm]

But for now, enjoy your win and the fiddle music.There are gay fiddlers now?? Look at what you have wrought and DESPAIR, Supreme Court!!

I really don't get why people are always so eager to compare us to the agrarian military dictatorship of Rome.
Personally I could care less about this ruling, but just to be clear, years ago society decided that marriage was between a man and a woman, so much for that. The only constant is change. I wonder how long it will take until the first lawsuit is filed that does away with polygamy laws, or marriage of minor laws. It is a slippery slope that we are on now and I think we will all be heading down it with ever increasing speed.As this very ruling demonstrates, the Supreme Court is not based on precedent. It is explicitly intended to overturn and create rather than merely endorse and repeat.

As previous discussions have demonstrated, I am aware you use "slippery slope" to mean "I disagree with what happened, so I declare that it is now plausible that something worse will happen" regardless of the facts of the matter, but I thought I would give it another try.

[Latrinsorm]

How did that work out for Obamacare, which most people didn't want but was rammed through anyway?[A -> B] does not imply [~A -> ~B]. Consider:

If LeBron is a Cavalier, he plays in the NBA.
If LeBron is not a Cavalier, he does not play in the NBA.

The first is true, the second is not.

[Paradii]

You can't say something like that without quoting said person(s) first.

What do you mean can't? I obviously successfully did that.

[Tgo01]

What do you mean can't? I obviously successfully did that.

Touche.

[Methais]

[A -> B] does not imply [~A -> ~B]. Consider:

If LeBron is a Cavalier, he plays in the NBA.
If LeBron is not a Cavalier, he does not play in the NBA.

The first is true, the second is not.

Why did you draw a two-headed sperm?

[Latrinsorm]

Cyborg.

[Methais]

A cyborg made you draw a two-headed sperm?

[Latrinsorm]

A cyborg is a two-headed sperm.

That made me draw a two-headed sperm.

[Warriorbird]

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/a-30-second-guide-to-how-gay-marriage-ruling-affects-you/

[Mohrgan]

The difference being that religion didn't suddenly come about during election season, whereas Obama "evolving" did, and people actually believe he was genuine about it and not just trying to grab more votes.

I'm pretty confident that Obama was always pro-same sex marriage, and the cynical thing that he did was not to suddenly turn "pro-same sex" for votes, it was that he was too politically cowardly to say so all along (read, for votes).

In the politics of this country, it's pretty pointless to get bent out of shape about what someone really thinks. It's that they ultimately do the right thing or they don't.

[Methais]

In the politics of this country, it's pretty pointless to get bent out of shape about what someone really thinks.

My point was about the morons that think Obama is genuine about it. Not what he actually thinks.

[Back]

My point was about the morons that think Obama is genuine about it. Not what he actually thinks.

The morons you should be worried about are the ones stuffing your head with bullshit politics.

[subzero]

Yeah, I decided to add blithering in there at the last minute. You know, to emphasize the idiocititititiy. NO EDIT NECESSARY.

That might be one of the dumbest rules of the Engrish language. No one talks like that, so I think it's about time the evolutionary process kicks in and phases that nonsense out. They (yep, those same bastards that killed Kenny!) caved and made 'irregardless' a word, so what the fuck? I refuse to call anyone an blithering idiot.

[Tgo01]

I refuse to call anyone an blithering idiot.

Good, good. Because it should be a blithering idiot. Welcome to the fold, brother!

[diethx]

lol

[subzero]

The best part about Orbstar's post is that he wants the "American Way" to be based on his religion (Christianity) and, in the very same post, commends the U.S. government for not being "some filthy muslim country." So on the one hand he wants rules based on religion, but then calls countries with laws based on the prevailing religion "filthy."

Just outstanding logic from this amazing specimen of stupidity.

That's how religion works.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

The morons you should be worried about are the ones stuffing your head with bullshit politics.

Dude, that's like all of Congress, every Czar, Pundit and lobbyist we have.

[~Rocktar~]

Only adults can make informed, rational choices according to our legal system.

No they fucking can't, after all that is why we have lawsuits and idiot safety laws along with EMS.

Just some that come to mind: Hot coffee lawsuit against McDonalds. Weight gain/health against McDonalds. I fell and hurt my self breaking into your house so you must pay. I got shot by a criminal so the firearm manufacturer must be at fault. et cetera, ad infinitum

Seriously, if adults could be trusted to made rational choices/decisions then how would all the lawyers and politicians stay employed?

[kutter]

I'm pretty confident that Obama was always pro-same sex marriage, and the cynical thing that he did was not to suddenly turn "pro-same sex" for votes, it was that he was too politically cowardly to say so all along (read, for votes).

In the politics of this country, it's pretty pointless to get bent out of shape about what someone really thinks. It's that they ultimately do the right thing or they don't.

I am pretty sure Obama is pro whatever gets liberals and centrist to like him and keep him and his party in power, he is after all a politician.

[Methais]

The morons you should be worried about are the ones stuffing your head with bullshit politics.

Let me guess. You're not worried about the ones stuffing your head, right?

[Latrinsorm]

No they fucking can't, after all that is why we have lawsuits and idiot safety laws along with EMS.

Just some that come to mind: Hot coffee lawsuit against McDonalds. Weight gain/health against McDonalds. I fell and hurt my self breaking into your house so you must pay. I got shot by a criminal so the firearm manufacturer must be at fault. et cetera, ad infinitum

Seriously, if adults could be trusted to made rational choices/decisions then how would all the lawyers and politicians stay employed?Can is not the same as will.

With that said, I encourage you to read further into the lawsuits you believe exist.

[crb]

I am pretty sure Obama is pro whatever gets liberals and centrist to like him and keep him and his party in power, he is after all a politician.

Winner! He is the very definition of a political creature.

[crb]

Wish SCOTUS had gone further and declared gay marriage legal nationwide. I find their rulings technically correct, but they needed to go further. Ironically, had the CA court not struck down Prop 8, and the case then made it to SCOTUS with a challenge on constitutional grounds, the maneuver they did to avoid the issue (which is technically correct) wouldn't have been possible and they'd have to decide the issue once and for all.

[~Rocktar~]

Can is not the same as will.

With that said, I encourage you to read further into the lawsuits you believe exist.

Got me on the can vs do part though I am not sure most adults these days actually can make a rational decision. I suggest you read up on the lawsuits that DO exist and the end results and try to explain how one can rationally support them without some touchy feely emotional clap trap. Every one and thousands more are based in irrational lack of personal responsibility and are bullshit from the word go. But hey, keep drinking the kool aid.

[Warriorbird]

How did that work out for Obamacare, which most people didn't want but was rammed through anyway?

Most people wanted it.

Then Obama wimped out and tried to court Republicans who'd never want it for months. He tried to go for consensus with people who have always wanted him to fail.

By that point polling had dropped significantly and it just barely squeaked by. It was the very opposite of "rammed through." It should've been. It could've been a lot better.

He's mostly learned his lesson (thus the fantastic evolution of stealth Obama) but he still tries to compromise sometimes like an idiot.

When he tries to compromise the Republican Party is the Lucy to his Charlie Brown.

[Latrinsorm]

It is precisely the ability to compromise and betray his alleged countrymen to privation, suffering, and certain death that makes a man noble.

[Firestorm Killa]

Oh you poor liberals.
Whatever will you do when the country collapses the way Obama has intended it to do? Do you honestly think in the prevailing anarchy you will be unscathed and he will save you all? Do you think in the anarchy women will still have rights? What of minorities? Do you think your entitlements and welfare will save you?
I believe the day of reckoning for your kind is indeed coming. The irony is you people doomed yourselves. I am just watching and waiting now, only a matter of time. LMAO!

[Tgo01]

Oh you poor liberals.
Whatever will you do when the country collapses the way Obama has intended it to do? Do you honestly think in the prevailing anarchy you will be unscathed and he will save you all? Do you think in the anarchy women will still have rights? What of minorities? Do you think your entitlements and welfare will save you?
I believe the day of reckoning for your kind is indeed coming. The irony is you people doomed yourselves. I am just watching and waiting now, only a matter of time. LMAO!

FK has a zombie apocalypse bunker all prepared and he's not going to share!

[4a6c1]

FK be bad son.

[Firestorm Killa]

FK has a zombie apocalypse bunker all prepared and he's not going to share!

Shit I wish I had one of those.

[tyrant-201]

Oh you poor liberals.
Whatever will you do when the country collapses the way Obama has intended it to do? Do you honestly think in the prevailing anarchy you will be unscathed and he will save you all? Do you think in the anarchy women will still have rights? What of minorities? Do you think your entitlements and welfare will save you?
I believe the day of reckoning for your kind is indeed coming. The irony is you people doomed yourselves. I am just watching and waiting now, only a matter of time. LMAO!

We'll throw a married homosexual party where the main course will be aborted fetuses and the metal from auctioned off banned guns will be sold to melt down and make cost-efficient low-income housing. Not just the 47% will get food stamps, food stamps for all!

[Latrinsorm]

Wait...
"the metal from auctioned off banned guns will be sold to melt down and make cost-efficient low-income housing"
...so...
"[the metal from auctioned off banned guns will be sold] [to melt down and make] [cost-efficient low-income housing]"
...ouroborosian fiend!

[tyrant-201]

Wait...
"the metal from auctioned off banned guns will be sold to melt down and make cost-efficient low-income housing"
...so...
"[the metal from auctioned off banned guns will be sold] [to melt down and make] [cost-efficient low-income housing]"
...ouroborosian fiend!

That was totally intentional.

Yeah.

I'm just that good.

[Thondalar]

Not to get back on topic or anything, but...really? "The Defense of Marriage Act"? Who didn't see THAT getting shot down.

Shit, man, I'm a semantics guy. I really think the entire problem with gay marriage is the right defines marriage one way, and the left defines it another way. (I think the right is right in how they define it, because I'm sorry, but it is a religious ideal, based in religion, created by religion...not saying it's right or wrong based on that, just saying...like I said...semantics...words have meanings...)

With that said, I'm all for equal rights. What's up with I HAVE TO BE MARRIED BECAUSE HETEROS GET MARRIED BEFORE GOD BUT I'M GAY AND THE CHURCH HATES ME BUT LET'S GET MARRIED BEFORE GOD ANYWAY. Why can't it be a social union....or two people living together fucking....or I dunno hell, whatever you think it should be called. Marriage is already a word. It already has a definition. Pick a different word.

This is what KILLS me about liberals. They want the federal government to stay out of gay marriage, and abortion, and shit like that....but they're all for trampling on basically every other personal freedom. Kills me about conservatives too. They're all Freedom and Fireworks but holy shit if there's a sniff of terrorism we're going to lock down every goddamn thing that ever happened ever, and look at your emails and your phone records and PATRIOT ACT and ZOMG MACARTHUR SAYS YOU'RE A COMMIE.

Whatever happened to logic? That's something people used to use, a long time ago. From what I've read, anyway...that might just be propaganda. From the left or right, I'm not sure.

[Firestorm Killa]

Not to get back on topic or anything, but...really? "The Defense of Marriage Act"? Who didn't see THAT getting shot down.

Shit, man, I'm a semantics guy. I really think the entire problem with gay marriage is the right defines marriage one way, and the left defines it another way. (I think the right is right in how they define it, because I'm sorry, but it is a religious ideal, based in religion, created by religion...not saying it's right or wrong based on that, just saying...like I said...semantics...words have meanings...)

With that said, I'm all for equal rights. What's up with I HAVE TO BE MARRIED BECAUSE HETEROS GET MARRIED BEFORE GOD BUT I'M GAY AND THE CHURCH HATES ME BUT LET'S GET MARRIED BEFORE GOD ANYWAY. Why can't it be a social union....or two people living together fucking....or I dunno hell, whatever you think it should be called. Marriage is already a word. It already has a definition. Pick a different word.

This is what KILLS me about liberals. They want the federal government to stay out of gay marriage, and abortion, and shit like that....but they're all for trampling on basically every other personal freedom. Kills me about conservatives too. They're all Freedom and Fireworks but holy shit if there's a sniff of terrorism we're going to lock down every goddamn thing that ever happened ever, and look at your emails and your phone records and PATRIOT ACT and ZOMG MACARTHUR SAYS YOU'RE A COMMIE.

Whatever happened to logic? That's something people used to use, a long time ago. From what I've read, anyway...that might just be propaganda. From the left or right, I'm not sure.

It also opens up the door for Warriorbird to marry that little boy he's been eyeing.
Seriously tho, personally I don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage. Should be personal. I know once you get married you actually pay more in taxes then you do when you're single so I don't get why gay people would wanna pay higher taxes.

[Back]

Uh oh! Looks like a match of the titans!

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y10/moeggo/Forum%20Randoms/Popcorn.gif

[Latrinsorm]

Not to get back on topic or anything, but...really? "The Defense of Marriage Act"? Who didn't see THAT getting shot down.

Shit, man, I'm a semantics guy. I really think the entire problem with gay marriage is the right defines marriage one way, and the left defines it another way. (I think the right is right in how they define it, because I'm sorry, but it is a religious ideal, based in religion, created by religion...not saying it's right or wrong based on that, just saying...like I said...semantics...words have meanings...)

With that said, I'm all for equal rights. What's up with I HAVE TO BE MARRIED BECAUSE HETEROS GET MARRIED BEFORE GOD BUT I'M GAY AND THE CHURCH HATES ME BUT LET'S GET MARRIED BEFORE GOD ANYWAY. Why can't it be a social union....or two people living together fucking....or I dunno hell, whatever you think it should be called. Marriage is already a word. It already has a definition. Pick a different word.Are you ready for a crushing counter-point?

Whatever marriage was originally based on (religion in general, Christianity in particular, Noah banging his daughter, tribal mores) it currently (in America) conveys a broad suite of governmental benefits to the married. Hence, marriage has definitions, not a definition. In the same way that churches have jurisdiction over their definition of marriage that is inviolable by the government, the government has jurisdiction over their definition of marriage that is inviolable by churches.
This is what KILLS me about liberals. They want the federal government to stay out of gay marriage, and abortion, and shit like that....but they're all for trampling on basically every other personal freedom. Kills me about conservatives too. They're all Freedom and Fireworks but holy shit if there's a sniff of terrorism we're going to lock down every goddamn thing that ever happened ever, and look at your emails and your phone records and PATRIOT ACT and ZOMG MACARTHUR SAYS YOU'RE A COMMIE.

Whatever happened to logic? That's something people used to use, a long time ago. From what I've read, anyway...that might just be propaganda. From the left or right, I'm not sure.I think your uncritical cynicism is blinding you, and you would do well to pluck it out.

[Tgo01]

(I think the right is right in how they define it, because I'm sorry, but it is a religious ideal, based in religion, created by religion...

Try again.

[Firestorm Killa]

Are you ready for a crushing counter-point?

Whatever marriage was originally based on (religion in general, Christianity in particular, Noah banging his daughter, tribal mores) it currently (in America) conveys a broad suite of governmental benefits to the married.

What benefits are there to marriage that the government provides? I don't see them. Do you mean the benefit of being in a higher tax bracket if you both work?

[Back]

Whatever happened to the whole separation of church and state idea?

[Firestorm Killa]

Whatever happened to the whole separation of church and state idea?

People are only for seperation of church and state when it benefits them I suppose.

[Latrinsorm]

What benefits are there to marriage that the government provides? I don't see them. Do you mean the benefit of being in a higher tax bracket if you both work?I recommend you talk to a tax expert about this and all tax questions, but I will get you started by informing you that the IRS does not use the same bracket breakpoints for joint and single returns.

[Firestorm Killa]

I recommend you talk to a tax expert about this and all tax questions, but I will get you started by informing you that the IRS does not use the same bracket breakpoints for joint and single returns.

Your right they don't. And this is why married people pay more in taxes.

[Thondalar]

Whatever happened to the whole separation of church and state idea?

Back, I've never thought of you as dumb. Misguided, perhaps. Trollish, at times, sure...but who isn't on these forums at one point or another?

You know good and well what separation of church and state means, and why it's a "thing" in the US.


Whatever marriage was originally based on (religion in general, Christianity in particular, Noah banging his daughter, tribal mores) it currently (in America) conveys a broad suite of governmental benefits to the married. Hence, marriage has definitions, not a definition. In the same way that churches have jurisdiction over their definition of marriage that is inviolable by the government, the government has jurisdiction over their definition of marriage that is inviolable by churches.

Perhaps you missed this part....


With that said, I'm all for equal rights. What's up with I HAVE TO BE MARRIED BECAUSE HETEROS GET MARRIED BEFORE GOD BUT I'M GAY AND THE CHURCH HATES ME BUT LET'S GET MARRIED BEFORE GOD ANYWAY. Why can't it be a social union....or two people living together fucking....or I dunno hell, whatever you think it should be called. Marriage is already a word. It already has a definition. Pick a different word.

[Thondalar]

People are only for seperation of church and state when it benefits them I suppose.

Separation of Church and State benefits everyone.

It's kind of why the United States is a thing.

[Tenlaar]

What benefits are there to marriage that the government provides? I don't see them.

I find it hard to believe somebody honestly doesn't know this, but I'll start it off...

Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.

Divorce: Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts, structure, or guidelines in times of break-up, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids.

Family leave: Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.

Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.

Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.

Immigration: U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country.

Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court.

Insurance: Unmarried partners can't always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don't cover domestic partners or their biological or non-biological children in their health insurance plans.

Portability: Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be.

Parenting: Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.

Privilege: Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings, and are also usually denied the coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples.

Property: Unmarried couples are excluded from special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes and rules regarding the distribution of the property in the event of death or divorce.

Retirement: In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans.

[Thondalar]

I think your uncritical cynicism is blinding you, and you would do well to pluck it out.


Teach me?

[Warriorbird]

Oh you poor liberals.
Whatever will you do when the country collapses the way Obama has intended it to do? Do you honestly think in the prevailing anarchy you will be unscathed and he will save you all? Do you think in the anarchy women will still have rights? What of minorities? Do you think your entitlements and welfare will save you?
I believe the day of reckoning for your kind is indeed coming. The irony is you people doomed yourselves. I am just watching and waiting now, only a matter of time. LMAO!

I think we're more in danger from wackos with bricks than a vast legion of gay folks getting hitched.

[AnticorRifling]

What benefits are there to marriage that the government provides? I don't see them. Do you mean the benefit of being in a higher tax bracket if you both work?

Are you trying to be retarded or is this just something that comes natural to you?

[Allereli]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-takei-a-defeat-for-doma--and-the-end-of-ick/2013/06/27/d3c986dc-dd10-11e2-9218-bc2ac7cd44e2_story.html

Good op-ed piece by George Takei in the Wash Post

[Whirlin]

Why can't it be a social union....or two people living together fucking....or I dunno hell, whatever you think it should be called. Marriage is already a word. It already has a definition. Pick a different word.


Ehh, Sorry bud... I used to think this way as well... but then there was the whole civil rights movement and stuff. The concept of "separate but equal" was the basis for segregation. Brown v Board of Ed basically set the precedent going forward that if you are going to label two things differently, they are inherently different, even if the two terms are applied the same.

By labeling married gays as being socially unioned, or whatever, you're already differentiating them differently than those people that are married. That label makes them inherently unequal. It really destroys any potential compromise in the all or nothing debate.

I can tell by your phrasing that you're not strongly opposed to the concept of of the equal rights, it's just the labeling that bothers you, and I think that's where a majority of people fall. But once you have the polarizing full blown yes or no, it tends to push people that are on the fence towards the 'no' side.

It's interesting too... Because you'll see polls that ask, "Who believes gays should have equal rights" versus "Who is pro-gay marriage", and the numbers will be completely different.

[Ashliana]

Pretending the radical, religious right actually cares about the word "marriage," and not about enforcing their religious morality on the rest of the population is either intellectually dishonest, or ignorant. The right has opposed equality for gays in every measure--they fought tooth and nail in Washington state against their "Everything but Marriage" civil union law, while simultaneously making the argument against gay marriage movements elsewhere that all they cared about was the word. And that law passed, followed by full marriage equality this past election.

It goes beyond ideology--the right has gone far out of their way to denigrate gays as people, in the most petty ways--in 2009, the Republican governor of Rhode Island vetoed (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-5608892.html) a bill their legislature had passed granting gays equal funeral rights.

The right had the best chance they've ever gotten, to make the argument against gay equality in the Prop 8 trial, and they failed spectacularly. Their "expert" witnesses were forced to admit, on the stand, that the rest of the population suffered absolutely no harm as a result of equality, and that children and gay families were measurably harmed by denying it to them.

Americans are slowly but surely moving past their "eww, gays are icky" gut reaction and embracing the American ideal that everyone is equal before the law, and the religious right is exhausting both their political capital (dooming themselves and the GOP to irrelevancy) and irreversibly associating Christianity with bigotry--driving young people away from the church, and creating the most secular generation of young voters ever (which is an amazing thing for the future of America).

I am all for Republicans staking their political futures against gays and immigration reform--they are dooming themselves to electoral irrelevance.

[Tgo01]

Calm down, Ashliana, Republicans aren't going anywhere.

[Parkbandit]

LOL

[Warriorbird]

Calm down, Ashliana, Republicans aren't going anywhere.

It's true. Look at how they keep making Star Wars movies.

[Vorpos]

Pretending the radical, religious right actually cares about the word "marriage," and not about enforcing their religious morality on the rest of the population is either intellectually dishonest, or ignorant. The right has opposed equality for gays in every measure--they fought tooth and nail in Washington state against their "Everything but Marriage" civil union law, while simultaneously making the argument against gay marriage movements elsewhere that all they cared about was the word. And that law passed, followed by full marriage equality this past election.

It goes beyond ideology--the right has gone far out of their way to denigrate gays as people, in the most petty ways--in 2009, the Republican governor of Rhode Island vetoed (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-5608892.html) a bill their legislature had passed granting gays equal funeral rights.

The right had the best chance they've ever gotten, to make the argument against gay equality in the Prop 8 trial, and they failed spectacularly. Their "expert" witnesses were forced to admit, on the stand, that the rest of the population suffered absolutely no harm as a result of equality, and that children and gay families were measurably harmed by denying it to them.

Americans are slowly but surely moving past their "eww, gays are icky" gut reaction and embracing the American ideal that everyone is equal before the law, and the religious right is exhausting both their political capital (dooming themselves and the GOP to irrelevancy) and irreversibly associating Christianity with bigotry--driving young people away from the church, and creating the most secular generation of young voters ever (which is an amazing thing for the future of America).

I am all for Republicans staking their political futures against gays and immigration reform--they are dooming themselves to electoral irrelevance.


Nice mood swings there. Maybe you need to lay off the hormones a while.

[tyrant-201]

Soon the only Republicans you'll see will be in Zoos! The Libtard masses will come to gawk at the nearly extinct species.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

Someone get her back on her meds.

[Tisket]

Soon the only Republicans you'll see will be in Zoos! The Libtard masses will come to gawk at the nearly extinct species.

Extinction isn't possible when we have a constant trickle of people growing older (and wiser) and changing their heathenish liberal views to a more reasonable conservative view. There's a quote from a Star Trek series that applies but I don't want to be labeled a Trekkie so I won't use it!

[tyrant-201]

Extinction isn't possible when we have a constant trickle of people growing older (and wiser) and changing their heathenish liberal views to a more reasonable conservative view. There's a quote from a Star Trek series that applies but I don't want to be labeled a Trekkie so I won't use it!

That's why we have Death Boards in Obamacare.

[Tgo01]

That's why we have Death Boards in Obamacare.

Death panels man, death panels. Pay attention.

[Latrinsorm]

Your right they don't. And this is why married people pay more in taxes.That makes negative sense.

Single brackets are 10% up to $8.7k, 15% up to $35.35, 25% up to $85.65.
Two single people each making 40k would therefore pay 2 * (4867.5 + .25 * 4650) = 12,060

Joint brackets are 10% up to $17.4, 15% up to $70.7, 25% up to $142.7.
The same two people filing jointly would therefore pay (9735 + .25 * 9300) = 12,060

If they had the same brackets, they would pay (4867.5 + .25 * 44650) = 16,030

It is precisely because they have different brackets that this couple doesn't pay more.

.

Because we're talking about taxes, obviously, it gets a lot more complicated. But if you don't get the consequences of different tax brackets, there's no hope.
Perhaps you missed this part....I interpreted that as referring to the Supreme Court ruling that changes the government definition of marriage without making any claim as to the religious definition(s), and made that distinction explicit. The definitions have always been different, this is just another way for them to be different.
Teach me?For starters, avoid generalizations (in general). Avoid nostalgia or appeals to a vague past authority, that's what the great thinkers of yesteryear did. And give people the benefit of the doubt, especially when you think they're wrong. Could there be a way they are right?

For instance, let's your complaints about liberals "trampling on basically every other personal freedom". What if I told you that in any system of more than one freedom, one must be subservient to the other? Or: you cannot have an absolute right to swing your fist if I have an absolute right to not get punched. Instead, we create an intricate system of conditional rights: your conditional right to swing your fist ends(!!!) at my nose, because we have agreed (even if only by proxy) that not getting punched is a superior right.

Now, suppose with me a hypothetical government that declares that its citizens have the right to bear arms and the right to life. If I believe the former is inferior to and jeopardizes the latter, how is that any different than my not getting punched in my hypothetical face? I am not against freedom per se, I have merely selected an alternate ranking system from yours.
Soon the only Republicans you'll see will be in Zoos! The Libtard masses will come to gawk at the nearly extinct species.Um I think you mean human-animal mutually respectful free range zones?
Death panels man, death panels. Pay attention.You ever try to beat someone to death with a section of paneling? Trust me, boards are the answer.

[Methais]

Pretending the radical, religious right actually cares about the word "marriage," and not about enforcing their religious morality on the rest of the population is either intellectually dishonest, or ignorant. The right has opposed equality for gays in every measure--they fought tooth and nail in Washington state against their "Everything but Marriage" civil union law, while simultaneously making the argument against gay marriage movements elsewhere that all they cared about was the word. And that law passed, followed by full marriage equality this past election.

It goes beyond ideology--the right has gone far out of their way to denigrate gays as people, in the most petty ways--in 2009, the Republican governor of Rhode Island vetoed (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-5608892.html) a bill their legislature had passed granting gays equal funeral rights.

The right had the best chance they've ever gotten, to make the argument against gay equality in the Prop 8 trial, and they failed spectacularly. Their "expert" witnesses were forced to admit, on the stand, that the rest of the population suffered absolutely no harm as a result of equality, and that children and gay families were measurably harmed by denying it to them.

Americans are slowly but surely moving past their "eww, gays are icky" gut reaction and embracing the American ideal that everyone is equal before the law, and the religious right is exhausting both their political capital (dooming themselves and the GOP to irrelevancy) and irreversibly associating Christianity with bigotry--driving young people away from the church, and creating the most secular generation of young voters ever (which is an amazing thing for the future of America).

I am all for Republicans staking their political futures against gays and immigration reform--they are dooming themselves to electoral irrelevance.

Shouldn't you be out celebrating by getting pounded in your ass instead of on here bitching?

[diethx]

Shouldn't you be out celebrating by getting pounded in your ass instead of on here bitching?

You really shouldn't talk about gay buttsex with such disdain...

[Warriorbird]

You really shouldn't talk about gay buttsex with such disdain...

There a story here?

[Latrinsorm]

Once upon a time, when a daddy and a daddy love each other very much, gay buttsex, America burns fiddles, the end.

[~Rocktar~]

Two single people with two incomes get 100% x 2 of the individual deduction on taxes. Two married people with two incomes get 160% of the individual deduction last time I checked. Dual income married people pay more taxes.

[Whirlin]

Two single people with two incomes get 100% x 2 of the individual deduction on taxes. Two married people with two incomes get 160% of the individual deduction last time I checked. Dual income married people pay more taxes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/01/15/irs-announces-2013-tax-rates-standard-deduction-amounts-and-more/

Standard Deduction Rates. The applicable standard deduction rates for 2013 are $12,200 for married taxpayers filing jointly; $8,950 for head of household; $6,100 for individual taxpayers and $6,100 for married taxpayers filing separate.

Head of household is not individual.

[Bobmuhthol]

Two single people with two incomes get 100% x 2 of the individual deduction on taxes. Two married people with two incomes get 160% of the individual deduction last time I checked. Dual income married people pay more taxes.When the fuck did you last check? Never?