The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 26    Average: 3.4/5]
49 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 9874
Rating: 3.4
Category:
Date: 02/23/12 12:53 PM

49 Responses to DOMA Ruled Unconstitional

  1. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 12:34 pm
    Link: DOMA Ruled Unconstitional - `The imposition of subjective moral beliefs of a majority on a minority cannot provide a justification.`
  2. Profile photo of tttaylorrr
    tttaylorrr Female 18-29
    90 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 1:02 pm
    doesn`t work. ):
  3. Profile photo of RuralNinja
    RuralNinja Male 18-29
    519 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
    If their justification is to say that its wrong to subject others to your moral beliefs, why is polygamy illegal? Or alcohol sales on sunday illegal? Its definately the most widespread, but its only the first of many subjective moral laws that need to be abolished.
  4. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36866 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    "Unconstitutional" just means they have to pass a constitutional ammendment to make it "constitutional".

    The ubber-conservatives have lost on abortion, so this is the new focal point for their "moral" political base. All of the republican candidates are running with anti-gay marriage as part of their platform. Imagine someone running for office on an anti-inerracial marriage platform. They`d be laughed out of town.

    Welcome to my world.
  5. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 1:23 pm
    Polygamy is not something a percentage of Americans are clamoring for. You need to show that you are being discriminated against to even bring a case. As it stands polygamy is illegal and to compare it with same sex marriage uses the same logic the haters of society who throw the words incest and bestiality to make their points.
    America had polygamy. We learned that we didn`t like it so they outlawed it. Done and done.
  6. Profile photo of RuralNinja
    RuralNinja Male 18-29
    519 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 1:29 pm
    I didn`t compare polygamy and gay marriage. I was stating how I wonder if this will affect other laws. If this sets a precedent, what happens to other subjectively moral laws, some of which are both hated (alcohol sales) and supported (polygamy)?
  7. Profile photo of mervviscious
    mervviscious Male 40-49
    1793 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 1:37 pm
    excellent...
  8. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 1:52 pm
    Right now the laws set up for marriage to benefit both spouses. Under polygamy that would be impossibe or prohibitively costly. Do you limit the amount of benefits between polygamous wives? If the patriarch died which wife would get power of attorney? Likewise divorce laws are set to evenly split equity between the divorcing partners whereas polygamous marriage that would be impossible. Would a sister wife be able to divorce another wife? You haven`t thought it through and that minimizes the strides gained by this ruling.
  9. Profile photo of tttaylorrr
    tttaylorrr Female 18-29
    90 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 1:54 pm
    common sense prevails!
  10. Profile photo of tommy2X4
    tommy2X4 Male 50-59
    3447 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 2:00 pm
    Straight people are so gay.
  11. Profile photo of RuralNinja
    RuralNinja Male 18-29
    519 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 2:13 pm
    I`m not clamoring for polygamy to be legal. I`m not taking anything away from this victory. You need to stop focusing on one word and listen to the entire point I`m making. I was using polygamy as a thought example. Now that this battle is decided, where do we as a society go from here? Now that the ball is in motion, where should it end? What other laws are written that appease the morals of a group but serve no actual value?
  12. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 2:33 pm



    Now *this* is the case that comes before SCOTUS, assuredly, though there are lots o` others too. :-)
  13. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 2:33 pm
    Spoken like an angry social conservative. Look, at this point "where we go" will be decided by the courts, my guess is within the next few years same sex marriage will be legal from coast to coast. Until there is a segment of society that complains about equality we`re done. As far as blue laws go they`re disappearing one county at a time because that`s not a federal issue.
  14. Profile photo of Baelzar
    Baelzar Male 40-49
    1399 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 2:38 pm
    Why not polygamy? I haven`t found a solid argument against it.

    Heck, I think people should be able to contract marriage in any configuration they want. If 6 guys and 6 women want to marry, so be it.
  15. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 2:43 pm
    Oh, and some birds for our resident conservative trolls too:



    Let it never be said that aunt Zira never gave you anything.
  16. Profile photo of xiquiripat
    xiquiripat Male 18-29
    2422 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 3:03 pm
    Shhh Listen! I can hear the voice of George Wallace calling from beyond the grave:

    In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust
    and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny and I say traditional marriage now!
    traditional marriage tomorrow! traditional marriage forever!
  17. Profile photo of LillianDulci
    LillianDulci Female 18-29
    2674 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 3:52 pm
    I think the ban on polyamory (it`s not always 1 man with tons of women, people...) is really stupid, so I`m curious about RuralNinja`s point as well. How will it be affected? Of course new laws would need to be set up for how to legally handle multiple marriages, but that`s the *only* problem I see with it.
  18. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25420 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 4:18 pm
    QueenZira... awesome pic is awesome!
  19. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 4:56 pm
    Then again had marriages been treated like a private contract it would`ve been a first amendment issue.
  20. Profile photo of I-IS-BORED
    I-IS-BORED Male 18-29
    2419 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 5:00 pm
    @Baelzar
    think of all the rights and privileges given to spouses, now try to split that between 12 people
  21. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 5:08 pm
    Thanks Fatninja! ;-)
  22. Profile photo of Baelzar
    Baelzar Male 40-49
    1399 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 5:11 pm
    @IIB

    That`s what contracts are for.
  23. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14654 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 6:57 pm
    I can`t believe that`s still debate worthy.
  24. Profile photo of kittilia
    kittilia Female 18-29
    500 posts
    February 23, 2012 at 7:18 pm
    Woohooh!
  25. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14654 posts
    February 24, 2012 at 12:19 am
    "Why not polygamy? I haven`t found a solid argument against it."

    It`s not a matter of morality, nor about the sanctity of marriage in the religious context, or a matter of societal recognition, as I am sure that the Mormons for example would happily reendorse polygamous marriages. Nor is it about spouse`s rights to other spouses` assets under divorce or inheritance.

    Here is the issue: It would create an undue burden on employers and the state to grant polygamous relationships full entitlement status.
  26. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3929 posts
    February 24, 2012 at 12:21 am
    Can`t we get to the point where people ignore the ridiculous polygamy comments? Love and tolerance is wining. Public approval is past 50%.
  27. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    February 24, 2012 at 4:31 am
    If marriage cannot be defined as 1 men + 1 woman, then it`s definition is malleable enough to include every other combination imaginable.

    That is why I`m against `gay marriage`, but for civil unions for gays. You can complain about civil unions not being equal, fine then change them, but leave the definition of marriage alone as 1 man + 1 woman.

    Otherwise the word marriage means what ever some group of people want it to mean, and that is not socially or legally responsible. Polygamy would be next, but it wouldn`t stop there.
  28. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    February 24, 2012 at 6:34 am
    Polygamy would be next, but it wouldn`t stop there.

    Funny, polygamy was standard practice in medieval Europe
  29. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    February 24, 2012 at 6:56 am
    but leave the definition of marriage alone as 1 man + 1 woman.

    Why? All the reasoning for this stance is ridiculous and sloppy. If the main purpose is for two individuals to come together and certify their love for each other then they all should be called marriages.
  30. Profile photo of dang007
    dang007 Male 30-39
    599 posts
    February 24, 2012 at 7:06 am
    >>>Here is the issue: It would create an undue burden on employers and the state to grant polygamous relationships full entitlement status.<<<

    And thus ONLY an issue because the Fed. grants, and forces states, and other organizations to grant rights to people based on their relationship status. The whole issue would go away if everyone was treated the same at all times.
  31. Profile photo of Fidelius
    Fidelius Male 18-29
    6 posts
    February 24, 2012 at 7:11 am
    CrakrJak, your reasoning is unfounded. So what if the WORD marriage is malleable? All we, the LGBT community, care about is the legal definition (and all the rights and privileges accorded) of the CONTRACT of marriage.

    "Otherwise the word marriage means what ever some group of people want it to mean, and that is not socially or legally responsible. Polygamy would be next, but it wouldn`t stop there. "

    Oh, please. This is ridiculous. Go call Sweden, or Argentina, or Belgium, or The Netherlands, or any of the other 6 countries that currently allow same-sex marriage, and ask them if they are recognizing marriages between anything else other than 1 person and 1 person. I don`t think there are any Swedish marriages involving one man and a chair...at least none that are recognized by the state. My marriage will not hurt yours. And yours, well, I don`t even care about.
  32. Profile photo of Bountykat
    Bountykat Female 18-29
    399 posts
    February 24, 2012 at 7:42 am
    Or, how about we eliminate the Christian institution of marriage as this country`s way to legally bind two people? Maybe we could go for non-religious? Get married if YOU want, but don`t tell me my union isn`t legitimate because you wont let ME. Maybe I`m wrong. Just an opinion.
  33. Profile photo of WurstZipfel
    WurstZipfel Male 30-39
    47 posts
    February 24, 2012 at 7:43 am
    Trollolo trollolo.
  34. Profile photo of pumba62
    pumba62 Male 40-49
    1018 posts
    February 24, 2012 at 7:53 am
    Great lesbian name ...Amy Cunninghis
  35. Profile photo of dm2754
    dm2754 Male 40-49
    3352 posts
    February 24, 2012 at 7:55 am
    all Marriage should be banned!
  36. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    February 24, 2012 at 9:23 am
    Fidelius: If all the gay community wanted was equal treatment they`d lobby for civil unions to be treated equally, instead they want to hijack the word marriage. Also, since the word marriage was hijacked in Europe, hetero marriage has been on a steep decline there. This redefinition affects all of society adversely.

    Most countries in Europe aren`t even close to the fertility replacement rate necessary to maintain their societies. A majority of children in Sweden, Denmark and Norway are born out of wedlock. Link

    If you call that `progress` pardon me if I wish America have no part of it.
  37. Profile photo of Otto67
    Otto67 Male 40-49
    438 posts
    February 24, 2012 at 10:26 am
    "Also, since the word marriage was hijacked in Europe, hetero marriage has been on a steep decline there."

    Marriage has been on the decline here in the U.S. since divorce became more socially acceptable, does that mean we should outlaw divorce?
  38. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    February 24, 2012 at 11:08 am
    @CrakrJak

    Most countries in Europe aren`t even close to the fertility replacement rate necessary to maintain their societies.


    I have found zero academic research to back this assertion. Better yet a more simple explanation is that when populations reach upper limit resources become more scarce making it more expensive to have and raise children.
  39. Profile photo of evanbartlett
    evanbartlett Male 30-39
    559 posts
    February 24, 2012 at 12:11 pm
    "I have found zero academic research to back this assertion. Better yet a more simple explanation is that when populations reach upper limit resources become more scarce making it more expensive to have and raise children."

    Indeed...
    In biology, that would be called a population`s `carrying capacity.` It certainly applies to humans as well.

    But more directly to the argument you`re addressing: permitting gays to marry has little impact on whether or not people have children. In fact, I might think the opposite. Anecdotally speaking, many of my gay couple friends don`t want to have kids until they can guarantee that their children will be in a married home due to the social, financial and personal securities associated with marriage.

    Final point: Note: marriage is not a civil union. If they were the same thing, civil unions would be called marriages. The list of legal and financial differences are too long to list here.
  40. Profile photo of xiquiripat
    xiquiripat Male 18-29
    2422 posts
    February 24, 2012 at 1:44 pm
    @Crackr: Ok how abut this: You can keep the word marriage and only churches can perform marriages. But all the rights and privileges associated with getting married will be stripped and given to civil unions which the is the exclusive power of the government. So you can still get married and keep your silly word but it will have zero legal standing unless you also get a civil union. Only God will recognize you. Somehow I don`t think you would go for that.

    Also birth rates decline with industrialization. Gay marriage has nothing to do with it.
  41. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    February 24, 2012 at 10:44 pm
    Cajun & evan: Evidently neither of you looked to hard, evidence for Europe`s declining birth rate is in 9 of the first 10 google results for "Europe birth rate". Here is one right here.

    At those rates caucasians will be the minority in Europe and you won`t be able to support your pensioners even with draconian income taxes.
  42. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    February 24, 2012 at 11:03 pm
    *Facepalm* So we`ve come to this demographics skirmish once again? But of course this is exactly what the anti contraception crowd on both sides of the pond want when they do their thing. A white fertility cult, to compete with recent immigrant`s family sizes. *Eyeroll* Geez, chill and get ready to enjoy our diverse sexy future already (latin boyfriends ect. ect. amirite gals)?
  43. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    February 24, 2012 at 11:04 pm
    xiquiripat: Marriage, of 1 man + 1 woman, is necessary to maintain a healthy society, the most stable family unit is hetero with children and they have served America well for over 200 years now.

    Children of normal hetero marriages are more likely to graduate high school, less likely to do drugs, more likely to attend college, less likely to drop out, more likely to get high paying jobs, more likely to have a better credit ratings, much less likely to commit crimes, less likely to have children out of wedlock and more likely to save money for their retirement. Those are just a few of the benefits that hetero marriage gives to society.
  44. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    February 24, 2012 at 11:09 pm
    A recent study by the Canadian government regarding homosexual couples states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples".

    The American College of Pediatricians states the following: "Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years."

    A study by a group of University of Chicago researchers reveals a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city`s homosexual male population. According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago`s Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners...As a result, 55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland.

    That is the opposite of stability in nearly every respect.
  45. Profile photo of Zeegrr60
    Zeegrr60 Male 40-49
    2106 posts
    February 24, 2012 at 11:43 pm
    I say we take away the right to vote from anyone who has a different opinion from mine. To disagree shows a mental flaw. Also, we should take away the right to drive from anyone who opposess abortion,so they cannot spread thier seed nationwide as easily.
    Better still,why not just shoot the stupid who do not understand the word "Equal".
  46. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    February 25, 2012 at 6:42 am
    @CrakrJak
    Evidently you didn`t get that I was disputing your claim about it being due to gay marriage, not the fact that Europe`s birthrate was in decline.

    At those rates caucasians will be the minority in Europe and you won`t be able to support your pensioners even with draconian income taxes.

    Non sequitur

    As for your surveys you`re cherry picking, the last one is also an induction of the fallacy of composition.
  47. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    February 25, 2012 at 9:21 am
    Crakr Lies in the name of god are stillLies.

    Have you no shame?
  48. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    February 25, 2012 at 12:32 pm
    In light of what Zira`s comment I take my "cherry picking" accusation back, rather Crakr YOU ARE distorting research.
  49. Profile photo of Fidelius
    Fidelius Male 18-29
    6 posts
    February 25, 2012 at 7:13 pm
    @Crakr: To bring race into the discussion proves you are already biased beyond rational debate. At this point you might as well become a parishioner of the Westboro Baptist Church. In regards to your "evidence," The Weekly Standard is a neoconservative site that is owned by Rupert Murdoch`s News Corp...the same company that owns Fox News. Why don`t you try to find information from credible, law abiding news agencies??

Leave a Reply