SCOTUS strikes down DOMA

[Carlybee]

Decision:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/150136897/Supreme-Court-s-DOMA-decision

 

[Elias Graves]

And we are surprised?

 

[Nobexliberty]

Sieg Heil supreme court style.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

They should have made this a state's issue, there is no equal protection violation in DOMA.

 

[TonySutton]

How crazy our politics are when the left grabs for states rights to further their agenda while the right rebukes states rights for their agenda.

 

[cajuncocoa]

They should have made this a state's issue, there is no equal protection violation in DOMA.

Gov't shouldn't be involved in marriage at any level.

 

[KEEF]

How crazy our politics are when the left grabs for states rights to further their agenda while the right rebukes states rights for their agenda.

True that. Kinda like Neocons being pro liberty only when it makes Dems look bad and then Libs being pro liberty to justify their version of civil rights. Yet both are being all about ignoring the Constitution and justifying NSA and continuing undeclared war to make the elite few rich.

 

[JK/SEA]

True that. Kinda like Neocons being pro liberty only when it makes Dems look bad and then Libs being pro liberty to justify their version of civil rights. Yet both are being all about ignoring the Constitution and justifying NSA and continuing undeclared war to make the elite few rich.

pretty much the way i see it.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

Gov't shouldn't be involved in marriage at any level.

I wish it would work that way, but until then, it should be a state, or even local, issue.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I wish it would work that way, but until then, it should be a state, or even local, issue.

Local > state > federal; I think most here would agree on that.

If the federal government stopped giving away benefits, many of these issues we've been discussing would go away. Instead of arguing DOMA, we should argue whether it's constitutional for the federal gov't to act like Santa Claus.

 

[klamath]

Typical twisted ruling to meet their political agenda. Yeaw states rights on one then turn around and deny states right on prop 8.

 

[Christian Liberty]

So what's the summary? Is gay marriage "Legal" everywhere now?

("Legal" is quoted since its truly been legal since 2003, the fight is really over endorsement.)

As for what Cajun said, I'm basically in the same ballpark. My ideal is no involvement, however, if the government is going to endorse any definition I'd rather them stick with the traditional (One man, one woman) definition, and of course, the more local that is, the better. With each individual and church being the ideal level...

If that makes sense.

In other words, no government involvement > government defining marriage as being between one man and one woman > government defining marriage as being something other than one man and one woman.

 

[jmdrake]

Title misleading. DOMA was struck down in part. Now, if conservatives have any sense they will work to disentangle the federal government from marriage. Let's take the estate tax issue at the heart of the DOMA case. Why should only married people be allowed to avoid estate taxes? Anyone should be able to have one designated beneficiary that they can leave money to without estate taxes. It shouldn't matter if that person is a spouse, a lover, or just a good friend.

 

[jllundqu]

Gov't shouldn't be involved in marriage at any level.

Except that is has been involved for several thousand years.

Note: I agree it shouldn't, but it always has been and always will be.

 

[jmdrake]

So what's the summary? Is gay marriage "Legal" everywhere now?

Gay marriage has in effect been "legal" everywhere since the sodomy laws were struck down in Lawrence v. Texas. But the result of this latest decision is that gays married in states that recognize gay marriage cannot be treated differently under the law at the federal level. That doesn't mean that a gay couple married in New York can move to Alabama and expect Alabama law to recognize their marriage any more than a doctor licensed to practice in New York can move to Alabama and automatically expect Alabama to recognize his license. A license (marriage or medicine) isn't a contract.

 

[jllundqu]

I don't care who marries who. Does not affect my marriage. Why should anyone care? I do believe it when it says "Liberty and justice for ALL"

We get our rights as individuals, not because we belong to certain groups (gay, minority, etc).

This should not be an issue for freedom lovers.

 

[angelatc]

They should have made this a state's issue, there is no equal protection violation in DOMA.

This is about an income tax issue, so it was a federal issue. Liberals are always after money...

 

[Carlybee]

Title misleading. DOMA was struck down in part. Now, if conservatives have any sense they will work to disentangle the federal government from marriage. Let's take the estate tax issue at the heart of the DOMA case. Why should only married people be allowed to avoid estate taxes? Anyone should be able to have one designated beneficiary that they can leave money to without estate taxes. It shouldn't matter if that person is a spouse, a lover, or just a good friend.

Because them thar gays are immoral and must be punished.

 

[Acala]

Except that is has been involved for several thousand years.

Note: I agree it shouldn't, but it always has been and always will be.

Several thousand years? Really? I don't think so. And in MOST places on the planet government was not involved in the partnering of the sexes until the last couple hundred years.

I also don't accept that it "always will be". If you think tyranny will last forever, what are you doing here? Just bitching?

 

[Acala]

Gov't shouldn't be involved in marriage at any level.

This is the answer. When someone says "Oh, but government IS involved" and then starts debating how it should be involved, you have lost the fight. There is NO liberty-based answer to the question "how should government regulate marriage". The only liberty-based answer is "GET OUT NOW, COMPLETELY, AND FOREVER!"