SCOTUS strikes down DOMA

[Tywysog Cymru]

They have to amend the Constitution. Churches are automatically tax exempt - they don't need to apply, and the IRS doesn't grant it. Additionally, the church ceremony doesn't legally mean anything without the government certificate.

give it 30 years, they'll have the votes.

 

[fisharmor]

give it 30 years, they'll have the votes.

The correct answer was "Nobody cares anymore".

 

[WhistlinDave]

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!"

I disagree. We need to take liberty and freedom in whatever increments we can get it, and a Federal law telling two people who love each other they are not allowed to marry one another if they choose to does not increase freedom or liberty no matter how you slice it.

The approach of saying, "Instead of letting people do what they want, we need to get government out of marriage completely" is the equivalent of saying,

"I think Rosa Parks should've shut up, sat down in the back of the bus where the law said she was allowed to, and then instead of fighting for the freedom to make her own choice as to where she is allowed to sit, she should've started a campaign to END PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ENTIRELY. Because getting the government out of transportation is by far the more important, bigger issue. What a wasted opportunity to increase Freedom and Liberty!"

If you want to end public transportation, that's fine, and a worthy goal. But in the meantime don't tell people where they're allowed to sit when they take the bus.

 

[Acala]

lol

Wow... someone has their panties in a bunch! Strike a nerve, did I? lol.

It struck me that if you really believe what you said that government will ALWAYS be involved in marriage, that you really have no place on a forum dedicated to restoring liberty. So I repeat, why are you here?

Government has been involved in Marriage for centuries... try reading "Principles of Community Property," by William Defuniak. Hell even in ancient Rome, the state was heaviliy involved in who was given the right to marry who, not to mention the screwed up political marraiges if the arab cultures....

Your view is distorted by the myopia of history's love affair with government. Most of the people of the world for most of the exstence of the human race did not live under anything remotely like the governments you refer to.

I'm not here 'just bitching' as you put it. It would seem to me that you have an ax to grind with gay marriage and are spewing your venom on me.

I think my positions are consistent across the board. Gay marriage is just another in a long list of matters with which government has no legitimate concern. Arguing about how government should regulate something it should not regulate to begin merely plays into the game of factionalizing the people to perpetuate tyranny.

 

[bill1971]

From a freedom and liberty perspective, I don't see anybody's liberty or freedom being stopped. They only people that were prevented from doing something up until this point were gays. I wish government was out of marriage, then everybody would be happy.

 

[Keith and stuff]

It is hard to get government out of marriage. I know. We actually tried in NH. We failed. If anyone decides to try in another state, they will also very likely fail. I'm still waiting for people to try in other states. Anyway, at least this is another step to removing the federal government from marriage. It's a small baby step. At least Ron Paul is likely very happy about this.

 

[Acala]

I disagree. We need to take liberty and freedom in whatever increments we can get it, and a Federal law telling two people who love each other they are not allowed to marry one another if they choose to does not increase freedom or liberty no matter how you slice it.

The approach of saying, "Instead of letting people do what they want, we need to get government out of marriage completely" is the equivalent of saying,

"I think Rosa Parks should've shut up, sat down in the back of the bus where the law said she was allowed to, and then instead of fighting for the freedom to make her own choice as to where she is allowed to sit, she should've started a campaign to END PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ENTIRELY. Because getting the government out of transportation is by far the more important, bigger issue. What a wasted opportunity to increase Freedom and Liberty!"

The Civl Rights movement WAS in large part a wasted opportunity to increase freedom and liberty. Because it was directed at how certain people were treated rather than the larger issue of the proper scope of government, the Civil Rights movement ended up increasing government power and destroyed more liberty than it protected - Affirmative Action, Title 7, followed by the ADA, etc. The Civle Rights movement was largely a disaster for liberty.

 

[WhistlinDave]

The Civl Rights movement WAS in large part a wasted opportunity to increase freedom and liberty. Because it was directed at how certain people were treated rather than the larger issue of the proper scope of government, the Civil Rights movement ended up increasing government power and destroyed more liberty than it protected - Affirmative Action, Title 7, followed by the ADA, etc. The Civle Rights movement was largely a disaster for liberty.

Easy to say when you're not the one being told where you're allowed to sit or who you're not allowed to marry. Freedom is so easy to take for granted until it's yours personally that is restricted by a law made by people who aren't affected by that law themselves.

 

[James Madison]

Wooooo!!! More people get to be married to the State!

Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!

 

[WhistlinDave]

The Civl Rights movement WAS in large part a wasted opportunity to increase freedom and liberty. Because it was directed at how certain people were treated rather than the larger issue of the proper scope of government, the Civil Rights movement ended up increasing government power and destroyed more liberty than it protected - Affirmative Action, Title 7, followed by the ADA, etc. The Civle Rights movement was largely a disaster for liberty.

By the way, I'm not disagreeing with you, except that I don't think it's right to make people wait for equal rights until we can reduce the size and scope of government. To me that's trying to use one wrong to make another wrong right. Two wrongs don't make a right. I say let people make their own choices in the meantime, and continue to work toward the bigger goal of ending the government's overreach.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Well....ultimately I don't think there should be taxes. I think there should be "chip-ins". If I agree with something whether it's food for hungry kids or natural disaster relief or money for mercenaries to secure oil fields in the middle east, I should be able to "chip-in" to pay for the stuff I agree with, and not fund the stuff I don't agree with. But....that's a long way off.

Well, I don't think foreign wars, especially for this type of reason, are OK no matter who's doing it. Its not just the taxes that makes me object to tons of people being dead.

All that said, I'm more a minarchist than an anarchist. Your suggestion is definitely a starting point but it also makes little sense. Why, logically, can I give all my money to one person with no tax but I can't split it with 20 people with no tax? If anything, the inverse would at least make sense on egalitarian grounds (Which doesn't mean I agree with it) but this doesn't.

Even though it doesn't make any sense, however, its still a good idea.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

They have to amend the Constitution. Churches are automatically tax exempt - they don't need to apply, and the IRS doesn't grant it.

The First Amendment doesn't guarantee that churches are tax-exempt, any more than it guarantees that a publishing company is. It's true that historically Congress has afforded exempt status to churches and that they needn't apply first in order to enjoy such status (other organizations do). But this is only by legislative grace and not by any constitutional requirement.

 

[jmdrake]

Wooooo!!! More people get to be married to the State!

Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to James Madison again.

 

[jllundqu]

The First Amendment doesn't guarantee that churches are tax-exempt, any more than it guarantees that a publishing company is. It's true that historically Congress has afforded exempt status to churches and that they needn't apply first in order to enjoy such status (other organizations do). But this is only by legislative grace and not by any constitutional requirement.

The term legislative grace makes my head hurt

 

[tod evans]

So who pays child support now?

 

[jmdrake]

The First Amendment doesn't guarantee that churches are tax-exempt, any more than it guarantees that a publishing company is. It's true that historically Congress has afforded exempt status to churches and that they needn't apply first in order to enjoy such status (other organizations do). But this is only by legislative grace and not by any constitutional requirement.

True. But a bigger issue is church affiliated organizations such as schools. Imagine private school, college or university being told that it had to embrace gay marriage or lose tax exempt status. Bob Jones University lost tax exempt status for being against interracial marriage. I think their position was stupid (BJU) but from a legal standpoint, should current trends continue, I don't see how to distinguish the BJU case from a similar case in the future regarding gay marriage or transgender bathroom "rights".

 

[jmdrake]

So who pays child support now?

States have already hit up gays for child support even without marriage. If you hold yourself out as someobody's parent, you can get hit up.

 

[James Madison]

I must say that I'm looking forward to the lolz when homosexual couples go before the Family Courts.

"Alright, Mr. and Mrs. -- What a minute! Where's the mother; all I see are two dads."

"That's because they're gay, sir."

"Well now how am I supposed to decide which spouse to screw-over? I've got it! Both of you will have your homes confiscated and paychecks raided by the State. The State will also take your children and place them in foster care. Damn, I'm smart. Supreme Court appointment, here I come!"

 

[Lucille]

"Baby, this shit we got together, it's so good we gotta get the government in on this shit. We can't just share this commitment 'tweenst us. We need judges and lawyers involved in this shit, baby. It's hot!"
--Doug Stanhope

 

[Acala]

By the way, I'm not disagreeing with you, except that I don't think it's right to make people wait for equal rights until we can reduce the size and scope of government. To me that's trying to use one wrong to make another wrong right. Two wrongs don't make a right. I say let people make their own choices in the meantime, and continue to work toward the bigger goal of ending the government's overreach.

Asking government to "grant" equal rights is begging at the master's house. It inherently endorses the idea that government legitmately has the power to begin with. And as long as the slaves are caught up in begging at the master's house, and arguing about what to beg for, they will never rise up to burn it down.

I understand what you are saying, but asking government to free you always results in MORE government. The people who were supposedly given more freedom by the civil rights movement are less free today than they were before the movement. The chains just look different.