SCOTUS strikes down DOMA

Same sex marriage really isn't gay marriage any more than different sex marriage is gay marriage. Don't know how evil became a part of the debate either. Gay? Evil? They seem unrelated to this discussion.

Fair point, I guess its "Gay" marriage as long as the marrying parties are happy, which is generally the case:D

I was talking about same-sex marrriage ,and you're well aware of this.

Its a minor issue in the grand scheme of things.
 
Hell yeah, gays, get in on this brown people bombing it is quite fun, but hard on the conscience.
 
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.

DING. WRONG. Thank you for playing.

The first amendment states that congress shall make NO LAW concerning churches. That's NO LAW.

ZIP, ZILCH, NINE, NEGATIVE, NADA, NYET, NO.

Churches were always tax-exempt and the fed gov was not considered higher than churches. The Bill of Rights came about as an additive to the Constitution to prevent a run-away government from stealing God given rights from the people. The 501(c)3 was conceived to trick churches into thinking that this would guarantee tax-exempt status, when what it really did was bring them under the umbrella of the state.
 
End of Welfare, tax the Churches? Like anyone thats religious will ever go for that. Everyone thats not religious will want Churches to be taxed like everything else, including breathing. And while the two groups fight over Marriage, Taxes and everything else, both take away the rights of the other until no one is left with anything, except the Govt who provoked the entire fight between the two sides as a distraction while they start another war to gain more control over someone elses money system by forcing them to have a Central Bank, and to only be able to purchase OPEC Oil in Fiat US Currency. Oh, it was never about religion to begin with? Or Marriage?

How much does anyone want to bet while everyone is all up in arms (regardless of side), that something big happens in Syria? This might not be enough of a distraction, at least, until violence breaks out...
 
The death tax is something that really freaks me out. My family is not rich, but we have some land that is worth a lot of money. When the tax man comes.... man I don't know.
Killing Gay Marriage is a stab wound that will last for a day. The best is to abolish the IRS and give taxing authority to the congress
 
Don't you have enough hassle with one? ;)
4c863a55ed3b2-wise-man-spanking-wife.jpg


Depends if he.....

And remember it is not abuse if you add it to the marital vows, or if she likes it!
 
Last edited:
The ruling has a gigantic hole in the argument. It states that the government cannot create a class of people to provide benefits that it denies to others. Not everyone is married and not every single person is single because they want to be. Single people are denied some government "benefits". If the court followed it's logic to the conclusion, it would prohibit government giving anyone any benefits based on marriage or even recognizing marriage.
 
Sure. I don't see any "glibertarian critics" pushing for the rights of polygamists to marry. So whoever wrote that tripe is a hypocrite. Next?
If we hate CATO, we're extremists. If we take austrianism seriously, we're cultish. If we don;t like gay marriage we're ignorant. Libertarianism has now succumbed to two sides Establishment or Extremism and ostracism. I'd take the latter.
 
The ruling has a gigantic hole in the argument. It states that the government cannot create a class of people to provide benefits that it denies to others. Not everyone is married and not every single person is single because they want to be. Single people are denied some government "benefits". If the court followed it's logic to the conclusion, it would prohibit government giving anyone any benefits based on marriage or even recognizing marriage.

Well technically the ruling is limited to people who's marriages have been recognized by their respective states. That said, all we need is one state to got with a definition of marriage that even modern society can't stomach (incest, marrying multiple people at once, marrying animals) to really bring the "logic" of this down.
 
I'm a glutton for punishment. Being a Ron Paul supporter should have made this obvious. :p



Yeah, if I want to spend the next two decades of my life in a rape cage. Pass...
You mean you want to have addition marriages to women and the government? Having just additional marriages to women isn't illegal, as long as you looks don't mary the state.
 
Government shouldn't involved in marriage, I think we all agree on that. Government also shouldn't discriminate against one group of peoples.

The government is not discriminating against gays. It's discriminating against the practice of being gay. We all have the same rights. Whether you are gay or straight, you are not allowed to get a marriage license with someone of the same sex. Note that I didn't say you're not allowed to marry someone of the same sex because clearly, you are. You just can't get a government license. Licenses are not rights, people. They are the tools of oppressive bigots and everyone should want to get rid of them because the only reason they ever existed is to control people.
 
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.

Oh, please. That's a false dilemma. Buses would still exist without the state, so what she did has nothing to do with the state. What we are doing here with marriage is condoning the state licensure of marriage. Rosa Parks was not condoning public transportation by doing something completely unrelated. Gay marriage and state licensure are irrevocably intertwined, though. It's entirely possible that Rosa Parks could have done both, but it's not possible to advocate for the "right" to get a government license and also argue for ending govenrment licenses without being a damned hypocrite.
 
Back
Top