SCOTUS strikes down DOMA

[Carlybee]

marriages license fees are a hidden tax..they will never vote them out

 

[Keith and stuff]

marriages license fees are a hidden tax..they will never vote them out

They can be a hidden tax but don't have to be. In NH, when the Democrats took control in 2006, they increased the marriage fee to raise money. However, the Republican took back control in 2010 and brought the marriage fee back to the reasonable fee for providing a service level. The Democrats took the NH House again in 2012 and tried to increase the marriage fee to raise funds but the Republican controlled NH Senate said that it didn't want the fee to be used as a revenue source and stopped the Democrats.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

The Church is always crying for separation between Church and State - this is that put in motion - now they're crying for the State to bend again to their will.
You can't have it both ways.

Anytime the SCOTUS deems something "Unconstitutional" we should be celebrating on here, because pretty much everything that gets handed to them is Unconstitutional.
But some folks don't think two same-sex people who love each should enjoy the same Rights as non-same-sex people so they come on here and complain.
You can't have it both ways either.

I celebrate the repeal of any government restriction. Including this one!

I really think you don't understand. Nobody's rights were being violated. Neither gays nor straights are allowed to marry a member of the same sex. That's not discriminating against gays. It's discriminating against the practice of same-sex marriage.

Also, this is not a fight over rights. Gays already can get married, they just can't get a license. The only argument here is whether gays should receive the same license as heterosexuals, not the same rights. The only argument here is over the government license. Government licenses are not rights.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Read Justice Kennedy's decent opinion on Prop 8 and see what really is screwed up.

It's "dissenting opinion" not "decent opinion". That's actually a pretty important distinction to get right.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You may be right... I'm really not sure either....

It creates more spending, but also more tax cuts, which is almost a wash....

Wait, more spending and less tax revenue? I don't think you want to call that a good thing. I would be glad about the tax cuts, but only if it also comes with less spending, not more.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You can do that now. I'm pretty sure it isn't recommended, though

Ummm... no you can't. It's actually illegal, in case you didn't know.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

I really think you don't understand. Nobody's rights were being violated. Neither gays nor straights are allowed to marry a member of the same sex. That's not discriminating against gays. It's discriminating against the practice of same-sex marriage.

Also, this is not a fight over rights. Gays already can get married, they just can't get a license. The only argument here is whether gays should receive the same license as heterosexuals, not the same rights. The only argument here is over the government license. Government licenses are not rights.

If the government gives benefits to straights for being married, it should give them to any two consenting lawful age adults who want to marry, whether they be the same or opposite sex.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

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.

Did you notice you have a nine in ther with all those zeroes? So Congress shall make 9 laws or no laws, which is it?

I think what you reall meant to say is "nein", which is German for "no", but it doesn't really mean none. The German word you are looking for is "kein".

 

[PaulConventionWV]

If the government gives benefits to straights for being married, it should give them to any two consenting lawful age adults who want to marry, whether they be the same or opposite sex.

It shoud give them to neither. It should not give them to gays, it should STOP giving them to straights. As far as practicality goes, I'm not sure why gays would want a license anyway. They're tools of oppression. You can still get married without one. Draw up a contract and bring it to the courthouse to make it legally binding.

 

[Nobexliberty]

Common law marriages should be the future of marriage.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Mutil-partner-marriage discrimination could be struck down next:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ge-Ruling-Opening-Door-to-Multiple-Marriages&

 

[Christian Liberty]

Wait, more spending and less tax revenue? I don't think you want to call that a good thing. I would be glad about the tax cuts, but only if it also comes with less spending, not more.

I was saying that the tax cuts that come with expanding marriage are a good thing, but the spending increases are not. I guess I wasn't being clear enough.

However, given a choice between cutting taxes and raising spending, or raising spending without cutting taxes, I'd take the latter, because at least one good thing is being done rather than two bad things...

 

[Nobexliberty]

Common law marriages with no speical privleges except the honor that your future children are not bastards, thats what i believe atleast.

 

[Keith and stuff]

Ummm... no you can't. It's actually illegal, in case you didn't know.

Only if you marry the government each time you get married. If you just marry a person, it is legal.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Mutil-partner-marriage discrimination could be struck down next:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ge-Ruling-Opening-Door-to-Multiple-Marriages&

Those should be handled the same as gay "marriages". Ideally, no government involving, but if there's going to be any, the Federal government should respect the decisions of the state governments.

 

[AFPVet]

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

Agreed... there shouldn't even be a license. Common law marriage was the way they did it long ago.

 

[WhistlinDave]

For all the things we could call "evil"... honestly, this is pretty low on the list.

I mean, I call basically every major mistake that the government does evil, but calling any stance on gay marriage (That doesn't involve physical violence against homosexuals, anyway) "evil" seems like a stretch.

All things considered, it is pretty low on the list of evils. But that doesn't mean it's not still evil.

Imagine you and the girl you love. You're enjoying a supreme moment of bliss, in a loving embrace. Time seems to stand still, and it occurs to you this must be what eternity feels like as you realize you can't figure out if it's been a minute, or an hour, that you've been lost in this feeling of amazing love and oneness with her.

The two of you decide to commit to be together forever. So you go get married. But the problem is, there's a law saying the two of you cannot get married. So your marriage isn't really legal. It's just symbolic. You decide it doesn't matter, because it's just a piece of paper anyway, and you don't need anyone's permission, especially not the government's. So you're happily married.

Then eighteen years later, in a tragic accident one day, your life comes to an abrupt end. Unfortunately, you never wrote out a will. And since you earned all the money and your wife had no credit history, your name is on everything and hers is on nothing except the checking account. (I know, I know, just bear with me here. Lots of people don't write out a will or establish a trust while there's still time, as stupid as it is.)

So you've bit the dust, and now the product of all your hard work--the home you've paid for, the cars, all the money in the savings account and 401(k), everything--it's all being handed over to your mother and father who disowned you 18 years ago. They disowned you because you are a sick twisted abomination who is going to burn in hell for eternity because you thumbed your nose at God and committed blasphemy against their religious beliefs--the beliefs that said it was wrong for you to fall in love with that girl and/or marry her.

Now your "wife," the love of your life, files a lawsuit claiming she is entitled to the house, the car, the bank accounts, everything. After all, she's been with you, been your loving partner, for the last 18 years. And you loved her more than life itself.

But the courts say to your widow, "That doesn't count for anything. You're not his wife, and he wasn't your husband. You were never his wife. You're not a relative. You were nothing more than a roommate, and one who didn't pay any rent at that. You are no one. You have no claim to any of this property. It belongs to the next of kin and that isn't you."

So your parents who called you vile names and screamed at you the last time you saw or spoke to them 18 years ago, the parents who screamed with hatred that you're not their son anymore, and in their eyes you no longer exist, and told you that they'll be happy when your soul is being eaten by maggots in hell for eternity for turning your back on God the way you did... they take all your hard earned property and your wife gets nothing. She is soon evicted from the loving home the two of you shared together and now she has to figure out where to go and what to do. All because it never occurred to you that you *didn't* have plenty of time left to write up a will, and because the law does not recognize your marriage.

Now... In this situation, can you see where some people would say that laws restricting the freedom of people to marry whomever they choose are evil? I don't think it's that much of a stretch. (By the way, the above is based on a very true story. Only it was two guys, not a man and a woman.)