SCOTUS Strikes Down DOMA

[Sloth]

[quote]CornSprint wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The propagation of your citizenry is a natural consequence of this action. An action that will continue to happen regardless of government. Reproduction, therefore, happening regardless…

However, you realize there are socio-economic benefits to directing as much of this reproductive act as possible into an institution we recognize as traditional marriage. Benefits which in turn reinforce governing principals of your nation at the level of the citizen; self-reliance, self-responsibility, self-governance. Basically, providing a foil to the ever present specter of a nanny state in a nation which supposedly values (or, valued) it’s absence. So, then you conclude that there is sufficient cause to recognize this one form of human relationship, if general welfare of a nation has been established as a reserved ‘trigger’ for any government involvement (recognition).

The state discriminates against any and all other human arrangements (not just homosexual binary couplings), elevating one for recognition, because it has a couple of brute facts of nature tied to it. And, because how these brute facts are ordered and directed can alter the prosperity of the nation for better or for worse.

Now I’m too tired to continue.

[/quote]

If you would care to, can you please elaborate on the aforementioned “brute facts of nature”?

Additionally, do you believe there is more value to be attached to the conception or raising of a child?
[/quote]

Men and women will have sex.
Sex between men and women is the reproductive act. Regardless of individual medical issues, or willful attempts to thwart reproduction. It is still the reproductive act.
Again, men and women will have sex with each other, regardless. Therefore, men and women will continue to reproduce. Those are brute facts of nature.

Then comes consideration of how best these brute facts are ordered. The offspring of these brute facts are impacted by the the circumstances of the conception and rearing. These circumstances then impact the propagation and prosperity at a societal/national level.

Ask yourself these questions.

1. If homosexuality disappeared tomorrow what socio-economic impact would there be?
   2 If heterosexuality disappeared tomorrow what socio-economic impact would there be?

I’d say 1. would be a curiosity in the news for a couple of months. While 2. would be catastrophic.

Heterosexual coupling has an irreplaceable and critical impact on the general health, functioning, prosperity, and very survival of the nation. Inarguable. Particular hetero couplings and behaviors then have different impacts, for better or worse. The reproductive sexes ordering the reproductive act into intact homes being a “for better.”

Homosexual coupling does not even start with the irreplaceable and critical impact.

The state recognizing any form of relationship at all between consenting adults, and deeming it a marriage, is discriminatory, period. The necessary discrimination involved with Hetero marriage is justified by brute facts of nature, it’s irreplaceable and critical function, and how the ordering of the reproductive act impacts the nation.

Adding homosexuality is not an end to discrimination. It’s simply adding a mere one other form of relationship out of any and all other imaginative human relationships/arrangements/associations between consenting adults (excepting hetero binary). “White hispanics are ok, too. But everyone else…”

In fact, state recognition of homosexual couplings, because of the above, is bigoted. There is no rational argument for it being critical and irreplaceable to the nation (general welfare), unlike recognizing hetero couplings. So it is argued that it should be raised above all other imaginative human relationships (except one other with which it will now share a pedestal), deemed worthy of “marriage” by the state, without justification for positive government action.

[bigflamer]

Beans,

All of your obfuscation aside, just answer me a question. Under DOMA, were there federal benefits allowed for hetero couples, through the institution of marriage, that were not granted to gay couples?

[bigflamer]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Lol, this is what is wrong with this fucking country and why I make the argument that I do.

Nothing said here: [quote]In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”[/quote]

Makes marriage a fucking right. The right is personal freedom and liberty. Marriage is the shit you are allowed to enjoy because of your right. You are allowed to enjoy it because it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others.

Good Christ.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right

[i]It is well-established and crystal clear that the right to marry is a central aspect of the right to liberty, privacy, association, and identity.

Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry…[/i]

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American...

[/quote]
[/quote]

Methinks you need to actually read, or re read the cases that were cited. It’s been absolutely reaffirmed by the SCOTUS as a personal “right”.

u mad bro?

EDIT: Also, please tell me how gay couples getting married and enjoying the same level of benefits as hetero couples, infringes on anyone else’s right. Because as I see it, that particular behavior is in no way infringing on anyone elses “shit they get to do”. My point? Gay couples deserve to have access to the “same shit” as hetero couples.

[storey420]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Rather than break out your post let me try and explain my position:

This issue is one of the “rubber meets the road” in ideology. The fact that DOMA encapsulates multiple issues in one, some fairly and other interjected for emotional appeal, makes it hard to navigate.

The first issue: Government’s role in the citizen’s day-to-day lives

I firmly believe Government’s role should be a bare and minimum as possible. People should be free to make choices that don’t harm, or infringe on any other’s rights as a human. This means people are free to make choices. Some of those choices will be bad, and result in consequences that aren’t pleasant. Some of those choices are going to be things I don’t like or may be offended by. Because I believe freedom is paramount, these are things I have to live with.

Given that, I can’t in good faith say that government’s role in marriage should not be anything but facilitation of property claims and certain legal protections. Because government’s sole role is as stated, it is tough to argue that the state can deny two people of the same sex from entering into this particular contract as long as they otherwise follow contract law, consent, legal age, not drunk, etc. Mainly because once the government claims the authority to dictate the terms of eligibility for entering a contract, they, by definition gain more control over our lives. Much like the fire arm controversy, it is like the government saying “I know what is best for YOU, so I will decide what you CAN do.”

The second issue: Government’s regulation of paring/mating/sexual preference

I would think people would be hard pressed to not agree it is none of the Government’s business who anyone wanted to have sex with as long as it was a consenting adult. (Still don’t understand why prostitution isn’t legal in 2013, but whatever.)

This is why I hammer the discrimination angle. If you continue to stand on the notion that gays were disproportionately discriminated against by DOMA, then you are, by default, saying that in the eyes of the government, who you love and want to have sex with is a requirement for marriage. Ignoring the fact that those aren’t factors in government accepting or rejecting your marriage license, that would mean in order for me to divorce my wife and marry a man, if I choose to, I would have to tell (read prove) to the government I was gay. That isn’t, nor should it be the case. No one should have to tell the government their sexual preference.

Think about it. If you say “gays didn’t have equal access to marriage”, then you are saying “passing same sex marriage is so we can have government recognized gay marriage.” Seems simple right? But what about when two heterosexual men want to get married? If you’ve spent all this time defining same sex marriage as a gay rights issue, what now? Are they allowed to get married? If so, it isn’t a gay rights issue now is it? If not, then you are discriminating against heterosexual people who want to marry the same sex now too. So unless you want the government to dictate who can marry who based on sexuality, we need to remove the “gay rights” argument from government’s control of marriage.

I just don’t want any, not even the slightest hint, of government having to, or even considering having to take sexual orientation into account when facilitating marriage contracts.

Issue 3: Rights

As I’ve stated. Marriage itself isn’t a right. It is an activity your rights allow you to partake in. Freedom to choose and freedom of choice. The act of marriage itself isn’t a right. It is very important to maintain the difference consistently.

Sort of like knowing the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy.

[/quote]

Good summary of the key points

[countingbeans]

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Beans,

All of your obfuscation aside, just answer me a question. Under DOMA, were there federal benefits allowed for hetero couples, through the institution of marriage, that were not granted to gay couples?
[/quote]

No.

Because sexual preference is irrelevant to the recognition of marriage by the federal government.

No where have I ever had to tell the government I was heterosexual, and neither has any married couple I know.

Contracts between opposite sex parings were recognized, and along with that recognition came benefits (and some penalties). Same sex contracts were not recognized.

[countingbeans]

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

Methinks you need to actually read, or re read the cases that were cited. It’s been absolutely reaffirmed by the SCOTUS as a personal “right”.[/quote]

Really?

Interesting you (or anyone) is okay with that then.

u mad bro?

You 12 years old bro?

EDIT: Also, please tell me how gay couples getting married and enjoying the same level of benefits as hetero couples, infringes on anyone else’s right. Because as I see it, that particular behavior is in no way infringing on anyone elses “shit they get to do”. My point? Gay couples deserve to have access to the “same shit” as hetero couples.

Methinks you need to actually read, or re read my posts.

[bigflamer]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Beans,

All of your obfuscation aside, just answer me a question. Under DOMA, were there federal benefits allowed for hetero couples, through the institution of marriage, that were not granted to gay couples?
[/quote]

No.

Because sexual preference is irrelevant to the recognition of marriage by the federal government.

No where have I ever had to tell the government I was heterosexual, and neither has any married couple I know.[/quote]

FACT: Federal law excluded legally married same-sex couples and their children from programs and benefits available to hetero couples. Just in case you weren’t aware of the following, I’ll post them for your benefit. You’re welcome.

[i]-The right to take time off from work to care for a seriously ill spouse through the Family
Medical Leave Act.

-Access to all the benefits of a spouse’s health plan, without a tax penalty.

-Social Security spousal and survivor benefits related to disability, care of a minor child,
retirement, and death, which protect a family’s economic security in old age, and upon disability or death.

-The right to leave assets to your spouse - including the home you share together - without
incurring a tax penalty.

-Joint tax filing and pooled deductions that can save families money

-Retirement and death benefits for spouses of federal employees.

-Disability, dependency or death benefits for the spouses of veterans and public safety officers.

The ability to sponsor a non-resident spouse for purposes of immigration.[/i]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Contracts between opposite sex parings were recognized, and along with that recognition came benefits (and some penalties). Same sex contracts were not recognized. [/quote]

So, what you’re saying is this: The federal government wasn’t discriminating against gay couples on the basis of their being gay. They just refused to recognize their marriage contracts, thereby denying them benefits enjoyed by same sex couples…because they’re gay.

Sure, makes perfect sense. No discrimination there. Fucks sake, man; is that really your argument?

LOL…the lengths some people will go to polish a turd.

[bigflamer]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Lol, this is what is wrong with this fucking country and why I make the argument that I do.

Nothing said here: [quote]In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”[/quote]

Makes marriage a fucking right. The right is personal freedom and liberty. Marriage is the shit you are allowed to enjoy because of your right. You are allowed to enjoy it because it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others.

Good Christ.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right

[i]It is well-established and crystal clear that the right to marry is a central aspect of the right to liberty, privacy, association, and identity.

Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry…[/i]

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American...

[/quote]
[/quote]

Ahhh, yes. But according to legal rulings from the SCOTUS, fourteen of them to be exact; marriage is indeed a “right”.

You need to reread the cited cases.

[countingbeans]

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
FACT: Federal law excluded legally married same-sex couples and their children from programs and benefits available to hetero couples.[/quote]

Please be kind enough to show where the legislation mentions sexual preference or change the word “fact” to the fiction this statement is.

Just in case you weren’t aware of the following, I’ll post them for your benefit. You’re welcome.

Just in case you weren’t aware of the following, I’ll post it for your benefit. You’re welcome.

The government doesn’t require one to be heterosexual to enter into an opposite sex marriage, nor does one’s sexual preference matter at all, when it comes to the recognition of marriage. Pre DOMA the requirement was opposite sex pairing, not sexual preference. There is a difference.

So, what you’re saying is this: The federal government wasn’t discriminating against gay couples on the basis of their being gay. They just refused to recognize their marriage contracts, thereby denying them benefits enjoyed by same sex couples…because they’re gay.

No. That isn’t what I’m saying. You seem to be too busy conflating different issues to accurately represent my statements.

[quote] Fucks sake, man; is that really your argument?

LOL…the lengths some people will go to polish a turd.

[/quote]

If you took the time to read what I’m saying, you’d see how silly it is to say this after clearly misrepresenting what I said.

Let me say it, again:

The government didn’t discriminate anyone disproportionately. As has been said, the recognition and facilitation of marriage is in and of itself a discriminatory act by government. It gives privileges to people who choose to get married and doesn’t give them to people who choose to stay single.

The government limiting the recognition further to opposite sexed pairings doesn’t effect any one person more than another, because everyone is either a man or a woman, and the populations are basically the same. Still no disproportionate discrimination.

Now this where it seems everyone wants to jump around and start talking about sexual preference. The only problem with that lies with sexual preference is irrelevant to the government. You do not have to tell the government what your sexual preference is. You do not have to prove you love your spouse, no where on any tax form do you have to attest to having sex. Everyone seems to keep ignoring these points. why i don’t know.

We can further ascertain if this is a “gay rights” issue by the answer to one simple question: will a same sex marriage between two heterosexual males be recognized by the federal government now that DOMA has been overturned?

[countingbeans]

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

Ahhh, yes. But according to legal rulings from the SCOTUS, fourteen of them to be exact; marriage is indeed a “right”.

You need to reread the cited cases.[/quote]

No, I don’t have to reread anything. First off I’ve seen SCOTUS refer to the US as a democracy, when we aren’t, clearly. Secondly, anyone asking for “marriage” to be the right is literally shorting themselves.

That is like saying porn is a right. No, it isn’t. Porn is something you can enjoy because we have the right to free speech.

Better example: Voting

Everyone has the right to “vote” correct? No, not really, voting isn’t the right. Our right is consenting to be governed, not forced into being governed. Voting is the action that we take in order to exercise our right. There is a subtle and important difference.

It is just cheaper and easier to say “right to vote” or “right to marry”. But we need to be careful not to lose sight of what our rights actually are. In this case it is clearly stated in the the “summary” of the cases that freedom to choose and freedom of choice is the right, not marriage.

[lucasa]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

Ahhh, yes. But according to legal rulings from the SCOTUS, fourteen of them to be exact; marriage is indeed a “right”.

You need to reread the cited cases.[/quote]

No, I don’t have to reread anything. First off I’ve seen SCOTUS refer to the US as a democracy, when we aren’t, clearly. Secondly, anyone asking for “marriage” to be the right is literally shorting themselves.

That is like saying porn is a right. No, it isn’t. Porn is something you can enjoy because we have the right to free speech.

Better example: Voting

Everyone has the right to “vote” correct? No, not really, voting isn’t the right. Our right is consenting to be governed, not forced into being governed. Voting is the action that we take in order to exercise our right. There is a subtle and important difference.

It is just cheaper and easier to say “right to vote” or “right to marry”. But we need to be careful not to lose sight of what our rights actually are. In this case it is clearly stated in the the “summary” of the cases that freedom to choose and freedom of choice is the right, not marriage. [/quote]

First, I wish you luck arguing with a devout atheist. It’s like trying to convince the proverbial drunk to look for his keys where he dropped them rather than under the street light. Anybody with the avatar like that is bound to be an zealot on par with young earth creationists or virtually any proponent of ‘moderate islam’.

Second, I’d add, there is little/never a distinction made by SCOTUS between legal and natural rights AND positive and negative rights. The right to be governed or not (obviously, debatable) natural and positive. That is, because men are only equal in ideal, if you do nothing or don’t make decisions, you will be governed by others. The right of two people to associate freely is natural and positive (not granted by the government and they have to actually associate to exercise it) there are only legal positive (created by government and require active participation/enforcement) with regard to others outside their association. SCOTUS saying ‘there is a right’ (14, 15, or even 16 times) doesn’t make it a natural or positive right. Only disbelief in sovereignty/sanctity of anything but the state makes it a natural right.

Last, SCOTUS has been so freaking wrong on so many things, only the drunkards looking for his keys under a street lamp would regard them as, in any major way, correct or infallible. Even the dissenting opinion is ham-handed and biased. Half an appeal to Federalism, half a conceit that, on this issue, the Federal Gov’t will probably end up telling the states what to do. Without considering or commenting on scrutiny or discrimination, Kennedy (and fellow dissenters) appear to have fallen to the, “I can’t imagine why people wouldn’t support this, so they must be nuts.” fallacy. That is to say, for AA, there can be a narrowly focused scope of discrimination, but the same concern wrt to Gay Marriage was left unaddressed (where the differences are much more intrinsic and less superficially identifiable).

Like I said, I’m just waitin’ for the day when the government compels Christian (or any of the other world religions that only tolerate homosexuals) taxpayers and employers to support the reproductive health of homosexual couples. Fortunately, the healthcare mandate has been postponed and, if Obamacare is any indication, it won’t be until the rubber meets the road that people realize how dysfunctional some of these other social/institutional mandates are or will be.

EDIT: It should be clear from the fact that, by striking down DOMA, many homosexuals can now file jointly at the higher tax rate (marriage penalty), that federal marriage is neither natural nor a right. I’d love to believe that gay marriage would result in the break down of the marriage penalty, but that belief is realistically on par with gay marriage resulting in world peace or gay marriage resulting in the decline of obesity or gay marriage resulting in the re-empowerment of “smoker’s rights”.

[countingbeans]

Who’s a journalist?

This is a good example of why being clear headed about what our rights are, and what activities we can enjoy as a result of those rights, and the differences between the two are paramount.

The conversation in the above link shouldn’t have to be had, but when we get lazy and think foolishly about what our rights are, we end up having it.

[NickViar]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Who’s a journalist?

This is a good example of why being clear headed about what our rights are, and what activities we can enjoy as a result of those rights, and the differences between the two are paramount.

The conversation in the above link shouldn’t have to be had, but when we get lazy and think foolishly about what our rights are, we end up having it.

[/quote]

Great posts and point.

You have rights to life(self-explanatory), liberty(do as you please as long as you don’t interfere with the rights of others), and property(use your property however you want as long as its use doesn’t interfere with the life or liberty of another). Those rights take care of everything else. The only one currently recognized by the government is the right to life(after being born).

When activities start being viewed as “rights”(in addition to viewing rights as things that are determined acceptable by the mob), it makes it very easy for the state to criminalize any activity it wants. Few things which either aren’t necessary for survival or which can’t be made to benefit the state are done by a majority. That’s the problem when rights are viewed as belonging to groups instead of individuals.

[countingbeans]

[quote]NickViar wrote:

When activities start being viewed as “rights”(in addition to viewing rights as things that are determined acceptable by the mob), it makes it very easy for the state to criminalize any activity it wants. [/quote]

Or tax it, lol.

If there was some brilliant political philosopher that came along tomorrow and came up with a method of choosing our representatives that was better than voting, would we suddenly lose a right or gain a new one? No, we would have the same rights we always had, just exercise them in a new way.

But as it is, there would be an uproar over the change, even if it was better, because people think voting is the right. So we would waste time and energy, when if we took the time to see things the way they are, we would just switch out voting for the new method.

[NickViar]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Or tax it, lol.

If there was some brilliant political philosopher that came along tomorrow and came up with a method of choosing our representatives that was better than voting, would we suddenly lose a right or gain a new one? No, we would have the same rights we always had, just exercise them in a new way.

But as it is, there would be an uproar over the change, even if it was better, because people think voting is the right. So we would waste time and energy, when if we took the time to see things the way they are, we would just switch out voting for the new method. [/quote]

Exactly. Property taxes are a result of the property of citizens being viewed as owned by the government. Income tax is a result of your life being viewed as property of the government(like slavery).

I can’t think of a better way to elect representatives than voting, but your point is taken. The problem with voting is that we think a majority vote can take rights from a minority. Government should(and in this country, was supposed to) be very limited in power and responsibility. A 99.99% majority should not be able to take rights from even one person.

Convincing people that activities are rights, not things made possible by rights, allows the government to divide and conquer.

[pittbulll]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

When activities start being viewed as “rights”(in addition to viewing rights as things that are determined acceptable by the mob), it makes it very easy for the state to criminalize any activity it wants. [/quote]

Or tax it, lol.

If there was some brilliant political philosopher that came along tomorrow and came up with a method of choosing our representatives that was better than voting, would we suddenly lose a right or gain a new one? No, we would have the same rights we always had, just exercise them in a new way.

But as it is, there would be an uproar over the change, even if it was better, because people think voting is the right. So we would waste time and energy, when if we took the time to see things the way they are, we would just switch out voting for the new method. [/quote]

If you have 2 people that have the same rights but one is penalized for exercising his right and the other is not only not penalized but is rewarded for exercising his than their rights are not equal

[lucasa]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

If you have 2 people that have the same rights but one is penalized for exercising his right and the other is not only not penalized but is rewarded for exercising his than their rights are not equal
[/quote]

Damn straight. As a man, my right to an abortion has been habitually and unconstitutionally denied on state and federal levels.

Just because someone uses the words ‘right’, ‘second-class’, or ‘oppression’ doesn’t make them true. A diabetic is free to consume his toxin of choice anywhere he pleases. An alcoholic is free to consume his toxin of choice virtually anywhere outside of a moving vehicle. A smoker is only free to consume his toxin of choice on privately held ground. Are we violating smoker’s and drinker’s rights or not?

And, technically, the already married heterosexuals are the one’s being penalized while unwed couples and individuals are being rewarded. Gay (and straight) couples filing individually will (generally) be taxed at a lower rate than the couples filing jointly. By striking down DOMA, SCOTUS has discriminated against married gay couples, but has discriminated against many more heterosexual couples. Once we get (back) past this, we’ll all be equals.

[jjackkrash]

[quote]lucasa wrote:

And, technically, the already married heterosexuals are the one’s being penalized while unwed couples and individuals are being rewarded. Gay (and straight) couples filing individually will (generally) be taxed at a lower rate than the couples filing jointly. By striking down DOMA, SCOTUS has discriminated against married gay couples, but has discriminated against many more heterosexual couples. Once we get (back) past this, we’ll all be equals.[/quote]

The markers for some reason didn’t help me understand your point. It appears to me that all you are saying here is that marriage has legal benefits/obligations/and penalties. (Its simply not true that marriage is only a legal detriment. It cost the Plaintiff in the DOMA case several hundred thousand dollars in estate taxes because her marriage was not recognized.) All gay-rights advocates are saying is those legal benefits/obligations/and penalties ought to be applied equally under the law whether the married couple is gay or straight. I personally don’t see how this is even a controversial request. If the legal recognition of “marriage” is somehow that bad, the solution is to do away with its legal recognition altogether, imo.

Also, what you are saying seems a lot like saying letting women into combat roles in the military is “discriminatory” against women because it exposes them to a greater risk of death. While an increased risk of death is certainly undesirable, it is not “discriminatory” to let women into this role–precluding them them serving in this role is what is discriminatory because denying them the role is to treat them differently because of their sex.

[lucasa]

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

If the legal recognition of “marriage” is somehow that bad, the solution is to do away with its legal recognition altogether, imo.[/quote]

First, I agree with the sentiment of doing away with it altogether but, in having done away with marriage (or a part), are more or fewer marriage licenses going to be issued? Are more or fewer taxes going to be collected from married individuals? Do you believe this to be a step towards the actual or effective elimination of marriage as a government institution? Do you feel more equal to Edith Windsor now that she gets to keep the $400K?

The courts are horrible tools for the generation and implementation (or repeal) of larger social issues like this. If I had to sum it up, my point would be this; SCOTUS didn’t decide that gay marriage was equal to straight marriage, they decided that the government is free(er) to tax/reward people more heavily because they are married regardless of the sexual orientation of that marriage.

We were all equal in our legal right to (common law or sui juris) marry right up until about the middle of the 19th century when marriage licenses started to be issued to ensure whites didn’t marry various non-white people at which point it became a right to marry. What’s being discussed as an equal right to marry has nothing to do with equality or Rights (with a capital R).

Also, what you are saying seems a lot like saying letting women into combat roles in the military is “discriminatory” against women because it exposes them to a greater risk of death.

The two are ludicrously incomparable. Military service isn’t (here and now) compensatory. You aren’t licensed into combat roles without vetting and training like you are with a marriage. Sex is, pretty clearly, fixed in a way that sexuality is not. Combat roles are established between an individual and the government while marriage roles are established between two people and, auspiciously, the government. Much like marriage, women have always had the ability to show up on the front line and in combat roles, well before Mary Edwards Walker got her MoH. Granting them the ‘privilege’ of dying for their country (or whatever purpose our country happens to choose) doesn’t make them any more free and it certainly doesn’t create equality.

Continuing on the above and dipping back into the flawed SCOTUS decision above. The SCOTUS just (or yet again) delineated the method or use of discrimination in a narrowly defined scope. Combat roles for women in the Department of Defense are substantially less focused than the property tax rights of two gay women who got married in Canada a year before one was predicted to die. Women make up 15% of the military and ~50% (happens to be > 50% right now) of the US population, homosexuals make up maximally, around 8% and married homosexuals (if they married at rates similar to heterosexuals, which they don’t) make up well less than 4%. Not saying we should discriminate against them because they’re such a small minority but, being a small minority combined with the fact that I’d certainly cast a leery eye on a man and woman insisting on federal tax benefits in the same situation make convinces me that the case is/has been inflated and twisted grossly out of proportion.

Further, the discrimination in the sense of combat roles has been against men. Granting this privilege to women, now that we don’t/won’t draft, front lines are more diffuse and combat zones are ‘global’, and we increasingly fight wars without people is a luxury that gives the illusion of equality. As a man, I don’t consider it to be overwhelming discriminatory or liberating to deny/grant women access to combat roles either way.

Equality isn’t the problem. People organized around the idea of equality as a positive right and despite evidence of natural and inherent inequality is no different than the ‘convert by the sword’ ideologies of centuries ago, except much more oppressive and deadly.

[NickViar]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

When activities start being viewed as “rights”(in addition to viewing rights as things that are determined acceptable by the mob), it makes it very easy for the state to criminalize any activity it wants. [/quote]

Or tax it, lol.

If there was some brilliant political philosopher that came along tomorrow and came up with a method of choosing our representatives that was better than voting, would we suddenly lose a right or gain a new one? No, we would have the same rights we always had, just exercise them in a new way.

But as it is, there would be an uproar over the change, even if it was better, because people think voting is the right. So we would waste time and energy, when if we took the time to see things the way they are, we would just switch out voting for the new method. [/quote]

If you have 2 people that have the same rights but one is penalized for exercising his right and the other is not only not penalized but is rewarded for exercising his than their rights are not equal
[/quote]

Their rights are still equal(all rights are), but the government’s recognition(much like the government regarding x% of person a’s income as its property, while only considering y% of person b’s property as belonging to it) is not. Gay marriage is a state issue in this country(should be at least, barring an amendment to the Constitution), but I can see no way to argue against its legalization in each state if marriage is regarded as a government institution. Now, that doesn’t mean I see any way for the government to force anyone to perform gay marriage ceremonies or anything like that, but the marriages should definitely be recognized by the state.