This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Visualizing The State-By-State Implications Of The DOMA Decision
The Supreme Court struck down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (as we noted here), leaving states to decide on the legality of same-sex marriage. As the infographic below from Bloomberg shows, laws ban same-sex-marriage in 35 states, with five of those allowing civil union or domestic partnerships.
»
- 21415 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Actually, judged by your post, it's the bounds of stupidity that are being trampled on.
Actually his logic is very sound and you are passing moral judgment on him for his statement
No, I'm passing intellectual judgement on him.
Dick.
You sound dangerously inbred already. Better be careful...
ROFL!
FTMFW
I got down arrowed by the intern lackey in DC who visits ZH every night. FTMFW!
Pretty sick of you to judge me based on my lifestyle choices (which were for demonstrable purposes)
At one point gays were demonized.
If Americans want to marry family members it will be ruled constitutional one day. If a a 35 year old and a 14 year old want to marry it will be judged constitutional one day.
There are no more bounds to morality in American culture. It's a society in decline.
Hey, if you want to fuck your mother, your sister, your whole fucking family for that matter, why the fuck should I care, as long as it's consensual and you're not requiring me to pay for it or participate?
Perhaps because populations that do enforce monogamy will overrun and conquer you? Lax public morals make societies susceptible to being conquered and annihilated by those who do wish to impose their morals on others.
Libertarianism is wonderful in concept but it is death and extinction in practice.
Mohammed has your number!
A goose is a goose & a guinea is a guinea, and a kin folk's lovin is as good as any.
You are a jerk, probably living in your mother's basement...or taking the piss out of American useless grave digging relativism ;_)
You should be able to. I would think Gays would be the first to demand those rights for you, but alas, they are silent. They even talk as if the polygamy or marriage between family members is some crazy idea.
It should be none of governments business why you want to get married. They shouldn't care if you are in love or are having sex, or getting married as a finacial hedge. Or if you will have a religious ceremony. It should be a civil incorporation that any adults can enter. At the same time, you shouldn't get any tax breaks, inherited social security or other goodies. You should pay for your own spouse. And the private sector, including churches, should be able to turn you away if they don't want to perform a ceremony...
Just finished tabulating an extensive survey of a cross-section of American men who are against same sex marriage. When asked how they felt about lesbian porn, 82.7% responded "sizzling hot".
So men like to see women in sex. You are dim. A sodomite?
Ummm, oral sex is considered sodomy.
pods
derp. Women PLURAL having sex ONLY with other women is HOMOSEXUAL. Women getting gang banged (plural) all together in one room / set is HETEORSEXUAL.
Now think about this.
You think those men are saying "Ya, I wanna see all those hot girls getting rammed full of cock after cock" ? or "I'd rather see zero cock and all women having a nice wet party on camera". The homosexual kind. The lesbian homosexual kind.
Both have a market but very clearly the market for LESBIAN porn is for HETEROSEXUAL men, including those who are "against" homosexuality.
What they're against is admitting their own fear of their own hypocrisy & cowardice.
Sodomites want to be excused by their betters; no different than sadistic sodomite Keynes.
Talmudists ought to read the Tora, and stop this sex freakery.
What an opportunity! This is the day that was prophesied long ago, but here is the good news: even though the wicked are growing more wicked so too are the righteous growing more righteous. Rev 22:11 11 Let the one who does wrong continue to do wrong; let the vile person continue to be vile; let the one who does right continue to do right; and let the holy person continue to be holy.”
Overcoming sexual sin http://www.highwayofholiness.us/radio-broadcasts-overcoming-sexual-sin/
Andy Cohen is the 9-1-1
This whole thing is so STUPID.
It's a pissing match validating Government as the referee.
Dumb, dumb, dumb all the way around.
Where are the adults?
Marriage is a 3-way. Two people and a government.
Oops, perhaps a 4-way. Count the NSA in too!
But, this is just another distraction. But, distraction from what? The economy? Syria? Perhaps the gay marriage thing will monopolize the MSM for some time now?
Since Obama's ratings have dropped, primarily with young people, now his ratings will go up due to the GLBT people.
And economically, GLBT married couples can now file as a married couple, thus reducing the amount of taxes paid, and adding an economic stimulus to the economy.
Gay rights as well as abortion have always been emotional distractions for a long long time. I don't see that changing, but perhaps it has.
Here's a perspective there is a good chance you've never considered:
Why the hell is the government involved in marriage in the first place?
It's a private matter. It's a religious matter.
Separate it from government. No property ownership benefit. No SS benefit. Let people figure out their own relationship obligations.
You want your spouse/gay lover to get everything when you die? Put it in a will.
You want to give your employees healthcare and also offer to whoever they're f-----g? Great. What the hell should I care about that?
Point is this - get govt. out of having anything to do with the concept of marriage, and then the whole "gay marriage" becomes a moot point.
True.
It is expensive nonsense when tax grabbing politicians seek to define all.
Homosexuals are a tiny minority, and treated very well. Pity their loudmouth political masters want to ruin all, and take more money.
We also at the same time rid the thought process of thinking "..There outta be a Law..."
When a person or group starts that line of thinking then the problems to be fixed most of the time turn out being "I don't like it when people. xxxxxx" Fill in the blank.
We also have to get rid of the line of belief of "The Law IS the Law"
The Law isn't THE law. Our Citizen's Will is the LAW, The laws are something we use to represent our collective will.
Believing "The LAW is the Law" down the road ends up with arresting an 8 year old girl selling lemonade in front of her house for change. Because "THE LAW" says she was operating a business without a Tax ID...." and similar absurdities.
That is the out come of "The Law IS the Law" Produces a Kafka result carried out on a day to day street level by people you'd find at the DMV or TSA.
I think governments got in the business of marriage back in the industrial revolution when folks would sire a bunch of pups then out of hardship abandon them, then the pups would become wards of the state. So "licenses" and "birth records" were a way to hold those doing the siring accountable. See Oliver Twist and all that.
governments are invested in acquiring more certified births, more taxed payers, more conned-sumers, more unemployed enlisters, etc.
governments don't exist for the people, amirite ZH'rs??
Who came first the government or those whom wich desire to help out the "egg?"
helping out the "egg" doesn't require marriage, if the desire is sincere.
partnering doesn't require marriage either - doesn't even require "opposite sexes" if you think about it. . .
all governments exist to their hierarchical benefits, the maintenance of power over. assisting our fellow humans stands apart from governing, IMO.
its estimated that only 5% of people in this country is gay. The media will have you believe that its 95%. Perhaps the media and the country should be obsessed and sacred shitless that 76% of people in this country lives pay check to pay check. The youth of this country doesnt stand a chance.
Side note.... I found out that my buddies kids that are 11 years old take ART and Chorus 5 days a week. Game, set, match. Goodbye USA
The USA became pets of the nazionists when the un-Federal no-Reserve Bored was found in 1913.
Homosexuals mirror the freakery of the old monarchies of Britain, Europe, hofjuden...the tiny wealthy brat class that wages endless war and tax for their few vs the many.
Keynes was a sadistic sodomite paedophile, so it's no surprise that the modern money system he excused serves the freaks who promoted him.
Oh noes! ART and Chorus! How sissified and un-American!
Put a football, a remote control, and some Cheetos in those kids' hands, stat!
That'll fix 'em!
My point has nothing to do with Art and Chorus being gay. Our kids don"t stand a chance when the Indians and Chinese are doubling up on math and science. How much money can you make in the filed of art? How many people hit it big singing?
i...
The jerk off is another failed apparatchik, a wannabe who cares little for the USA or anyone else's children. Maybe mommy dearest and daddy jerk disliked him, so he's hateful 'gay', a rebel without a cause.
Who is the hateful one here?
Sorry to break it to you, but none of your suppositions are correct.
Quelle surprise.
"Our kids don"t stand a chance when the Indians and Chinese"
Well, It Might have something to do with numbers....
We graduated something like 50,000 Engineers last year
China graduated 500,000
And India something like 300,000 .
right, because buildings, cars & cell phones are all constructed with right angles, sharp corners and appeal strictly to the borg rather than be shaped for consumer tastes in form and color.
Duh.
Math, engineering & art are not exclusive to each other.
Having a building design selected among a competition will be based on cost & appeal. It's a GIVEN you're qualified to build something that won't fall down. If you're lower than that bar you don't even qualify to have your name mentioned. Past that there are other considerations.
Actually, I found mine were more interested in .45s and .30-06s ... thank God for diversity!
I am deeply offended... by the idea a .45 can't be used for art :D
The DOMA thread proved to me there is no hope that America will ever wake up.
DC, and every other freak show capital apparatchik has woken up, and pursues its weird ways ruthlessly, for the Rothschild zionism, and monarchies. Their freak show.
It is ridiculous that the USA and the world tolerates the Rothschild zionist freak show, allied to its British and European failed monarchies...sodomites and paedophilia.
Well I am with on the Rothschilds, but somehow missed the boat as to how that pertains to gay marriage being decided by the states (after all your marriage contract is a state license).
Think you have your butter scraped over too much bread.
pods
Hmm, as readers of a financial website, you might conflate a government's belief they can regulate the social code with the government's belief they can regulate the price system of the economy.
Both are madly delusional.
The rest of the world has to be laughing at what a clusterf**k this country has become. I can't take out the trash without committing 5 crimes!
Put me in the I don't care column too. The Supremes today however demonstrated they are just another political organ devoid of principle and foundation. MSNBS treatment of Clarence Thomas was despicable. The most level headed and most human of the bunch gets branded as a 'jew' willing to lead other jews to the gas chambers for Hitler'...I'd love to be the emperor if only for a day....firing squads would fill up most of that 24 hours for sure...
in the near future those of us with capital (gold ) should get together and take turns being supreme commander...anyone up for that?
Child abuse has become rampant with the promotion of homosexuality by the money power: the hofjuden and monarchs of old Britain and Europe who like to despoil, abuse, bully...and prefer the victims to submit.
See the documented evidence about systematic child abuse using Britain's children' s homes, and the USA.
Money and sex crimes are the easiest way to blackmail politicians who then cover up crimes against children in the USA, Britain, Europe and the rest of the world.
There is a lot of documented evidence which shows how freak sodomites use boys and girls for personal, financial and political advantage... and that is why the State wants to make it legal.
Over 30% of convicted pedophiles are homosexual.
Do homosexuals constitute 30% of the general population?
Let's not sugarcoat things. Logic is a stubborn bitch.
The thing is your statistics makes the gay molestation threat seem even greater. Considering gays are such a minority of the population,. but make up 30% of those convicted(your numbers), it suggests the majority of gays are predators.
if you're going that route, consider the majority of predators are male.
and not all are gay.
The thing is, a whopping 100% of children who are in some way abused by their straight parents are abused by their straight parents.
I guess we should ban straight parents then.
I weep for those educated in government schools.
Every citizen in every state will be impacted. We are all paying for the goodies that government grants to the married. Today, the Supreme court opened that spigot to gays. The biggest losers are those who are not married. They are paying for this shit and being denied equal protection of the law. Seems to me the only solution is to abolish the goodies and make marriage just a civil incorporation that any adults can enter, even if they are siblings or polygamists.
People who understand the history of the United States know that the same arguments being made against same-sex marriage are the very same ones that were made against interracial marriage.
"God's will is being subverted!" "It's unnatural and immoral!"
I have been in a committed relationship with the same person for 13 years now. Not once have I dreamt of fucking one of my cats; or one of my parents; or one of my great-nephews. No "slippery slope" for me.
I'll leave those thoughts to those of you who think of them.
Marriage is a religious ceremony. Homosexuals are treated very well in the USA, and they ought to show more kindness toward those who gift them their liberties, rather than wage an aggressive campaign which only helps the hierarchy.
My problem with homosexuals is that they pursue one issue: themselves. And care little or nothing for children.
Presume much?
I have two great-nephews. I think I mentioned that already. Last year, my father - their great-grandfather - died. In October, their parents split up, and have since divorced. (By the way, I have shied away from taking responsibility or the blame for yet another heterosexual marriage ending. I'll lay the blame where it belongs - on them. Sorry.)
Since my father's death - and then the disintegration of their parents' marriage, even with the promise of 'til death doing them part - I have made it my mission to be an integral part of their lives. That means treating them as people, not objects. That means taking an interest in their thoughts and desires. It means spending time with them, listening to them, telling them that they are loved, and that I will always be there for them throughout their lives, no matter what. AND, most importantly, that I will NEVER EVER judge them.
But no, you're right. I care little or nothing for children.
And then a desperate struggle takes place to send back to Lucifer him who would assault the heavens.
Laws, Laws, Can't go to the bathroom without breaking a law. How Come?
"'Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?' said Dr. Ferris. 'We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it.
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone?
But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.'"
Ayn Rand ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)
Sadly while Rand (who actually left communist russia, who lived it and understood communism) was trying to warn us to hold on to what we had - those who most reviled her used her book as a blue print to get exactly what they wanted, and what she warned against.
50 years ago the notion of homos getting "married" was ludicrous. Today it is sold to us as normal. Presently the idea of sick degenerates being permitted to go around and rape little boys is ludicrous. 50 years from now libtards will call you a "pedophobe" if you object and demand that you not force your morality on them.
Think I am wrong? Let us wait and see where this trend shall take us.
Fits in splendidly with the rest of the daily narrative. The same as Greece, and Rome.
50 years ago Camel cigarettes were considered another form of Vitamin C. We've learned a bit since then.
Adult gay men seeking consenting partners for romance, marriage or sex is 100% unrelated to child rape in the same way HETEROSEXUAL couples are not implied to be attracted to little 12, 5 or 1 year olds of the opposite gender.
So...
Prop 8 was a referendum in California. Direct democracy. Will of the people and such.
It's voted on. Gay marriage is not allowed in California. A couple sues to overturn it. The state of California does not defend the law. The law is overturned. There is an appeal. The supreme court rules the appeal doesn't stand because the state of california didn't argue for it.
So what you effectively have is a situation where because the state doesn't defend a law specifically voted on by the people (and to be precise, the California attorney general decides not to argue), the referendum is overturned.
Replace Prop 8 with anything else and you can clearly see that this democracy thing is bullshit. They'll let you vote on things so long as the outcome is what a small number of people want.
It also means that your vote is meaningless. There is no hope for change. You cannot change anything in the country through the ballot box.
SO, "let the states decide" is EXCEPTIONALLY HILARIOUS in this instance, BECAUSE voters in California already decided.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-combs/analysis-supreme-court-ru_b_35...
Just when you think we've hit rock bottom morally, we dig the hole deeper.
Trust in God and He will impart discernment to you to separate the precious from the vile. The day of the Lord draws near. He will not be mocked. These perversions just keep mounting. I fear only the Lord.
your sky fairy is only scary to people who believe in mythical magic.
There is none.
Nothing to fear but the mindless hungry zombies who follow another faith: fiat.
And of course back to the god-zombies who want to murder ever good man, woman and child who is too smart to believe in sky fairies.
Christ died for you and me, sir. Only His precious blood could reconcile us with the Father.
the man was just a man. We can't even be sure the words attributed to him are his. You weren't there to see him utter them, to hear the language, to know it as true.
The only positive thing to say is that the words attributed to Jesus are good words. Out with the money changers, show forgiveness, shelter & aid the poor.
Even if you don't personally want to do those things if you support others to do so they will be good neighbors instead of right assholes.
Nothing to argue with there.
Still doesn't require a belief in a sky fairy. OR a resurrection. OR a death "for us".
Using your logic, you can't be sure of any historical figure. You weren't there to see / hear the Pharaohs of Egypt, the Emporers of Rome, etc.
Your comments about the words attributed to Jesus being good words show the weakness of the argument. He also claimed divinity, and that He came to give His life for His people (defined as being all those who put their trust in Him)
indeed, no one can be sure of any historical figure - case in point, look at the history of the united States, and how that tale varies in the telling - oh my who or what to believe?
while I don't subscribe to any religion, those followers of Jesus would do well to follow his words of peace, charity, love of all fellow humans, etc.
and yet. . .
TRY reading comprehension. I acknowledge the man was likely real, best I can be sure, and the words are likely his, best I can be sure. This doesn't grant him god status or prove any god ever existed. I affirmed the WORDS of guidance are ones I support while the FICTION of god is one I can not.
And no, I don't take anything in history for granted as true unless recorded by many sources and even then I know they all have their reasons to hide their own crimes of their own era which does bring lies into history.
There should be no federal recognition of any marriage in the first place.
No wealth distribution to anyone.
No income confiscation from anyone.
Let the states decide for themselves.
let the individuals decide
fixed it for you.
The state can go fuck itself. It has so far a long track record of failure on the things it claims it can best do in place of markets, of individual choices, of private choices.
In California, the individuals DID decide. Then a U.S. District Court Judge overturned the will of the people. It was up to California State Officials to challenge the judge's decision. They chose not to - thereby allowing the judgement of one single person (the judge) to trump the judgement of all Californian's who voted in favor of the Proposition.
The first statement WAS the correct statement: the State decides.
The question before the US Supreme Court that they answered today had nothing to do with whether gays should be allowed to marry. The question had to do with who can sue to support the will of the people, as made evident in a Proposition, when the State government won't.
Red Meat.
Man behind curtain is worried we'll see him.
Feed this filler porn to the ordinary people.
We prefer to fight for reality Expose FRAUD, corporate and government destruction of Life on earth and discuss how to make a decent buck, buy BitCoin ounces of gold and silver and most importantly laugh and fight with the spirit of liberty and justice for all.
Long live the revolution.
Agreed.
Does it matter, in any way, how 2% of the population chooses to have an orgasm?
This whole meme is naught but misdirection, spread around to fill the empty heads of an ignorant society.
The world is on the very edge of mass destruction. Do we get warnings? no we get the supremes deciding where it is legal to stick your prick.
There is no hope for a people so bankrupt of reason.
... we get the supremes deciding where it is legal to stick your prick.
The decisions today by the U.S. Supreme Court re. California's Proposition 8 and the Fed's DOMA concerned narrow points of law. They made no decision at all concerning the legality of gay marriage.
Is that why the usual suspects are dancing and the president called MSNBC to congratulate them?
Of all things, THIS, THIS is what SCOTUS (actually, five of them) determined was important for states to control?
And, it's inconsistent with previous decisions such as the voting rights act, civil rights legislation and of course FORCED HEALTH INSURANCE PURCHASE!
On the other hand, DOMA was pretty stupid to begin with, as is most of the legislation the past 20 years
Of all things, THIS ... is what SCOTUS ...determined was important for states to control?
Read the actual rulings from the SCOTUS. They preface everything by stating that they are not ruling on the merits of Gay marriage. In both the Proposition 8 and the DOMA case, they were ruling on narrow points of law. They were not making policy.
In particular, their ruling that the group did not have legal standing to defend Proposition 8 will apply to any group that trys to defend any Proposition that has been overturned by a Judge. That is what the ruling was about. It wasn't about the merits of Gay marriage.
You were late to the party. Last night my rant singled out a member who was my dog to kick. We are on the same team. Have a look.
Sorry HelluvaEngineer. I went ballistic when working links should of functioned for ZH. Of course, this old story had to do with sexuality and unsecured Muppets who deposit money into under leveraged Banks. My blood boils because, no one seems to understand how they are going to get fucked next.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/
HelluvaEngineer, promise not to single you out in the future. Frankly, I was in a defense mode.. Suspected you were something else, my failure…
There's two problems with what is going on:
1. It opens the door for marriages of a different nature... say a man and his son. This would also allow the couple to avoid inheritance tax. Pretty sneeky, huh?
2. Second, it will be an assault on the 1st amendment - free speech. This will be the unintended consequence of the gay issue. They will become one of the classes of people that you can't discriminate against (age, gender, etc.) and the court's will be full of lawsuits. Speech control is just getting warmed up.
I think that I should marry my brother. He has veteran's benefits and I might just be able to cash in big-time.
It opens the door for marriages of a different nature...
Today's U.S. Supreme Court decisions had nothing to do with the legality of Gay Marriage. Their decisions opened no such door for marriages of any kind. Read what the questions actually were that the Supremes answered today. They were about narrowly-defined points of law.
What matters the most to Obama is gay marriage and global warming. The rest can fall apart.
Next on the agenda is marriage to animals.
I don't know ... sometimes my wife thinks I'm an animal
Yes, homos resort to touching children/minors more than heteros do, but allow me to qualify this statement. They do so because they are a sexual minority with a much smaller pool of potentially receptive sex partners. If heteros were the sexual minority, heteros would be the ones dipping into the underage pool proportionately more often.
I dunno, I'm a thinking you've got your facts all wrong.
From UC Davis = "The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes."
Seems to explain the catholic church issue, as well.
good post / points.
a mature sexual relationship will take into consideration the desires of each partner, and no force or coercion is used - the power is relatively equal within the relationship.
hence the attraction to children, where the adult holds all the power, over.
Guess the perspective you have depends on your view of God. IMO, sad day for America.
Genesis 19:9b ... "They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door"
To the people who say that they don't care *and even those who do*, might I respectfully suggest that as it relates to the big picture, you ought to care very much.....
"... this case is a perfect example of why all government power must be dispersed, including and especially the power to define rights. The first pillar of localism is that the central government ought to be limited in its power to define rights; limiting them to enforcing freedom to leave a jurisdiction and retain property within one. At first it seems like a paradox that true rights are better protected when the power to define and enforce them is dispersed, but the resolution of the paradox is found in a familiar truth- power corrupts.
The power to define rights is the power of absolute tyranny, for when something is a right, it is beyond the scope of the people, and beyond needing the approval of the government or the ballot box. Rights are a claim against the majority, and against the rulers saying "this area of life is off limits to government intervention and not subject to popular vote."
If one small group holds this power, without any checks and balances, they will soon abuse it in just the manner that modern courts have done. They will bench-legislate their personal preferences into law without the consent of the governed (from which all just power is derived per the Declaration of Independence). They will invent "rights" which do not exist, and they will ignore rights which do. They will conjure up "group rights" and "positive rights." They will stand on precedent when it suits them and ignore it when it does not. All fixed basis for law will vanish as one group then another attempts to re-litigate their claims. All this will make the courts the ultimate target for co-option by moneyed interests, for in such an abhorrent arrangement as we presently have to control the courts is to control the nation.
No my friends, it is not just that our courts have failed, it is that any system arranged such as ours is must fail. "
Read it from the top here....http://localismaphilosophyofgovernment.blogspot.com/2013/06/doma-ruling-uses-prior-errors-as.html
As long as I can still say get a room you fucking queer when I see one of em degrading the public space I don't give a shit....
And as far as this being a major blow to the proper role of government in our lives what dark hole have you been hiding in? Whatever shred of legitimacy this bunch of clowns has is in Rand Paul and Ted Cruz's shorts. The rests of these jokers are a fucking gong show.....
Why do you people care? What is the difference going to be in your life? Worry about your first, second, foruth and fifth amendment rights and forget about what two consenting adults are doing next door.
Worry about attacking another country maybe or bankrupting the USofA in the process. What the two women or pair of guys next door are doing is of absolutely no meaning to you.
Again - the U.S. Supreme Court ruling today had nothing to do with what two women or pair of guys next door are doing. If you truely understood what the Supreme's decisions were about, you would understand why people SHOULD care.
Re. Proposition 8: what did the Supreme's actually rule? This: that the party seeking to defend a Proposition voted into law by the people of California had no legal standing to defend said Proposition. That was an extremely narrowly-focused question and decision. It has nothing to do with Gay Rights. And, unfortunately, it has nothing to do with discovering what recourse the people of a state have when they vote a Proposition into law, a single person (Federal Judge) decides the law is unconstitutional, and the State chooses to not defend the law.
What recourse do the people of any state have when two or three big boys of State and Federal government band together to overturn the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box. That was the larger issue before the U.S. Supreme Court today. But the Supreme's weren't required to address the larger issue. They were only required to answer the very specific question that was asked: Did the group who stepped forward to defend Proposition 8 when the state refused to do so have standing to defend Proposition 8? That was the question asked, and answered. No said the Supreme's - the group who stepped forward to defend Proposition 8 when the State government would not did not have standing to do that.
How does answering that question mean that the Supreme's have given gays the right to marry?
You have a fine eye for detail.
We tend to read between the lines and ignore the text.
I see it as by striking down the DOMA provision against paying civil union /marriage benefits to same sex couples, they gave standing to California's taxpayers who are materially affected by such a decision.
A schizophrenic decision to be sure.
A more Salomon-like ruling would be to grant standing to the citizens who voted 8 but removing the discriminating aspect of contract rights of benefits etc. and making official language read 'civil union' instead of 'marriage'.
DOMA supporters get their word, others have equal rights.
I find the very pliable concept of who has 'standing' to bring a civil action needs to be re-examined in this case.
understanding why the State is invested in the business of "marriage" helps to explain the situation being argued.
I see it as by striking down the DOMA provision against paying civil union /marriage benefits to same sex couples, they gave standing to California's taxpayers who are materially affected by such a decision.
You may well be right. And I'm sure this logic will be tested in the courts somewhere, sometime. But the DOMA decision was not in force when the original California action was taken, so the Supremes could not take your logic into account in that particular case. That logic will have to be applied to cases filed after the DOMA decision.
This whole issue/topic is stupid.
Marriage is fucking pointless anyway, the state doesn't marry you, you do.
Marriage used to be:
An act of commitment a man does to a woman in order to release oxitocin in the womans brain in sufficient quantitiets to develope an addiction in the female for a specific man.
Now
Its some legal status to allow people to visit eachother in a hospital.
Completely stupid transition in society if you ask me.
Let the gays have their legal status.
Real Married couples don't need a state sanctioned marriage .... only a church can marry people.... all other forms of marriage are ficticious.
Marriage creates both rights and responsibilities - of the spouses to each other, and of both spouses to any children - that do not exist outside of the marriage ... contract. The church can neither create nor enforce these rights and responsibilities, nor can it create the contract that brings these rights and responsibilities into being. That task falls to the State.
Marriages may be made in heaven, but child support is enforced here, now, by the State. For good reason. That has never been, and is not now, a job for the church.
If the government, media and academia hadn't destroyed marriage like they did, the need for state-enforced "child support" would be questionable at best.
Humanity somehow made it through how many thousands of years without state-enforced child support. That's what happens when you don't have alien Kosher influences undermining a society's traditional and organic institutions.
Humanity somehow made it through how many thousands of years ...
All of those kids throughout history who died, or lived lives of impoverishment, because one or more of their parents abandoned them did not make it. No need to read Charles Dickens for evidence of this in England in the past. Simply go to the many orphanages in Romania or Russia or China that exist right now to see expamples of it.
historically, "marriage used to be" more like a business contract between families of wealth, perpetuating the "family business name" - the man got his heirs, the woman got her house-hold. these agreements were most often facilitated by the parents, and young people were "promised" each other irrespective of choice.
romantic love is a relatively recent historical notion, and the nuclear family even more recent. the boomer generation's story came about in amrka as a result of women required to leave the workforce in favour of returning WW2 soldiers, and they were used as a stabilising factor to re-create society after the war.
single family houses were raised up, couples were planted, children were grown, men got most of the jobs to support the wives & family, women got kitchens & fab gadgets, each house-hold was encouraged to buy identical consumer goods - cars, lawn mowers, televisions, washing machines, etc. - voila! growth!!
that's not the current story though, and folks might want to upgrade their operating systems. . .
I don't think the govt thought about this too much.
So, now, a man can marry his son, to ensure that his wealth is fully transferred to his progeny with no taxati...oops, here it comes...
Hey what about that whole 'government spying on the people' thing?
What next - updating Adam & Eve to Adam & Steve ?
Could become Adam and Eve and Suzie and Betty Ann and Samantha and.....
Legalized polygamy right around the corner.
Legalized polygamy right around the corner.
It won't happen. If the writing in the manosphere is correct, women would rather share an alpha male than have a beta male of their own. That is, women would be fine with polygamy. And with laws allowing polygamy, a few alpha males would end up marrying most of the women. There would be a large contingent of beta males with no wives. They could rightly sue and claim that laws allowing polygamy damaged them - because it left them without a wife. Because these beta males could prove damages - they had no one to marry them - they would have standing to sue. And because there are more beta males than alphas, the politicians would listen to their voice - because the betas would be a legitimate voting bloc.
Now we have a great excuse to axe the estate tax now that commie fags get a pass, they'll never pay a dime in estate taxes.
Dunno,
Being of a simple mind, I ask myself: Does a law favor or disadvantage one group over another assuming that neither are engaged in criminal conduct?
If the answer is yes, then it is bad law. Period.
The second, more important question to be asked is: Why is it necessary to legislate any law at all (other than existing law as to fraud, coercion etc.) pertaining to a contract between consenting adults?
If it fails the equality under the law test, it is bad legislation at any level.
I see a deficit of reason with those who would claim a moral high ground while dismissing the the very essential morality of freedom of choice to all.
We don't have to like it, but then again, we ain't so special either.
If I'm not mistaken, this seems to be the very point of the concept of egalitarian self governance.
Such as it is....
The lunatic academics are already proposing the benefits of polygamy - well that didn't take long.
Muslims will love this. Women's rights groups - well that could be a different story.
If you can change the gender, you can change the number in a marriage - or so goes the argument.
Regardless, get the Orville Redenbacher folks - it's shit show time!!!!
It all hinges on what people, through their elected or appointed judges rule to be acceptable or criminal behavior.
If it's legal then the law has to be applied equally.
The only alternative is to make a living arrangement of an undesirable type illegal.
I don't camp on Brokeback Mtn. but if I did I wouldn't want you tearing down my tent and hauling me away because my private choices offend your sensibilities.
Your rights end at the campsite.
I love how Time Magazine put a photo of two men kissing on its cover with the caption "GAY MARRIAGE HAS ALREADY WON: THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN"; meanwhile the main reason that "gay marriage" was in the Supreme Court to begin with was because it kept losing state referendums (the most democratic process on earth).
But yeah, there's no conspiracy or anything. Hilarious!
Considering the small percentage of the population made up of sodomites, the media never fails to shove it in our faces with every opportunity.
an important post ZH. there are more important things than money. nevertheless, this adds value to the investment decision making process. it also gives additional insight into legal matters, that i am glad to know about thanks to ZH. keep doing what you do.
every challenge presents opportunity. the opportunity i see. to train up my children about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, or Emma and Eve. will i be uncomfortable watching two men or two women kiss each other in public, absolutely! yet their actions cannot determine my self worth.
this is the essence of freedom, liberty. free will, and with freedom there carries responsibility, and consequences.
nevertheless, all i can do is continue to be humble, and seek Christ's will, not mine. that i listen and follow what i believe is the way, the truth, and the life.
i must hate the sin, but love the sinner, which is not easy. yet in my weakness is His strength.
It's not our job to judge; just to convey Christ's words. And his message was clear: hate the flesh and aspire to the spirit.
The raising of homosexual fornication (worship of the flesh) to marital procreation is 100% satanic, and those who are pushing the larger agenda behind the scenes are actually literally communing with satan. "By their woks you shall know them."
You mean it is all a Chinese plot that they have cooked up to destroy America?
"By their woks you shall know them."
trynna cat - I don't know what Bible you are reading, but mine says that Jesus Himself told us to "judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).
He warns against judging by appearance, but commands us to judge according to His standard of righteousness.
Merely "convey(ing) Christ's words" is the great cop-out of modern, liberal-minded Christianity.
You are right, I guess what I meant was that we have no authority to determine their eternal fate. We can and should, however, warn them of it.
Marriage consultants and divorce attorneys jumping for joy. MOAR work!
First women, then blacks, then criminals, then "undocumented immigrants," then homosexuals. All aimed at crushing white Christian civilization and empowering the alien usurers behind the throne in their drive toward one world government based out of Jerusalem.
If you 'More libertarian than thou' idiots think it's going to stop with "gay marriage," you're dreaming.
oh noes!!! who will save the white Christians MALES???
lumping everyone not of that category
is narrow-minded bigotry.
your privileges are past their sell-by date, there are other humans in the world, believe it, or not.
Wanting to live among ourselves and be left alone = white male "privilege" in the eyes of nonwhites and their kosher handlers.
"They hate us yet they insist on living with us."
Anyone with eyes can see the reality. Libertarianism is unable to preserve the culture.