DOMA is a miserable excuse of a law.
As I've said before, if marriage is a religious act then the government shouldn't be interfering in it one way or the other, recognizing or not recognizing. If, however, it is a legal status, and if we are not basing that status on religious affiliation (and we are not, because atheists can marry, Catholics can divorce and remarry, and the state doesn't look to a religious body when issuing either form of license except by indulging the fancies of the religious by having the marriage license take effect when officiated, and that only in some states), then there is no rational basis whatsoever for "defending" it against gay marriage.
As I've said before, if marriage is a religious act then the government shouldn't be interfering in it one way or the other, recognizing or not recognizing. If, however, it is a legal status, and if we are not basing that status on religious affiliation (and we are not, because atheists can marry, Catholics can divorce and remarry, and the state doesn't look to a religious body when issuing either form of license except by indulging the fancies of the religious by having the marriage license take effect when officiated, and that only in some states), then there is no rational basis whatsoever for "defending" it against gay marriage.
Political correctness is the pettiest form of casuistry.
ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius
Ummaka qinnassa nīk!
*MySmiley*
ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius
Ummaka qinnassa nīk!
*MySmiley*
This message last edited by Tom on 19/10/2012 at 02:52:15 PM
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM
1141 Views
Completely unsurprising since the Justice department refuses to defend the law.
- 18/10/2012 09:05:16 PM
704 Views
For a moment there I thought you were saying the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 09:10:16 PM
754 Views
Do you know if there's a case about DOMA and the "full faith and credit" clause?
- 18/10/2012 10:05:11 PM
822 Views
I don't know offhand, but my gchat friend will. If she pops on again, I'll ask her. But...
- 18/10/2012 10:37:09 PM
849 Views
I asked her about pending cases taking on Section 2. "None that I know of," she answered. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 12:46:21 AM
319 Views
I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM
787 Views
Re: I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 01:18:22 AM
793 Views
Either a ban discriminates against those affected more than those unaffected, or it does not.
- 19/10/2012 03:48:32 PM
686 Views
Gun control laws can equally affect everyone, though, is my point.
- 20/10/2012 10:52:41 PM
753 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it.
- 19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM
850 Views
I just have to note in passing that Ted Olsons memoires will make fascinating reading.
- 19/10/2012 04:44:15 PM
849 Views
Also, hooray! Let's hope SCOTUS adheres (if you use that term over there). *NM*
- 18/10/2012 10:59:14 PM
351 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause
- 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM
911 Views
Not really
- 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM
816 Views
Then by the "legal argument" you all propose I should have the "right" to marry a spoon...
- 19/10/2012 05:48:32 PM
742 Views
if your spoon or dog is capable of making power of attorney decisions then by all means do so *NM*
- 19/10/2012 06:41:43 PM
337 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM
338 Views
provide for us a legal reason why marrying a corporation should be recognized by the US gov't
- 19/10/2012 08:09:08 PM
812 Views
The argument above was that there was no jsutification it should not, thus it should be allowed.
- 19/10/2012 10:57:16 PM
825 Views
you are only offering your own emotional take on a legal decision there is no logic in your posts
- 19/10/2012 11:12:17 PM
729 Views
Wrong. I do not have an emotional stake in this, I am simply using logic. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 03:59:08 PM
351 Views
saying you should be able to marry a spoon or corporation is not logical reasoning. try again *NM*
- 22/10/2012 06:19:29 PM
348 Views
EXACTLY, and that was the point I was making. Congratualtions for figuring that out. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:34:46 PM
327 Views
you are obviously using some humpty dumpty definition of "logic" then *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:40:12 PM
333 Views
No, you apparently failed reading comprehension in school.
- 23/10/2012 03:08:44 PM
738 Views
#1: fuck you. #2: you are still not using logic
- 23/10/2012 05:50:14 PM
719 Views
Ah yes, the fuck you argument... the height of all intelectual persuits... and you call ME emotional
- 23/10/2012 06:47:21 PM
786 Views
i see -- it's ok to be insulting as long as the "f-bomb" is not used. got it.
- 23/10/2012 10:27:54 PM
852 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM
341 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white?
- 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM
708 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully
- 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM
670 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument.
- 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM
695 Views
No, I am not, try reading everything I have written on the subject before jumping to conclusions.
- 22/10/2012 11:41:05 PM
832 Views
It was only a matter of time.
- 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM
747 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion.
- 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM
910 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb.
- 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM
819 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself
- 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM
794 Views
There is no right being denied...
- 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM
748 Views
that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
- 19/10/2012 08:06:54 PM
843 Views
Re: that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
- 19/10/2012 11:11:55 PM
881 Views
nobody is arguing the legal right to marry, they are arguing about the legal rights marriage gives
- 19/10/2012 11:37:14 PM
747 Views
There are no "marriage rights" NONE, zip, ziltch, nada...
- 22/10/2012 04:18:15 PM
740 Views
why bother settling custody in a divorce then if there are no "marriage rights"?
- 22/10/2012 06:38:14 PM
662 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument:
- 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM
772 Views