PDA

View Full Version : Someone please explain Ron's DOMA position...




Brooklyn Red Leg
03-09-2011, 01:12 AM
Okay,

I'm getting attacked from both ends on another board concerning Ron's statements on DOMA. Never mind that the assjackals doing this think nothing of the fact Obama has made Indefinite Detention national policy or any other serious issue. Nope, they're attacking Ron because of his position on DOMA (nope, and bringing up that he voted to repeal DADT doesn't do squat with them). So, can someone explain, concisely, Ron's position and how exactly it is in-line with the US Constitution?

FrankRep
03-09-2011, 01:15 AM
Congressman Ron Paul says he supports the Defense of Marriage Act (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/07/congressman-ron-paul-says-he-supports-defense-of-marriage-act/)

Speaking to a group of religious conservatives in Iowa, Republican Congressman Ron Paul (TX) said he supports the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because the controversial legislation protects states' rights.



Ron Paul on DOMA.


In 2004, Ron Paul spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act), passed in 1996. This act allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize legal marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction. The Defense of Marriage Act also prohibits the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage. Paul co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Protection_Act), which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.



Ron Paul Slams Changes to DOMA:

Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized
http://web.archive.org/web/20070207225148/http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr093004.htm

The Federal Marriage Amendment Is a Very Bad Idea
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html



Protecting Marriage From Judicial Tyranny (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html)


Rep. Ron Paul
July 22, 2004


Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act (HR 3313 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R.3313:)), I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. HR 3313 ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state. The Marriage Protection Act thus ensures that the authority to regulate marriage remains with individual states and communities, as the drafters of the Constitution intended.

The practice of judicial activism — legislating from the bench — is now standard procedure for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the law they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than on upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by judges they did not elect and cannot remove from office.

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court last June. The Court determined that Texas has no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because these laws violated the court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Regardless of the advisability of such laws, the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to overturn these laws. Under the Tenth Amendment, the state of Texas has the authority to pass laws concerning social matters, using its own local standards, without federal interference. But rather than adhering to the Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a state matter, the Court decided to stretch the “right to privacy” to justify imposing the justices' vision on the people of Texas.

Since the Lawrence decision, many Americans have expressed their concern that the Court may next “discover” that state laws defining marriage violate the Court's wrongheaded interpretation of the Constitution. After all, some judges simply may view this result as taking the Lawrence decision to its logical conclusion.

One way federal courts may impose a redefinition of marriage on the states is by interpreting the full faith and credit clause to require all states, even those which do not grant legal standing to same-sex marriages, to treat as valid same-sex marriage licenses from the few states which give legal status to such unions. This would have the practical effect of nullifying state laws defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, thus allowing a few states and a handful of federal judges to create marriage policy for the entire nation.

In 1996 Congress exercised its authority under the full faith and credit clause of Article IV of the Constitution by passing the Defense of Marriage Act. This ensured each state could set its own policy regarding marriage and not be forced to adopt the marriage policies of another state. Since the full faith and credit clause grants Congress the clear authority to “prescribe the effects” that state documents such as marriage licenses have on other states, the Defense of Marriage Act is unquestionably constitutional. However, the lack of respect federal judges show for the plain language of the Constitution necessitates congressional action so that state officials are not forced to recognize another states' same-sex marriage licenses because of a flawed judicial interpretation. The drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to limit federal jurisdiction to provide a check on out-of-control federal judges. It is long past time we begin using our legitimate authority to protect the states and the people from judicial tyranny.

Since the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote in both houses of Congress (and the president's signature) to become law, it is a more practical way to deal with this issue than the time-consuming process of passing a constitutional amendment. In fact, since the Defense of Marriage Act overwhelmingly passed both houses, and the president supports protecting state marriage laws from judicial tyranny, there is no reason why the Marriage Protection Act cannot become law this year.

Some may argue that allowing federal judges to rewrite the definition of marriage can result in a victory for individual liberty. This claim is flawed. The best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states. Allowing federal judges unfettered discretion to strike down state laws, or force a state to conform to the laws of another state, leads to centralization and loss of liberty.

While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church — not the day they received their marriage license from the state. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.

Mr. Speaker, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to stop rogue federal judges from using a flawed interpretation of the Constitution to rewrite the laws and traditions governing marriage. I urge my colleagues to stand against destructive judicial activism and for marriage by voting for the Marriage Protection Act.

Americans don't need new federal programs, and they certainly don't need more federal control over their schools. They don't need a disastrous government-run medical system. What Americans do need is a federal government that provides national defense, secures our borders, and does very little else. Needless to say you won't hear the parties suggesting such a platform anytime soon.


SOURCE:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html

low preference guy
03-09-2011, 01:16 AM
DOMA has many parts:

1. States can't be forced to recognize another state's definition of marriage
2. Married couples receive federal benefits for being married. That is according to the Federal Government definition of marriage. If you fit your state's definition of marriage but not the Federal Government's, you don't receive the benefits. That part was recently stroke down by a Judge in MA.

I'm not sure if there are other parts, check out the wikipedia page. In any case, ask detractors which part they have a problem with. When Ron Paul is asked about it, he usually defends the first point, and doesn't even mention the second one.

realtonygoodwin
03-09-2011, 01:17 AM
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/03/07/Ron_Paul_Supports_DOMA/

Paul said of DOMA, “I see that as an act that was prohibiting the move to nationalize [same-sex marriage] and force Iowa to accept the rules of Massachusetts or whatever,” The Des Moines Registerreports. DOMA, which President Obama and the Justice Department said they will no longer defend in court, allows states to deny recognition to same-sex marriages performed in other states, and also prevents federal recognition of such unions.



Basically, the states get to decide if they want to redefine marriage. If the Federal Government redefines marriage, it imposes that upon the states.

Also see: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

erowe1
03-09-2011, 07:32 AM
Okay,

I'm getting attacked from both ends on another board concerning Ron's statements on DOMA. Never mind that the assjackals doing this think nothing of the fact Obama has made Indefinite Detention national policy or any other serious issue. Nope, they're attacking Ron because of his position on DOMA (nope, and bringing up that he voted to repeal DADT doesn't do squat with them). So, can someone explain, concisely, Ron's position and how exactly it is in-line with the US Constitution?

What part of DOMA do they think is unconstitutional?

therepublic
03-09-2011, 07:44 AM
What part of DOMA do they think is unconstitutional?

Licensing marriage is not one of the enumerated powers granted to the Constitution.

It was originally a matter for the churches only, and States all honored and recognized that union. But after the civil war, there were those who wanted to prevent black and white marriages, so they decided the government should issue marriage licenses.

erowe1
03-09-2011, 07:48 AM
Licensing marriage is not one of the enumerated powers granted to the Constitution.

It was originally a matter for the churches only, and States all honored and recognized that union. But after the civil war, there were those who wanted to prevent black and white marriages, so they decided the government should issue marriage licenses.

DOMA doesn't grant the power to license marriage to the federal government.

FrankRep
03-09-2011, 07:48 AM
Licensing marriage is not one of the enumerated powers granted to the Constitution


The Federal Government doesn't have the Authority to Redefine Marriage either.

Ron Paul: DOMA protects states' rights (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/07/congressman-ron-paul-says-he-supports-defense-of-marriage-act/)

TonySutton
03-09-2011, 07:49 AM
I think it is ironic people believe DOMA bolsters states rights. How can any federal law be for state's rights, it makes no sense. If the states have the right to begin with how can the federal government give them what they already have. I have always believed the exact opposite, DOMA erodes state's rights because it implies the federal government could take the right away. DOMA set the stage for a SC show down which will end up slapping the states in the face! Mark my words.

FrankRep
03-09-2011, 07:54 AM
I think it is ironic people believe DOMA bolsters states rights. How can any federal law be for state's rights, it makes no sense.

Have you read what Ron Paul said about DOMA (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/07/congressman-ron-paul-says-he-supports-defense-of-marriage-act/)?


Congressman Ron Paul says he supports the Defense of Marriage Act
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/07/congressman-ron-paul-says-he-supports-defense-of-marriage-act/

erowe1
03-09-2011, 07:57 AM
I think it is ironic people believe DOMA bolsters states rights. How can any federal law be for state's rights, it makes no sense. If the states have the right to begin with how can the federal government give them what they already have. I have always believed the exact opposite, DOMA erodes state's rights because it implies the federal government could take the right away. DOMA set the stage for a SC show down which will end up slapping the states in the face! Mark my words.

Most federal laws decrease states rights. But obviously not all do.
The We the People Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.539:), for example, explicitly removes power over states from the federal government.

DOMA doesn't take any rights away. It merely prevents the federal government from being able to impose on some state a marriage law they don't want, and from redefining marriage in existing federal laws to include gay couples.

A SC showdown that slaps down the states might still happen. But without DOMA it definitely would have happened. DOMA may not guarantee that it won't, but it at least made it less likely.

TonySutton
03-09-2011, 08:18 AM
Have you read what Ron Paul said about DOMA (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/07/congressman-ron-paul-says-he-supports-defense-of-marriage-act/)?


Congressman Ron Paul says he supports the Defense of Marriage Act
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/07/congressman-ron-paul-says-he-supports-defense-of-marriage-act/

Yes I have read it. Do you have a point?

therepublic
03-09-2011, 08:21 AM
DOMA doesn't grant the power to license marriage to the federal government.

Yes? That is my point. If no crime is committed it is non of the Federal Government's (or State government for that matter) business. Where is a crime when legal connecting adults (gay, black or whith) marry?

erowe1
03-09-2011, 08:25 AM
Yes? That is my point. If no crime is committed it is non of the Federal Government's business.

It sounds like you're saying that no federal law that touches on some topic not enumerated in the Constitution can be constitutional, not even if the way it touches on that topic is by explicitly restricting the power of the federal government to do unconstitutional things that it's already doing with respect to that topic.

Is that right?

TonySutton
03-09-2011, 08:33 AM
Most federal laws decrease states rights. But obviously not all do.
The We the People Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.539:), for example, explicitly removes power over states from the federal government.

DOMA doesn't take any rights away. It merely prevents the federal government from being able to impose on some state a marriage law they don't want, and from redefining marriage in existing federal laws to include gay couples.

A SC showdown that slaps down the states might still happen. But without DOMA it definitely would have happened. DOMA may not guarantee that it won't, but it at least made it less likely.

DOMA does take rights away. It redefines a valid same-sex marriage in a state by not allowing federal laws to include them. This has specifically been challenged in federal court and lost. At some point the SC will have to address it.

I do not see where DOMA changed anything, it simply set the stage for the SC challenge. In it's face it sets bad precedence as I have stated previously.

The fight never should have been about DOMA (1996) or defining marriage (2004). The fight should be getting government out of marriage and as many other parts of our lives as possible. Republicans continued desire to use government force to enforce a religious code is destroying the party and our ability to enact meaningful change in the government. We need to start showing people that government is the problem not the solution.

erowe1
03-09-2011, 08:37 AM
DOMA does take rights away. It redefines a valid same-sex marriage in a state by not allowing federal laws to include them.
And what right does that take away?


This has specifically been challenged in federal court and lost.
I don't consider the opinion of federal judges a very good test for whether or not something comports with the Constitution, and even less of a good test for whether or not something comports with natural law.



The fight never should have been about DOMA (1996) or defining marriage (2004). The fight should be getting government out of marriage and as many other parts of our lives as possible. Republicans continued desire to use government force to enforce a religious code is destroying the party and our ability to enact meaningful change in the government. We need to start showing people that government is the problem not the solution.
I agree with the last part. But I don't see it as an either/or. I think we should both work to reduce government involvement in marriage to the point of elimination and actively oppose laws that would expand government involvement in marriage (which would include laws redefining marriage to include gay couples). DOMA does the latter.

therepublic
03-09-2011, 09:01 AM
It sounds like you're saying that no federal law that touches on some topic not enumerated in the Constitution can be constitutional, not even if the way it touches on that topic is by explicitly restricting the power of the federal government to do unconstitutional things that it's already doing with respect to that topic.

Is that right?

No. I am asking you....Where has a crime been committed when two consenting adults marry (black, white or gay)? And where is it any of the government's business (State or Federal)?

Originally Churches began performing marriages because there was a serious problem with men abandoning their families. The Churches decided that if it was recognized as a sacred union recognized by God, it would be taken more seriously (and it was).

So, unless you are against gay marriages, or blacks and white marriages, there is no need for government to be regulating marriage ( as long as it is connecting adults). As usual government has only complicated a once simple matter.

FrankRep
03-09-2011, 09:08 AM
No. I am asking you....Where has a crime been committed when two consenting adults marry (black, white or gay)? And where is it any of the government's business (State or Federal)?

The Federal Government doesn't have the authority to RE-Define marriage.

erowe1
03-09-2011, 09:10 AM
No. I am asking you....Where has a crime been committed when two consenting adults marry (black, white or gay)? And where is it any of the government's business (State or Federal)?

For the record, you put that question in your post after I submitted my reply.

But since you ask, I guess I don't understand what that has to do with DOMA. DOMA doesn't criminalize anything related to gay marriage, and neither do any of the state laws that it relates to.

Brett85
03-09-2011, 09:15 AM
...

Brett85
03-09-2011, 09:16 AM
No. I am asking you....Where has a crime been committed when two consenting adults marry (black, white or gay)? And where is it any of the government's business (State or Federal)?

Gay marriage isn't criminalized now. It's amazing the way people distort this issue. Gays already have the right to marry. They can have their own private marriage ceremony at a church or wherever else, and they won't get thrown in jail for it. It's simply that the government won't recognize their marriage and give them all kinds of extra benefits. I don't know why libertarians would want the government to expand itself into marriage further than it is already.

FrankRep
03-09-2011, 09:19 AM
Yes? That is my point. If no crime is committed it is non of the Federal Government's (or State government for that matter) business. Where is a crime when legal connecting adults (gay, black or whith) marry?

You may want to take a moment to review DOMA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act) and find out why Ron Paul supports it (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/07/congressman-ron-paul-says-he-supports-defense-of-marriage-act/). Just sayin'

AlexMerced
03-09-2011, 09:31 AM
Ron Paul on DOMA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-z9po06D58

erowe1
03-09-2011, 09:31 AM
So, unless you are against gay marriages, or blacks and white marriages, there is no need for government to be regulating marriage ( as long as it is connecting adults). As usual government has only complicated a once simple matter.

That's correct. I'm against government regulation of marriage. I want to get the government at all levels out of marriage completely, and I oppose any attempts to get the government more deeply involved in marriage. That's why I support DOMA. Why don't you?

ChaosControl
03-09-2011, 09:42 AM
I don't get people's obsession with the issue. When did *** people become some sacred cow of the left that is like their absolute number one priority and for what reason?
I know they have some irrational hatred of all things traditional and so don't give a damn about marriage, but it still seems weird just how obsessive they are on this issue.

therepublic
03-09-2011, 09:52 AM
For the record, you put that question in your post after I submitted my reply.

But since you ask, I guess I don't understand what that has to do with DOMA. DOMA doesn't criminalize anything related to gay marriage, and neither do any of the state laws that it relates to.

The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws, and provides that states need not recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex.

DOMA basically opposes gay marriage. If one does not consider gay marriage a crime, than DOMA is regulating morality. No where does the Constitution allow the Federal Government to regulate Morality. If we allow the Federal government to do that, and we get a president like Huckabee who has said that the government should control moral issues for those who cannot control themselves... you can see the Pandora's box we open.
http://www.domawatch.org/index.php

erowe1
03-09-2011, 09:58 AM
DOMA basically opposes gay marriage. If one does not consider gay marriage a crime, than DOMA is regulating morality.

I don't understand the logic here. The government already has tons of laws that refer to marriage. Granted they're unconstitutional, but they're already there. That word has to have some definition. DOMA restricts it to actual heterosexual marriage. By doing that, it prevents those already bad laws from becoming even worse by expanding federal involvement in marriage out to gay couples in addition to those it already treats as married. If this is regulating morality, then would it also be regulating morality if they chose a different definition of "marriage" that includes gay couples?

therepublic
03-09-2011, 10:10 AM
Ron Paul said this:
Paul, a 75-year-old libertarian-leaning Republican, was asked if he agreed with the 2009 Iowa supreme court ruling for marriage equality, then responded that he hadn’t read that “report” but supported each state’s right to legislate on marriage. An aide intervened, and Paul said marriage is “a personal, spiritual matter,” that people shouldn’t need a license to get married, and that it becomes a state concern only when one state tries to impose its views on another.

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/03/07/Ron_Paul_Supports_DOMA/

I think I see what you are saying: Under DOMA Ron Paul likes the fact that one State can not be forced to recognize what another State does recognize...States rights. So I guess that it is not ok for the Federal government to regulate moral issues, but it is for the State Governments to do so?

scottditzen
03-09-2011, 10:10 AM
I don't get people's obsession with the issue. When did *** people become some sacred cow of the left that is like their absolute number one priority and for what reason?
I know they have some irrational hatred of all things traditional and so don't give a damn about marriage, but it still seems weird just how obsessive they are on this issue.

Chaos they simply want the same rights that heterosexual couples have.

If you disagree with that, that's your prerogative.

Surely though you can see why they would want their relationships equally recognized under the law.

erowe1
03-09-2011, 10:13 AM
Chaos they simply want the same rights that heterosexual couples have.
They do have the same rights. A piece of paper from the government isn't a right.



Surely though you can see why they would want their relationships equally recognized under the law.
Sure. Kind of like how I can see why a bank would want a bailout. But I can't see how that has anything to do with their rights.

scottditzen
03-09-2011, 10:25 AM
They do have the same rights. A piece of paper from the government isn't a right.


Sure. Kind of like how I can see why a bank would want a bailout. But I can't see how that has anything to do with their rights.

I'll call them same "benefits" then.

My response was to Chaos, who said he didn't "get" their obsession with the issue.

erowe1
03-09-2011, 10:27 AM
I'll call them same "benefits" then.

My response was to Chaos, who said he didn't "get" their obsession with the issue.

Gotcha.

therepublic
03-09-2011, 10:37 AM
Being a woman married to the same man for 44 years, I did not understand the issue either until I got to know some gay couples.

In a traditional marriage like mine and my husbands, I would receive his veteran benefits if something happened. A gay couple is not afforded that same benefit.

My gay couple friends also explained to me that there were some medical decisions involved as well, but I cannot remember what the details were. So it is far more than just silly recognition involved.

erowe1
03-09-2011, 10:47 AM
In a traditional marriage like mine and my husbands, I would receive his veteran benefits if something happened. A gay couple is not afforded that same benefit.

But as someone who thinks that the federal government should have no laws that deal with marriage, I assume that means that you think those marriage benefits shouldn't exist at all. Right?

therepublic
03-09-2011, 10:56 AM
But as someone who thinks that the federal government should have no laws that deal with marriage, I assume that means that you think those marriage benefits shouldn't exist at all. Right?

No. marriage is “a personal, spiritual matter,” that people shouldn’t need a license to get married. But I also think it is unjust that law abiding gay couples are penalized for being nothing more than a gay couple. If I can receive veteran benefits from my husband, so should a gay couple. They should also have the right to visit a terminally ill partner in the hospital, and make decisions on their behalf.

erowe1
03-09-2011, 10:57 AM
No. marriage is “a personal, spiritual matter,” that people shouldn’t need a license to get married. But I also think it is unjust that law abiding gay couples are penalized for being nothing more than a gay couple.

But they're not being penalized. They're just not getting a benefit that you think shouldn't exist to begin with.

And nobody does need a license. Couples get married all the time without getting licenses, including gay couples. And they do all the things that they think marriage entails (as long as they don't think it entails getting something from the state). They do this in all 50 states, and they don't get punished for it in any of them.

FrankRep
03-09-2011, 10:59 AM
No. marriage is “a personal, spiritual matter,” that people shouldn’t need a license to get married. But I also think it is unjust that law abiding gay couples are penalized for being nothing more than a gay couple. If I can receive veteran benefits from my husband, so should a gay couple. They should also have the right to visit a terminally ill partner in the hospital, and make decisions on their behalf.

Read DOMA first, then reply.

AlexMerced
03-09-2011, 11:01 AM
But as someone who thinks that the federal government should have no laws that deal with marriage, I assume that means that you think those marriage benefits shouldn't exist at all. Right?

Perfect World:

Government would not be involved in defining contracts, and who can participate in those contracts. Contracts and their implications would be developed by jurisprodence of a private law systems.

Our World:

A contract is defined by Federal Government, and does create REAL resource disadvantages by only allowing certain people to get the benefits that come along with this contract which violates the constitution on the grounds of uniformity of taxation and laws (which is violated in several ways).

Solution: the goal should be to eliminate the income tax, and reform how immigration is handled which are two of the main issues regarding federal recognition of gay marriage. If they tackled and finished those two things, then the federal part of this issue becomes pointless.

Basically, states sure can choose to recognize a marriage or not, but it doesn't change the federal tax and immigration benefits that federal marriage recognition gives and it DOES MATTER.


Ideally, I want government out of marriage, but it doesn't mean I should support Legal Inequality on the way there. Ideally, they'd just rename a federal marriage into a civil union for heterosexuals and homosexuals and let the states duke it out over the word "Marriage".

Brett85
03-09-2011, 11:02 AM
No. marriage is “a personal, spiritual matter,” that people shouldn’t need a license to get married. But I also think it is unjust that law abiding gay couples are penalized for being nothing more than a gay couple. If I can receive veteran benefits from my husband, so should a gay couple. They should also have the right to visit a terminally ill partner in the hospital, and make decisions on their behalf.

Then you should be opposed to denying benefits to polygamists and Nambla types. After all, we can't discriminate against any type of union.

TonySutton
03-09-2011, 11:06 AM
Read DOMA first, then reply.

Why don't you make a point.

therepublic
03-09-2011, 11:10 AM
Perfect World:

Government would not be involved in defining contracts, and who can participate in those contracts. Contracts and their implications would be developed by jurisprodence of a private law systems.

Our World:

A contract is defined by Federal Government, and does create REAL resource disadvantages by only allowing certain people to get the benefits that come along with this contract which violates the constitution on the grounds of uniformity of taxation and laws (which is violated in several ways).

Solution: the goal should be to eliminate the income tax, and reform how immigration is handled which are two of the main issues regarding federal recognition of gay marriage. If they tackled and finished those two things, then the federal part of this issue becomes pointless.

Basically, states sure can choose to recognize a marriage or not, but it doesn't change the federal tax and immigration benefits that federal marriage recognition gives and it DOES MATTER.


Ideally, I want government out of marriage, but it doesn't mean I should support Legal Inequality on the way there. Ideally, they'd just rename a federal marriage into a civil union for heterosexuals and homosexuals and let the states duke it out over the word "Marriage".

ditto

erowe1
03-09-2011, 11:15 AM
Ideally, I want government out of marriage, but it doesn't mean I should support Legal Inequality on the way there. Ideally, they'd just rename a federal marriage into a civil union for heterosexuals and homosexuals and let the states duke it out over the word "Marriage".

But legal inequality is inherent to government marriage, no matter how it's defined. I share your goal of getting the government out of marriage. I just don't see any middle position where government marriage can exist, and the inequality it entails can not exist. With government marriage, there will always be one group (the married) that will be treated differently than another group (the unmarried). If they redefine marriage to include gay couples, or come up with some equivalent concept and just call it by a different name, all that does is change the boundaries between the two groups without making them any more equal.

But equality is not really my goal anyway. I want more freedom and less government. It seems to me that expanding the definition of government marriage in order to make more people the recipients of government benefits would take us in the opposite direction of where I want to go.

realtonygoodwin
03-09-2011, 11:16 AM
If a state wants to redefine marriage, that is their choice. But to for the Federal government to force other states to recognize it as such is wrong. All DOMA is doing is protecting states that don't want to redefine marriage.

realtonygoodwin
03-09-2011, 11:17 AM
Also, a gay person has the same exact rights a straight person has.

Brett85
03-09-2011, 11:23 AM
Also, a gay person has the same exact rights a straight person has.

+Rep. If people want to know what "discrimination" of gays is really all about, they should visit one of these third world countries where gays are actually executed. Being gay is already a civil right in this country.

NYgs23
03-09-2011, 11:23 AM
Never mind that the assjackals doing this think nothing of the fact Obama has made Indefinite Detention national policy or any other serious issue. Nope, they're attacking Ron because of his position on DOMA (nope, and bringing up that he voted to repeal DADT doesn't do squat with them).

They have this double standard because they already love Obama and hate Ron Paul. Thus, anything Obama does they might disagree is brushed off as irrelevant, whereas anything Ron Paul does they disagree with is portrayed as a "make or break" issue. But it's just an excuse to justify their preexisting bias. I don't think there's anything you can do but point out their double standard.

AlexMerced
03-09-2011, 11:26 AM
But legal inequality is inherent to government marriage, no matter how it's defined. I share your goal of getting the government out of marriage. I just don't see any middle position where government marriage can exist, and the inequality it entails can not exist. With government marriage, there will always be one group (the married) that will be treated differently than another group (the unmarried). If they redefine marriage to include gay couples, or come up with some equivalent concept and just call it by a different name, all that does is change the boundaries between the two groups without making them any more equal.


But equality is not really my goal anyway. I want more freedom and less government. It seems to me that expanding the definition of government marriage in order to make more people the recipients of government benefits would take us in the opposite direction of where I want to go.

I agree, The only position that's truly legal equality (meaning laws don't discriminate for good or for bad), is no marriage contract defined by law, but I'm saying:

- The battle is over the word "marriage" in that case make all federal contracts called "civil unions" whether straight or gay so it's uniform

- then the debate can move to whether the government should be granting special privelages to people who enter certain contracts, and we can have a more civil debate that isn't marred by religious semantics cause of a word.

Words matter, and this issue it overly complicated as long as the word "marriage" is part of the issue regarding the federal contract. Each state can define it's own contracts and benefits to those contracts and have that debate seperately, which in part DOMA does allow the state to make their own definition and then still the defines the federal definition meaning gay couples have no access to the tax/immigration benefits which is the main issue.

- The part of DOMA that allows state to define marriage is somewhat constititional

- The Part of DOMA that saids the federal government saids marriage is one man/one woman is unconstitional, the government shouldn't be in the business of defining words... they'll put Websters out of business. (This does matter, cause the federal definition has tax and immigration implications)


Like most controversial bills, it's partly constitutional and partly unconstitutional making it possible to make the constitutional argument on either side. I respect Ron Pauls position, but this is the first and hoefully only time we're on opposite sides, although His position is constitutionally based unlike huckabee who makes it completley personal.

ChaosControl
03-09-2011, 11:29 AM
Chaos they simply want the same rights that heterosexual couples have.

If you disagree with that, that's your prerogative.

Surely though you can see why they would want their relationships equally recognized under the law.

I understand someone supporting X or Y on this issue, that isn't what I don't get. What I don't understand is the degree of obsession some people seem to have on it. To the point that if one disagrees with it that they start insulting them and thinking they are horrible people or something.

I also wonder what shift in cultural viewpoint has resulted in people having such a view that didn't really exist just 10 or 20 years ago.

Seems to me people, if they really wanted it to be all about "equal rights" they'd want the government out of it, not more government involved in their lives by seeking out marriage licenses. Why do marriage licenses even exist? Shouldn't we remove government from the equation of marriage instead of pollute marriage with government involvement?

scottditzen
03-09-2011, 11:31 AM
You must be referring to Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality bill, inspired by American Evangelical Christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill



+Rep. If people want to know what "discrimination" of gays is really all about, they should visit one of these third world countries where gays are actually executed. Being gay is already a civil right in this country.

therepublic
03-09-2011, 11:34 AM
Also, a gay person has the same exact rights a straight person has.
No they do not. I can receive veteran survivor benefits if my husband served in the military.... a gay couple cannot

I can inherit my husband's Social Security benefits...a gay couple cannot

Gay couples are also not afforded the same visitation and decision rights my husband would have if I became incapacitated.

There are also some issues involved with children if one gay couple were to pass away. A gay person could speak better on these issues than I can. But I have listened to them, and they have some legitimate concerns with the current system we live under. The best solution would be to take government out of the picture altogether, but meanwhile gay couples need to be listened to more.

scottditzen
03-09-2011, 11:51 AM
Well Chaos, up until two or three years ago I used to mirror your views almost exactly.

All i can say is after my circle of friends expanded to now includes a few gay guys/girls, I've been able to get to hear an honest, personal, non-political take on the subject. I now see that their commitment to their "partners" (hate that term btw!) is the most important aspect of their lives. Being married, I often relate more to these "married" gay people than my single friends who are out there chasing the moment with one night stands.

As to them wanting more and not less government, well, I'd say that unfortunately too many Americans see the government as the solution to their problems. Most people aren't as enlightened as the posters on this forum.

Cultural viewpoints change all the time. Sometimes for the benefit of everyone.

Anyhow, just my take on it. But yeah, for most of my life I opposed any state or even personal recognition of gay marriage.


I understand someone supporting X or Y on this issue, that isn't what I don't get. What I don't understand is the degree of obsession some people seem to have on it. To the point that if one disagrees with it that they start insulting them and thinking they are horrible people or something.

I also wonder what shift in cultural viewpoint has resulted in people having such a view that didn't really exist just 10 or 20 years ago.

Seems to me people, if they really wanted it to be all about "equal rights" they'd want the government out of it, not more government involved in their lives by seeking out marriage licenses. Why do marriage licenses even exist? Shouldn't we remove government from the equation of marriage instead of pollute marriage with government involvement?

Brett85
03-09-2011, 11:51 AM
No they do not. I can receive veteran survivor benefits if my husband served in the military.... a gay couple cannot

I can inherit my husband's Social Security benefits...a gay couple cannot

Gay couples are also not afforded the same visitation and decision rights my husband would have if I became incapacitated.

There are also some issues involved with children if one gay couple were to pass away. A gay person could speak better on these issues than I can. But I have listened to them, and they have some legitimate concerns with the current system we live under. The best solution would be to take government out of the picture altogether, but meanwhile gay couples need to be listened to more.

Government benefits are not rights! Do you believe that health care is a right as well? We all have the right to life, liberty, and private property. We don't have the right to get special benefits from the government.

Brett85
03-09-2011, 11:53 AM
You must be referring to Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality bill, inspired by American Evangelical Christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill

I see you've been watching Rachel Maddow. Every Evangelical Christian I know of opposed that bill, including Rick Warren. Also, I was talking about more countries than just Uganda. Iran regularly executes homosexuals.

AlexMerced
03-09-2011, 11:58 AM
Government benefits are not rights! Do you believe that health care is a right as well? We all have the right to life, liberty, and private property. We don't have the right to get special benefits from the government.

I agree that social security shouldn't exist, but it does, and the issue is that if you have that benefit, until it's repealed it's in a way your porperty which you should be free to transfer title to anyone you wish.

It's not even about marriage, that issue is about the liberty to transfer title over your own property.

What is a legitimate issue as I've said a few times is the tax/immigration benefits, I know gay couples who've been broken apart cause they can't sponsor their spouse to stay here. Also, things like the estate tax and gift tax examption makes estate planning for gay couples more difficult. The money they worked for is their rightful property, and they are at a disadvatage in trying to protect that property from the IRS.

ChaosControl
03-09-2011, 12:07 PM
Again, I understand why people have those views and I can understand them changing over time.
It is merely the extent that some people seem to devote so much to the issue and how they look down on those with opposing views and even insult them.

You seem more respectable about it and that is good, a lot of people who support their position are not and will start yelling "bigot" at everything.

Is it that some people just like to pick up some group they feel is oppressed so they can devote their entire lives to changing the situation for that group and then lash out and anyone who supposedly stands in their way?

I have my personal views on the matter in that I oppose of such relations and lifestyle, but I am not going to use the law to enforce my view. I think the law needs to be neutral, if society wants to encourage or discourage X or Y it can, but there shouldn't be federal or really even state law involved. So in this case the best solution is government removal from the equation completely.

Any concept of marriage being sacred is kind of lost though when government is involved and no fault divorce exists, so I think if marriage is important to people and if they do think it is sacred, they should want government to be no part of it. Government destroys anything it touches.

Brett85
03-09-2011, 12:08 PM
What is a legitimate issue as I've said a few times is the tax/immigration benefits, I know gay couples who've been broken apart cause they can't sponsor their spouse to stay here. Also, things like the estate tax and gift tax examption makes estate planning for gay couples more difficult. The money they worked for is their rightful property, and they are at a disadvatage in trying to protect that property from the IRS.

The solution to that is to abolish the IRS.

scottditzen
03-09-2011, 12:37 PM
I agree, for some reason with liberals, you disagree with them and a large percentage of them respond like condescending douche-bags. Um, I'm not saying I'm liberal lol, just that I'm often in the minority in a political discussion, and I'm used to being looked down on....so I totally see your point.

I like to discuss things and try to be rational and respect opposite opinions. That's why I really dig this forum, it's got a high IQ. I'm constantly learning from these posts and questioning/shaping my own opinions as a result.


Again, I understand why people have those views and I can understand them changing over time.
It is merely the extent that some people seem to devote so much to the issue and how they look down on those with opposing views and even insult them.

You seem more respectable about it and that is good, a lot of people who support their position are not and will start yelling "bigot" at everything.

Is it that some people just like to pick up some group they feel is oppressed so they can devote their entire lives to changing the situation for that group and then lash out and anyone who supposedly stands in their way?

I have my personal views on the matter in that I oppose of such relations and lifestyle, but I am not going to use the law to enforce my view. I think the law needs to be neutral, if society wants to encourage or discourage X or Y it can, but there shouldn't be federal or really even state law involved. So in this case the best solution is government removal from the equation completely.

Any concept of marriage being sacred is kind of lost though when government is involved and no fault divorce exists, so I think if marriage is important to people and if they do think it is sacred, they should want government to be no part of it. Government destroys anything it touches.

therepublic
03-09-2011, 12:37 PM
I agree that social security shouldn't exist, but it does, and the issue is that if you have that benefit, until it's repealed it's in a way your porperty which you should be free to transfer title to anyone you wish.

It's not even about marriage, that issue is about the liberty to transfer title over your own property.

What is a legitimate issue as I've said a few times is the tax/immigration benefits, I know gay couples who've been broken apart cause they can't sponsor their spouse to stay here. Also, things like the estate tax and gift tax examption makes estate planning for gay couples more difficult. The money they worked for is their rightful property, and they are at a disadvatage in trying to protect that property from the IRS.

ditto...much better stated than I have stated.

I know an elderly gay couple who had been together for 50 + years, and they explained many of these things to me.

" Chaos also states it well:

Any concept of marriage being sacred is kind of lost though when government is involved and no fault divorce exists, so I think if marriage is important to people and if they do think it is sacred, they should want government to be no part of it. Government destroys anything it touches.

Government often creates laws to solve the problems they created in the first place.

AlexMerced
03-09-2011, 12:58 PM
The solution to that is to abolish the IRS.

Agreed, although that doesn't solve the immigration issue regarding marriage, but abolishing the IRS would reduce the hostility in many issues.

Although abolishing the IRS will take some time, in the meantime we should try limite the actual financial damage by either stripping the tax benefits from marriage altogether or extending it to everybody.

It's not ideal, but when someone is waiting for an organ for a transplant, you give them pain killers in the meantime.

scottditzen
03-09-2011, 02:06 PM
I see you've been watching Rachel Maddow. Every Evangelical Christian I know of opposed that bill, including Rick Warren. Also, I was talking about more countries than just Uganda. Iran regularly executes homosexuals.

WIkipedia is never wrong.

: )

By the way, I'm not even sure who Rachel Maddow is.

realtonygoodwin
03-09-2011, 06:25 PM
No they do not. I can receive veteran survivor benefits if my husband served in the military.... a gay couple cannot

I can inherit my husband's Social Security benefits...a gay couple cannot

Gay couples are also not afforded the same visitation and decision rights my husband would have if I became incapacitated.

There are also some issues involved with children if one gay couple were to pass away. A gay person could speak better on these issues than I can. But I have listened to them, and they have some legitimate concerns with the current system we live under. The best solution would be to take government out of the picture altogether, but meanwhile gay couples need to be listened to more.

You can receive veteran survivor benefits if you are married to a person of the opposite sex and they served in the military...as can a gay person.

Since you chose to marry someone of the opposite gender, you can inherit your spouse's Social Security benefits...a gay person can as well.

AlexMerced
03-09-2011, 08:40 PM
You can receive veteran survivor benefits if you are married to a person of the opposite sex and they served in the military...as can a gay person.

Since you chose to marry someone of the opposite gender, you can inherit your spouse's Social Security benefits...a gay person can as well.

Still doesn't address the immigration issue, this is what everyones been ignoring int his thread, and I've seen perfectly in love couples broken up over this.

FrankRep
03-09-2011, 08:46 PM
Still doesn't address the immigration issue, this is what everyones been ignoring int his thread, and I've seen perfectly in love couples broken up over this.

:collins:

Gay couples may sue government for immigration discrimination
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110309/us_yblog_thelookout/gay-couples-may-sue-govt-for-immigration-discrimination

realtonygoodwin
03-09-2011, 08:47 PM
Still doesn't address the immigration issue, this is what everyones been ignoring int his thread, and I've seen perfectly in love couples broken up over this.

What immigration issue? Sorry, I must have missed it.

Brett85
03-09-2011, 08:59 PM
By the way, I'm not even sure who Rachel Maddow is.

Lol. Consider yourself lucky.

AlexMerced
03-09-2011, 09:06 PM
What immigration issue? Sorry, I must have missed it.

Gay couples can't sponsor their partner like someone who gets married to a foreigner can

realtonygoodwin
03-09-2011, 09:09 PM
A gay person can marry someone of the opposite sex and sponsor them, just like a straight person can.

AlexMerced
03-09-2011, 09:11 PM
not last I checked... I'll look it up, but I was pretty sure that is NOT the case

edit: I was right, because of DOMA, immigration offices must use the federal definition of immigration, so any state sanctioned marriages have no immigration rights. http://www.immigrationequality.org/template.php?pageid=154

realtonygoodwin
03-09-2011, 09:15 PM
What I posted is still true then...

driege
03-09-2011, 09:40 PM
I didn't see the heart of the matter touched on in this thread. It seems that DOMA violates the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution, which states
Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.

Where does Congress get the authority to pass a law that allows states not to give full faith and credit to other states' judicial proceedings? I actually agree with the idea that states shouldn't be forced to recognize marriages they oppose, but from a constitutional perspective, this doesn't seem to pass muster. Is there a rebuttal to this argument that makes DOMA constitutional?

gerryb
10-03-2011, 04:24 AM
Still doesn't address the immigration issue, this is what everyones been ignoring int his thread, and I've seen perfectly in love couples broken up over this.

We should not be arguing to expand the federal government to fix injustices with gay rights. If gay people want equal rights, they will come to the side of Liberty and start working with us to repeal the injustices, not include themselves as beneficiaries of the injustice.