PDA

View Full Version : Federal Appeals Court strikes down DOMA law




Agorism
05-31-2012, 09:46 AM
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/31/breaking-federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-doma/

Hotair has a good summary

Lucille
05-31-2012, 10:06 AM
The commenters are so dramatic. "...spitting in God's face..." Their types did that when they demanded that a marriage be defined as between one man, one woman...and the government.

This is the pressing issue of our time to those clowns, while the POTUS is creating kill lists every Tues., Bernanke is destroying us all, the police state cancer is growing larger by the day, and their "conservative" saviors are funding Barry's Big Medical system, ready to sign off on another debt ceiling increase, sign away more U.S. sovereignty via LOST, and CONgress is still working on a gov't takeover of the internet.

jmdrake
05-31-2012, 10:31 AM
Its adverse consequences for such a choice are considerable. Notably, it prevents same-sex married couples from filing joint federal tax returns, which can lessen tax burdens, see 26 U.S.C. § 1(a)-(c), and prevents the surviving spouse of a same-sex marriage from collecting Social Security survivor benefits, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 402(f), (i). DOMA also leaves federal employees unable to share their health insurance and certain other medical benefits with same-sex spouses.

DOMA affects a thousand or more generic cross-references to marriage in myriad federal laws. In most cases, the changes operate to the disadvantage of same-sex married couples in the half dozen or so states that permit same-sex marriage. The number of couples thus affected is estimated at more than 100,000.3 Further, DOMA has potentially serious adverse consequences, hereafter described, for states that choose to legalize same-sex marriage.

And the answer is, get rid of the income tax and remove any reference to marriage from all federal laws. If that means scrapping over 100,000 federal laws...well that's just a price we have to pay to protect marriage. ;)

Lucille
05-31-2012, 11:42 AM
Its adverse consequences for such a choice are considerable. Notably, it prevents same-sex married couples from filing joint federal tax returns, which can lessen tax burdens, see 26 U.S.C. § 1(a)-(c), and prevents the surviving spouse of a same-sex marriage from collecting Social Security survivor benefits, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 402(f), (i). DOMA also leaves federal employees unable to share their health insurance and certain other medical benefits with same-sex spouses.

DOMA affects a thousand or more generic cross-references to marriage in myriad federal laws. In most cases, the changes operate to the disadvantage of same-sex married couples in the half dozen or so states that permit same-sex marriage. The number of couples thus affected is estimated at more than 100,000.3 Further, DOMA has potentially serious adverse consequences, hereafter described, for states that choose to legalize same-sex marriage.

And the answer is, get rid of the income tax and remove any reference to marriage from all federal laws. If that means scrapping over 100,000 federal laws...well that's just a price we have to pay to protect marriage. ;)

That's all it's about anyway.


Naturally, marriage, being what it is, did nevertheless impact the distribution and ownership of property. Who were the legitimate heirs of a married couple, for example? Could Bastard Jimmy inherit the property of his father instead of First Born Tom who was the child of both dad and his wife? These considerations attracted the state’s attention.

The state hates it when property changes hands without being taxed and regulated (http://lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken135.html), so the state set its sights on marriage centuries ago. Over time civil governments inserted themselves more and more into the religious institutions of marriage. This was helped along by the Reformation and by defenders of government-controlled marriage like King Henry VIII of England. As nation-states consolidated their monopolies on all law and over all institutions in society, the state finally displaced religious institutions as the final arbiter on marriage.

So yes, Ann, there is a reason that governments control marriage: They couldn’t keep their mitts off it.

Homosexuals are so happy that they can "tell" while they go kill for this murderous, criminal regime, and they also can't wait to be looted.

farreri
05-31-2012, 12:46 PM
I think people who support things like DOMA (the "Defense" of Marriage Act) are not only homophobic, but also hypocrites. If they really wanted to "defend" so-called "traditional marriage," then they should support a ban on divorce, which over half of all "traditional marriages" end up as.

angelatc
05-31-2012, 12:54 PM
I think people who support things like DOMA (the "Defense" of Marriage Act) are not only homophobic, but also hypocrites. If they really wanted to "defend" so-called "traditional marriage," then they should support a ban on divorce, which over half of all "traditional marriages" end up as.

You're quoting a liberal lie. Half of all traditional marriages do not end in divorce. (http://digitalcitizen.ca/2009/06/02/50-divorce-rate-is-a-myth-its-more-like-33-or-one-third/) That statistic was tossed out there by the New York Times back in the '90's, and even though it was almost immediately retracted, the left grabbed on to it and won't let go.

And I would happily support a ban on divorce.

farreri
05-31-2012, 01:06 PM
You're quoting a liberal lie. Half of all traditional marriages do not end in divorce. (http://digitalcitizen.ca/2009/06/02/50-divorce-rate-is-a-myth-its-more-like-33-or-one-third/)
Well these stats aren't any more promising:


It is commonly claimed that half of all marriages in the United States eventually end in divorce, an estimate possibly based on the fact that in any given year, the number of marriages is about twice the number of divorces.[16] Using 1995 data, National Survey of Family Growth forecast in 2002 a 43% chance that first marriages among women aged 15–44 would be disrupted within 15 years.[14] More recently, having spoken with academics and National Survey of Family Growth representatives, PolitiFact.com estimated in 2012 that the lifelong probability of a marriage ending in divorce is 40%–50%.[17]

Divorce rates have been dropping during the last few decades. Data indicates that marriages have lasted longer in the 21st century than they did in the 1990s.[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_%28United_States%29#Rates_of_divorce



And I would happily support a ban on divorce.
Please explain what you mean.

Domalais
05-31-2012, 01:16 PM
Cue the excuse parade: "Maybe in 2099 we can get the government out of marriage completely, so let's just keep things unequal until then"

angelatc
05-31-2012, 01:16 PM
Well these stats aren't any more promising:


You haven't disproven what I said. I disproved what you said. And I think your Wiki quote is hysterical, because the speculation of the second paragraph contradicts the speculation of the first paragraph. (This is why I hate liberals - they can't ever admit they're lying. Instead of saying "Oh gee, I was mistaken!" he drums up some speculation based on outdated data from baised sources.)

Let me make it simple. You are quoting a liberal lie, and your refusal to give it up is repulsive. Like it or not, 50% of all marriages do not end in divorce. Here's an article based on data (not speculation) 10 years newer than the liberal Wiki bullshit. (http://digitalcitizen.ca/2009/06/02/50-divorce-rate-is-a-myth-its-more-like-33-or-one-third/) It's more like 40%, and that number drops by another 10% when you take out people who get divorced more than once.

]
According to 2004 US Census Data, Table 3 for All Races (click to download Excel file):
75.56 million men ever marry (i.e. married at least once)
22.70 million men ever divorce

30.1% = men who ever marry end up getting divorced

87.32 million women ever marry
26.95 million women ever divorce

30.9% = women who ever marry end up getting divorced

162.88 million men and women ever marry
49.68 million men and women ever divorce

30.5% = men and women, combined, who ever married end up getting divorced


Please explain what you mean.

Really? You were confused by an 8 word statement? I'm not sure how to dumb it down any farther.

But I'll bet if we allow gay marriages, the divorce rate will skyrocket, and the liberals will be happy. Oh wait - liberals are never happy. My bad.

erowe1
05-31-2012, 01:18 PM
Too bad this didn't happen in the heat of the Republican primary, because then Ron Paul would have put out a press release repudiating the decision, and we'd get to watch certain people here having conniption fits about that.

If we're lucky he still will.

farreri
05-31-2012, 01:23 PM
You haven't disproven what I said. I disproved what you said.
Um, what I posted wasn't trying to disprove what you said. It was just to show the stats aren't anymore promising.


Really? You were confused by an 8 word statement? I'm not sure how to dumb it down any farther.
It was just in case you had a different meaning than I did. See, that's what sometimes can lead countries into wars; miscommunication. Sue me for trying to error on caution.

But please, explain how you'd want the government to ban divorce and why.

erowe1
05-31-2012, 01:25 PM
Cue the excuse parade: "Maybe in 2099 we can get the government out of marriage completely, so let's just keep things unequal until then"

Government-based marriage will always be unequal, no matter how you define it. Expanding it to include same-sex couples doesn't do a thing to ameliorate that.

Brian4Liberty
05-31-2012, 01:26 PM
And the answer is, get rid of the income tax and remove any reference to marriage from all federal laws. If that means scrapping over 100,000 federal laws...well that's just a price we have to pay to protect marriage. ;)

Once again, the unintended (and discriminatory) results of government social and economic engineering.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake again."

angelatc
05-31-2012, 01:27 PM
Um, what I posted wasn't trying to disprove what you said. It was just to show the stats aren't anymore promising.


It was just in case you had a different meaning than I did. See, that's what sometimes can lead countries into wars; miscommunication. Sue me for trying to error on caution.

But please, explain how you'd want the government to ban divorce and why.

I believe in marriage as a contract, that's why.

cavalier973
05-31-2012, 01:36 PM
As I understand it, DOMA was a protection for the states; it allowed states whose citizens did not want to legalize same-sex marriage to have it legalized for them by a judge in a different state.

jmdrake
05-31-2012, 02:56 PM
Cue the excuse parade: "Maybe in 2099 we can get the government out of marriage completely, so let's just keep things unequal until then"

Right. Because rolling back federal laws and ending the income tax goes against the goals of this movement. /sarcasm

Domalais
05-31-2012, 04:18 PM
Right. Because rolling back federal laws and ending the income tax goes against the goals of this movement. /sarcasm


The Appeals Court just rolled back a federal law! You should be happy.

Also, which is harder:

Rolling back federal law that permits straights to marry
Rolling back federal law that permits straights and gays to marry