Tomorrow (Wed/26th) SCOTUS to decide Prop 8 / Doma

[Smart3]

U.S. Supreme Court to issue rulings in marriage equality cases Wednesday
http://www.dallasvoice.com/u-s-supreme-court-issue-rulings-marriage-cases-wednesday-10151365.html

Update:
5-4:DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.

[jllundqu]

Ok then! Shall we pre-emptively designate this the 'RPF gay-bashing' thread?

Shhhh.... I think I hear them typing in fury already!

[Smart3]

Ok then! Shall we pre-emptively designate this the 'RPF gay-bashing' thread?

Shhhh.... I think I hear them typing in fury already!

"I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want." - Ron Paul (2007)

[69360]

They just made the right choice on state's rights, lets hope for 2 for 2.

[Smart3]

They just made the right choice on state's rights, lets hope for 2 for 2.

I'm sorry, does that mean you're against DOMA because of states' rights or support DOMA because of states rights?

Seems like both positions have relevance here. I'm the former - the federal government shouldn't impose a standard of marriage on all 50 states - each state should have its own laws (first cousin marriage as an example).

[supermario21]

Yeah, I'm against DOMA but not for "marriage equality." Not expecting a big ruling on prop 8 though, probably struck down over standing issues.

[angelatc]

They just made the right choice on state's rights, lets hope for 2 for 2.

They also made the right choice for property rights in Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management District, (http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/25/thoughts-on-the-koontz-takings-clause-case/) so let's hope that at least some state's rights remain intact.

[Christian Liberty]

"I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want." - Ron Paul (2007)

That doesn't mean he's for "Gay marriage" as it currently stands.

Personally, gay marriage isn't an issue I care all that much about. State's rights, however, is.

SCOTUS should never have taken on this case to begin with.

[Nobexliberty]

Laws regarding marrige should be up to the STATES.

[Christian Liberty]

Laws regarding marrige should be up to the STATES.
:D

[TonySutton]

Laws regarding marrige should be up to the STATES.

Government should not be involved in marriage. There is no compelling reason for the intrusion.

[asurfaholic]

Government should not be involved in marriage. There is no compelling reason for the intrusion.

But if it must be involved, then all individuals should have equal rights. Anything less is gender discrimination.

[Nobexliberty]

But if it must be involved, then all individuals should have equal rights. Anything less is gender discrimination. I am going to shut up before i say something i regret

[asurfaholic]

I am going to shut up before i say something i regret

Should I clarify that when I say that all individuals should have equal rights when petitioning the govt for any benefit or service it offers, in this case there are significant tax breaks for married people. While i don't believe gays are partaking in a morally sound relationship, I have never advocated that gays should not be blocked from getting married and blocked of the benefits of being married.

Y so mad?

[Christian Liberty]

Government should not be involved in marriage. There is no compelling reason for the intrusion.

I don't disagree with you, at all. However, the bottom line is, constitutionally speaking, the states can make such laws. The Federal Government cannot.

If a state recognizes, or bans, gay marriage, that's not the ideal situation but the Feds still shouldn't do anything about it to any degree.


But if it must be involved, then all individuals should have equal rights. Anything less is gender discrimination.

There is no right to having your behavior endorsed by the state.


Should I clarify that when I say that all individuals should have equal rights when petitioning the govt for any benefit or service it offers, in this case there are significant tax breaks for married people. While i don't believe gays are partaking in a morally sound relationship, I have never advocated that gays should not be blocked from getting married and blocked of the benefits of being married.

Y so mad?

The thing is, it is one thing to permit a behavior that is ethically wrong, it is another thing entirely to promote such behavior. I'm absolutely with you that gay couples, or anyone else for that matter (Considering taxation is theft and we're at least ten times past any reasonable metric of "Necessary evil") should get tax cuts, but I still don't think the State should be changing the definition of marriage.

I'd rather them remain outside that question entirely, but if they have to define it, I'd rather them define it correctly, as being between a man and a woman, than for them to actively promote some other, heterodox definition.

[PaleoPaul]

My prediction:

Prop Hate is tossed out, but applies to California only.

DOMA is tossed into the dustbin of history.

[Mr.NoSmile]

My prediction:

Prop Hate is tossed out, but applies to California only.

DOMA is tossed into the dustbin of history.

Well, I think the part of DOMA being argued may be tossed out. What I don't think will happen is the Supreme Court passes this sweeping idea that gay marraiage is suddenly legal and available in all 50 states. I really believe this will end up playing out on a state by state basis.

[PaleoPaul]

Well, I think the part of DOMA being argued may be tossed out. What I don't think will happen is the Supreme Court passes this sweeping idea that gay marraiage is suddenly legal and available in all 50 states. I really believe this will end up playing out on a state by state basis.
And more states will more forward towards equality.

A majority of voters in Ohio, Michigan, Arizona, Virginia, and Colorado all favor marriage equality, for example.

You heard me. States in the Midwest and the West that you'd think are culturally conservative are moving in the direction toward equal rights for ALL! :D

[asurfaholic]

I don't disagree with you, at all. However, the bottom line is, constitutionally speaking, the states can make such laws. The Federal Government cannot.

If a state recognizes, or bans, gay marriage, that's not the ideal situation but the Feds still shouldn't do anything about it to any degree.



There is no right to having your behavior endorsed by the state.



The thing is, it is one thing to permit a behavior that is ethically wrong, it is another thing entirely to promote such behavior. I'm absolutely with you that gay couples, or anyone else for that matter (Considering taxation is theft and we're at least ten times past any reasonable metric of "Necessary evil") should get tax cuts, but I still don't think the State should be changing the definition of marriage.

I'd rather them remain outside that question entirely, but if they have to define it, I'd rather them define it correctly, as being between a man and a woman, than for them to actively promote some other, heterodox definition.

Who said anything about promoting Gay marriage? What right does the government have to define who can and can not get married. If there is a government job, everyone should have an equal chance of getting it, right? If there is Medicaid, everyone who meets the income requirements, regardless of color or gender, gets a chance to get it, right? What is to stop to men from deciding that in their own religious views, they can become man and husband. Who are you to tell them that they can't do that. Back it up with scripture.

[Smart3]

And more states will more forward towards equality.

A majority of voters in Ohio, Michigan, Arizona, Virginia, and Colorado all favor marriage equality, for example.

You heard me. States in the Midwest and the West that you'd think are culturally conservative are moving in the direction toward equal rights for ALL! :D

A majority in Florida do as well, although not by much. A majority support marriage equality in 23 states and 21 of those are likely to have it by the end of 2016. (in addition to the current 12, that is California, Illinois, Oregon, Arizona, Ohio, Colorado, Michigan, Hawai'i and Nevada) the other two are New Mexico and Virginia - with Florida, Arkansas, South Dakota and possibly even Texas moving towards support by 2016 as well.

It's up to the people behind the ballot measures when people vote on this. Florida could be as early as 2014 or as late as 2018.

[Nobexliberty]

If goverment gets out of marriage then gays can not get married, becasue it would not be marriage. It would be a double whammy.

[Smart3]

5-4:DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.

[Nobexliberty]

Marbury v. Madison.

[EBounding]

Excellent. The government can spy on even more government-married couples. Glad our priorities are back in order. FREEDOM!!!

[JK/SEA]

great. Now we're going to have humans hooking up with Romulans.

burp.

[Smart3]

Prop 8 dismissed, no standing as the state officials didn't defend the case, a private party did. It would have been the first time in court history.

In other words, gay marriage is now legal in California


great. Now we're going to have humans hooking up with Romulans.
I'd marry a Romulan, wouldn't you?

[Nobexliberty]

Supreme court judges do not care about the Constitution. All they care about is their political party's beliefs.

[JK/SEA]

Prop 8 dismissed, no standing as the state officials didn't defend the case, a private party did. It would have been the first time in court history.

In other words, gay marriage is now legal in California


I'd marry a Romulan, wouldn't you?

hell no. They aren't even considered animals.

[Smart3]

hell no. They aren't even considered animals.

Romulans are more human than any of the other species in The Script.

[JK/SEA]

Romulans are more human than any of the other species in The Script.

lets have the SCOTUS decide that. Romulans are related to Vulcans. Not exactly human, and more closely related to vampire bats with a high I.Q....send em all to gitmo.

[Smart3]

lets have the SCOTUS decide that. Romulans are related to Vulcans. Not exactly human, and more closely related to vampire bats with a high I.Q....send em all to gitmo.

"Vampire bats", you're confusing them with Remans.

You evidently are not into Star Trek or you would know that all the species in Trek were created by an earlier humanoid species. In other words, we are all children of the same Creators.

[smithtg]

Prop 8 dismissed, no standing as the state officials didn't defend the case, a private party did. It would have been the first time in court history.

In other words, gay marriage is now legal in California


I'd marry a Romulan, wouldn't you?

I prefer shape shifters personally

[angelatc]

Supreme court judges do not care about the Constitution. All they care about is their political party's beliefs.

The Prop 8 decision was very bad for the rights of the people.

[Nobexliberty]

The Prop 8 decision was very bad for the rights of the people. I was talking about the supreme court itself and not this decision. I am going to learn what DOMA is and what Prop 8 was before I judge for myself.

[angelatc]

I was talking about the supreme court itself and not this decision. I am going to learn what DOMA is and what Prop 8 was before I judge for myself.

Prop 8 was a ballot measure that amended the California constitution to define marriage as between man and a woman. It passed, but was challenged. The state refused to defend the measure on behalf of the people. And SCOTUS ruled that since the state wouldn't defend it, and the people had no standing, that it was invalidated.

So the rights of the people to amend their own state constitution by a direct vote simply doesn't exist, according to this ruling.

[Brett85]

So the rights of the people to amend their own state constitution by a direct vote simply doesn't exist, according to this ruling.

No, they didn't actually rule that. They basically just decided not to rule at all on this issue.

[angelatc]

No, they didn't actually rule that. They basically just decided not to rule at all on this issue.


They ruled that way because the state refused to defend the amendment, and SCOTUS said "we the people" didn't have standing. So much for the consent of the governed.

So in effect, they ruled that the people can't amend their own state constitution. If they do, the overlords can ignore it.

From another poster in another forum: "By the way, it also gives my governor, Rick Scott, a helluva lot of power to kill citizens initiatives merely be refusing to defend them. Good God!"

[Occam's Banana]

5-4:DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.

Gee, would this be the same 5th amendment that SCOTUS so recently stuck a knife in the guts of ... ?

[Occam's Banana]

But if [the State] must be involved [in marriage], then all individuals should have equal rights. Anything less is gender discrimination.

Tell me - what "equal rights" are unmarried singles such as myself going to get out of this?

You did say all individuals should have equal rights, did you not?

So ...where's mine?

The notion that "gay marriage" is about "equal rights" is bullshit.

It is NOT about "equal rights" for all.

It is about "special priveleges" for some.

[Smart3]

Tell me - what "equal rights" are unmarried singles such as myself going to get out of this?

You did say all individuals should have equal rights, did you not?

So ...where's mine?

The notion that "gay marriage" is about "equal rights" is bullshit.

It is NOT about "equal rights" for all.

It is about "special priveleges" for some.
I was not aware the freedom to marry was a special privilege - I can think of a certain Austrian dictator who thought that.

[ThePenguinLibertarian]

I was not aware the freedom to marry was a special privilege - I can think of a certain Austrian dictator who thought that.
Smart, you're being snarky. Try being a little less condescending when you type words. Don't you have a business degree to achieve right now?

[ThePenguinLibertarian]

Smart, you're being snarky. Try being a little less condescending when you type words. Don't you have a business degree to achieve right now?
Then again, my grammar sucks and i am more condescending and angry over this stupid supreme court case. Its assholes like The Skeptical Libertarian and John Stossel that make me mad when they try to make libertarianism more palatable and mainstream to progressives. And then call us "glibertarians" for hating gay marriage (calling us gay bashers) and treating us like austistic seven year olds (which i can relate to, having experienced the "you're embarrassing us" excuse.)

[Smart3]

Smart, you're being snarky. Try being a little less condescending when you type words. Don't you have a business degree to achieve right now?

The words I was quoted were far more offensive.

The fact is - if you impose your own personal definition of marriage on society, it's no different than Hitler doing the same. Libertarians can not be in favor of "traditional" marriage.

[Occam's Banana]

I was not aware the freedom to marry was a special privilege

The possession of government-granted exemptions & considerations - contingent upon being a member of a some particular group - is a special privelege.

The "freedom to marry" hasn't got a damn thing to do with it. You are "free to marry" whomever you damn well please. So is everyone else.

You just won't get certain special priveleges from the government if your marriage is not both monogamous and heterosexual.

Heterosexuals get certain special priveleges when the State bureaucracy sanctions their marriages as "legal."

IOW: Married heterosexuals already get special priveleges. This is wrong and unjust.

Homosexuals want the same special priveleges - by having the State bureaucracy sanction their marriages as "legal."

IOW: Married/marriageable homosexuals want to get special priveleges. This is wrong and unjust.

It has nothing to do with the "freedom to marry." It has everything to do with the possession and/or acquisition of special priveleges.

Expanding the range of people who qualify for government-granted special priveleges does not expand the range of freedom. It contracts it.

This is every bit as true in the domain of marriage as it is in any other - education, welfare, business, health care, et cetera ad nauseum.


I can think of a certain Austrian dictator who thought that.

And I can think of a certain RPFs poster who apparently hasn't got anything but a lame & pathetic "Nazi" strawman in place of any kind of argument.

[ThePenguinLibertarian]

The words I was quoted were far more offensive.

The fact is - if you impose your own personal definition of marriage on society, it's no different than Hitler doing the same. Libertarians can not be in favor of "traditional" marriage.
I'm not "imposing" anything. If anything, LGBT activism imposes on peopel. Numerous cases of ordinary people who want to live their lives have to take it in the ass when a stupid activist wants them to change their opinions or their outlook. Am i forcing gay people to be straight. No, i want them to shut up,or just speak less.
I want the federal govenrment, and all other government to transfer their marriage law responsibility to lawyers. In essence, private law. I want the government to stop imposing marriage licenses on everybody. Alas, i get called glibertarian fr supporting the end of legal marriage and privatizing a part of the law. That should garner me MORE libertarian points than the assholes at The Skeptical Libertarian, you or CATO. "glibertarians" only say annoying things about being a "real libertarian" only out of anger. CATO, you, and quite a lot of other people want libertarianism to exclude people like us (90% of RPF posters)

[Nobexliberty]

The words I was quoted were far more offensive.

The fact is - if you impose your own personal definition of marriage on society, it's no different than Hitler doing the same. Libertarians can not be in favor of "traditional" marriage.
Libertarians can be for traditional marrige, what makes you think they can not? If society treats gay people who claim they are "married" like people who are willingly to pervert something sacred for their own gain then they will be people who pervert something sacred for their own gain and not married. The definition of marriage is what people say is marriage.

[Smart3]

Libertarians can be for traditional marrige, what makes you think they can not? If society treats gay people who claim they are "married" like people who are willingly to pervert something sacred for their own gain then they will be people who pervert something sacred for their own gain and not married. The definition of marriage is what people say is marriage.
I don't view two women or two men together as a marriage either. That doesn't mean I can impose my view of marriage on others. I don't believe Catholics should marry non-Catholics, should that be illegal too? Or should we instead create an environment in which no one marriage is greater than another. All voluntary associations are recognized and respected by the govt. Just like Ron Paul envisions.

It's not possible to be a libertarian and be against liberty.

[Nobexliberty]

I don't view two women or two men together as a marriage either. That doesn't mean I can impose my view of marriage on others. I don't believe Catholics should marry non-Catholics, should that be illegal too? Or should we instead create an environment in which no one marriage is greater than another. All voluntary associations are recognized and respected by the govt. Just like Ron Paul envisions.

It's not possible to be a libertarian and be against liberty.
You misunderstood, my fault becasue my post is unclear. The definition of marriage is one man and women uniting together. So if gays wants to get married they must change the definition of marriage or have a "phony" marriage. I am sorry if I offended anyone as it was not my intention. And if I impose my view of marriage on them I also defend my view on marriage as between a man and a women.

[Smart3]

You misunderstood, my fault becasue my post is unclear. The definition of marriage is one man and women uniting together. So if gays wants to get married they must change the definition of marriage or have a "phony" marriage. I am sorry if I offended anyone as it was not my intention. And if I impose my view of marriage on them I also defend my view on marriage as between a man and a women.

The definition of marriage is bringing things together. PBJ is a marriage, butter on bread is a marriage.

What is being called traditional marriage is actually younger than same-sex marriage. When same-sex marriage and 'straight' marriage coexisted in ancient Rome, the latter involved the man owning the wife and children as his property to do with as he pleased. That's not what you're proposing presumably. Instead you want to allow divorce, allow spousal rape to be a crime, elevate women to the same status of men legally, etc. All of which is great, but that is not traditional marriage. A man is supposed to be allowed to demand sex from his wife whenever he pleases.

Moreover, "love" has nothing to do with traditional marriage. Nor does the woman picking the husband (although usually she could refuse her parent's choice).

So what say you? Redefine marriage or bring back traditional marriage?
If you're willing to redefine marriage so much, I don't see how making it genderless matters one bit.

[Nobexliberty]

^^Debate winner!

[Smart3]

^^Debate winner!

So you actually changed your mind, or are you just messing with me? So hard to tell on forums.

[Nobexliberty]

So you actually changed your mind, or are you just messing with me? So hard to tell on forums. I changed my mind for now because you were convincing and had facts while i did not.

[ThePenguinLibertarian]

I don't view two women or two men together as a marriage either. That doesn't mean I can impose my view of marriage on others. I don't believe Catholics should marry non-Catholics, should that be illegal too? Or should we instead create an environment in which no one marriage is greater than another. All voluntary associations are recognized and respected by the govt. Just like Ron Paul envisions.

It's not possible to be a libertarian and be against liberty.
How am i against liberty when i want a power out of a government's hand. Just because you view SSM as incremental? To be honest, marriage is a stupid union altogether because it implies that a higher power exists to unite you. Its not liberty i am fighting against. Its freedom from the state. Ron Paul envisions the same thing i do. ANd i am working towards it. Not by making us all recognized, but killing the mechanism to need recognition. And that starts with getting rid of marriage benefits.

[ThePenguinLibertarian]

I changed my mind for now because you were convincing and had facts while i did not.
Really? I don't get it what are his facts. The roman section? How did he win?

[Smart3]

How am i against liberty when i want a power out of a government's hand. Just because you view SSM as incremental? To be honest, marriage is a stupid union altogether because it implies that a higher power exists to unite you. Its not liberty i am fighting against. Its freedom from the state. Ron Paul envisions the same thing i do. ANd i am working towards it. Not by making us all recognized, but killing the mechanism to need recognition. And that starts with getting rid of marriage benefits.
We do agree the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. The difference is what we do in the meanwhile. I believe we should simply make everything legal. "Pro-Choice on Everything" is the Libertarian motto.

[ThePenguinLibertarian]

We do agree the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. The difference is what we do in the meanwhile. I believe we should simply make everything legal. "Pro-Choice on Everything" is the Libertarian motto.
The status quo of exclusion is good because it keeps government off of a revenue stream.Gay couples pay 6000 more in taxes, the government has that money taken away. I think your sentiment on universal legality is naive. what if something bad happens and the media pounces on us.

[Nobexliberty]

Really? I don't get it what are his facts. The roman section? How did he win? Because I surrendered, made bacon to eat instead of keeping the debate up.He has no idea round 2 is just around the corner.

[Smart3]

The status quo of exclusion is good because it keeps government off of a revenue stream.Gay couples pay 6000 more in taxes, the government has that money taken away. I think your sentiment on universal legality is naive. what if something bad happens and the media pounces on us.

Not sure what you mean. Allowing gay marriage brings states new revenues, creates tens of thousands of jobs, etc. While they would get tax deductions like other married couples, they would likely pay more in tax in the long run as married people have more money than unmarried people on average.

[ThePenguinLibertarian]

Not sure what you mean. Allowing gay marriage brings states new revenues, creates tens of thousands of jobs, etc. While they would get tax deductions like other married couples, they would likely pay more in tax in the long run as married people have more money than unmarried people on average.
Bad (money should be kept out of govenrment), How?, why not just a plain tax cut? So? doesn;t mean tax cut should not be used.. I give up you win.