Massachussetts sues over DOMA

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Tomorrow, Jul 8, 2009.

  1. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #1
    Link here:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090708/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage

    This sounds to me like wanting your cake and eating it, too.

    The same principle that dictates that the legal question of same-sex marriage should be left to the states, should also apply to whether or not other states choose to accept same-sex marriage.

    Fighting for the rights of states to decide for themselves whether to legalize same-sex marriage, and then fighting against the rights of other states to make their own legal policies on the same issue, is a blatant contradiction.

    This, and other issues, need to be decided either at the state level, or at the federal level. Choosing one AND the other depending on how conveniently it supports your position isn't the way to handle it.
     
  2. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #2
    Change the fed law to marriage being defined as a union between two homo-sapiens, we don't have to waste any more time on these foolish games. We don't have to worry about triplet marriages or marrying dogs like the right has been saying. End of story.

    I wonder how much money has been wasted dealing with this issue, 2 gay people being married isn't going to affect me getting married to a girl.
     
  3. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #3
    This should be a federal matter anyway.

    This probably won't go too far.

    Exactly- this needs to be over. It's the silliest thing I've seen in a long time.
     
  4. optophobia macrumors 6502a

    optophobia

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    Location:
    Hudson MA
    #4
    agreed. As a taxpayer, i am sick of this. Don't get me started on the fact that churches get tax breaks, yet they fund huge amounts of the anti gay campaigns.
     
  5. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #5
    Am I misreading the article? Where does the Massachusetts AG case try to do this?

    If you're reading into the larger scope of the gay rights movement, I'd simply describe this as a tactical maneuver based on several states being willing to allow gay marriage while the Federal government still has DOMA on the books. If the Mass. AG wins, then each state can pass laws allowing gay marriage and then we'd have to deal with state reciprocity.

    This will be a messy series of legal battles that could be skipped if the Federal law simply allowed gay marriage.

    Remember, the proponents of gay marriage don't care whether it's a state's rights issue or a Federal issue, they just want to get married. You can disagree with that tactic, but I don't think it's far to say they're trying to get their cake and eat it. Instead, they're trying to decide between a dutch oven or springform pan to make a cake.

    Right. It would be easy to define the law as marriage between two consenting adults. Since animals and children cannot legally consent, that renders that strange argument null.
     
  6. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #6
    WTF doesn't the government understand about this?
     
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    You got it exactly right. I don't care if it's "states rights" or whatever other BS excuses conservatives want to use. We just want the right to get married. We'll do whatever we have to to get there.

    Apparently you missed the clause in very small print that says "unless you're homosexual".
     
  8. TK2K macrumors 6502

    TK2K

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2006
    #8
    I'm thrilled we're suing over DOMA, it's a blatantly unconstitutional law. Wether you agree with gay marriage or not, if it stands (if any of these anti-gay legislations stand) it paves the way for all sorts of other unconstitutional ruling.

    What I really don't understand is why people pretend it's constitutional to pass these laws, and I really don't understand why legal experts, regardless of wether they agree with the practice, don't stand up and say 'look this isn't the right forum to address this issue'
     
  9. Tomorrow thread starter macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #9
    The Defense of Marriage Act, in part, specifically grants each state the option of recognizing a same-sex marriage. The Massachusetts AG wants that repealed; presumably, to repeal the states' options and force states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

    My point is that since the legality of same-sex marriages is decided on a state level, then the acceptance of those performed in other states should also be decided on a state level. The AG seems to want the federal government to step in and require all states to accept same-sex marriages, regardless of where they are performed.

    I would agree with you if people were fighting uniformly either for the rights of states to decide the issue, or the right of the federal government to decide the issue. This appears to me that advocates support the rights of states to pass laws allowing same-sex marriages, but want to repeal the federal law that allows other states to refuse to recognize them.

    The people and the AG of Massachusetts are free to pass laws and apply them to their state; I don't want them free to make the same decisions for other states.

    If the federal government were to take over this issue once and for all and either pass a law, amendment, or whatever, that would apply nationwide, it would eliminate this discrepancy and we could all move on; but if that were to happen, some states on one side of the issue or the other would begin to cry foul of how the federal government is overstepping its bounds.
     
  10. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #10
    On the contrary, the description quite clearly suggests the main area of concern is over federal rights extended to married couples. DOMA does not simply protect states from full faith and credit claims over same-sex marriage, but also forbids the government from recognizing any same-sex marriage at all, even within a state that has legalized them.

    That is a clear problem. In effect, by discriminating against same-sex partners lawfully married in the states that opt to do so, the federal government supports only a state's right to choose not to allow same-sex marriage. This gives lie to the "state sovereignty" justification. If the federal government intends that states make the choice, then the federal government must respect that choice, completely, and treat all spouses equally so long as they meet the qualifications set forth by their respective states.
     
  11. Tomorrow thread starter macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #11
    Agreed - more below.

    I don't think that's the federal government's intention at all; I think that's the states' intention.

    And as to the federal government respecting the states' choice, the Constitution actually says the opposite; the federal government trumps all, but only if it chooses to do so; rights are reserved for the states unless otherwise assigned by the federal government (Amendment X).
     
  12. Eanair macrumors 6502

    Eanair

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    #12
    While I'm very proud to be a M@sshole today, I don't think it'll go anywhere fast.
     
  13. mgguy macrumors 6502

    mgguy

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    #13
    But this definition wouldn't rule out adult children marrying their parents, or adult siblings marrying each other. I personally would have no problem with these arrangements if that is what they want to do. There may be financial and legal reasons why, say, two elderly sisters might want to marry. Let's open it up for any consenting adults to marry and let the chips fall where they may.
     
  14. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #14
    Oh- here we go again. :rolleyes:
     
  15. bruinsrme macrumors 601

    bruinsrme

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #15
    This is actually a good thing. By bringing this lawsuit it will actually fix the law on the books allowing one less challenge from "those conservatives" or others opposing same sex unions/marriages.
     
  16. mgguy macrumors 6502

    mgguy

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    #16
    I'm not sure why you seem annoyed by my post. It embraces the idea of allowing gays to marry. I may be way more tolerant on this matter than you are.
     
  17. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #17
    Sounded like you were being sarcastic. And I still don't see how this would do away with laws against incest- separate issue.
     
  18. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #18
    Hey Lee, nobody said anything about incest.

    Immediate relatives could marry and not have sex, you know, "Just for the federal benefits".

    SLC
     
  19. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #19
    Umm...yeah, right. Good luck with that. The law would still consider that incest.
     
  20. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #20
    Yeah, but it shouldn't right?

    An adult should be able to marry another adult of his/her choosing!

    Isn't that correct?

    SLC
     
  21. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #21
    Here we go again. Christ. If you don't know the difference between incest and homosexuality, I don't know what to say. I'm not going to go around and around with you again on this. It's stupid, and you know it. Feel free to talk to yourself about it though. :rolleyes:
     
  22. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #22
    Again I remind you Lee, nobody said a thing about incest. And I do know the difference between incest and homosexuality (though in certain situations there needn't be a difference), this isn't about that. This is about the government letting two consenting adults do whatever they like together. Which is the whole crux of the issue ultimately.

    You don't have to take your ball and go home every-time someone brings up a valid point, I'm on your side here Lee!

    SLC
     
  23. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #23
    Why couldn't male and female friends get married just for the federal benefits part? Seems to me like you're making a moot point.
     
  24. PcBgone macrumors 6502

    PcBgone

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    #24
    Can we all just give up our so called marriage "benefits" and call it a day? I didnt marry my wife for benefits. If those are the homosexuals only reason to marry they shouldnt marry in the first place...nor should a heterosexual couple for that matter.

    No benefits for anyone, and then those that wish to defile marriage will have more will to defile it. I will gladly support this!
     
  25. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #25
    Oh they already can, and it's a damn shame that there are others who can't (at least not with the person they may wish to).

    SLC
     

Share This Page