Justices overturn Defense of Marriage Act in a 5-4 ruling. In a separate 5-4 decision, the court declines to rule on Prop 8, meaning same-sex marriage will be legal again in California.

The US Constitution, and by extension, the Supreme Court protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.-Me

The latter, interestingly, against the will of (what was at one point) a (slight) majority of its citizens.

Quote from: ZoeM on June 26, 2013, 10:05:18 AM
The latter, interestingly, against the will of (what was at one point) a (slight) majority of its citizens.

Do propose that citizens should get to vote on the rights of the rest of their state's inhabitants?  I'd rather let the law and the courts do the talking when it comes to rights then people subjecting other's to their moral wills.  It's your prerogative to be against it, and I don't begrudge you this, but don't force it onto others.  Ballot initiatives are not always constitutional or wise by proxy.   If you are against it, continue your beliefs and sharing them, but we can't force other into leading the same path. 

Quote from: learningtolive on June 26, 2013, 10:15:06 AM
Do propose that citizens should get to vote on the rights of the rest of their state's inhabitants?  I'd rather let the law and the courts do the talking when it comes to rights then people subjecting other's to their moral wills.  It's your prerogative to be against it, and I don't begrudge you this, but don't force it onto others.  Ballot initiatives are not always constitutional or wise by proxy.   If you are against it, continue your beliefs and sharing them, but we can't force other into leading the same path.

This is basically saying there's only one acceptable legal outcome to this question - that 'gay marriage should be legal' is of a higher value than 'gay marriage should not be legal.'
That's not how the law works.

Consider the rough equivalent - By some freak accident, New York elects a majority of Republicans to all state offices, who promptly strike down their gay marriage legislation and make it illegal.

Quote from: ZoeM on June 26, 2013, 10:05:18 AM
The latter, interestingly, against the will of (what was at one point) a (slight) majority of its citizens.

Zoe how would you feel if they put your ability to transition up to a vote?

Quote from: ZoeM on June 26, 2013, 10:19:50 AM
This is basically saying there's only one acceptable legal outcome to this question - that 'gay marriage should be legal' is of a higher value than 'gay marriage should not be legal.'
That's not how the law works.

Consider the rough equivalent - By some freak accident, New York elects a majority of Republicans to all state offices, who promptly strike down their gay marriage legislation and make it illegal.

I'm not saying that's the only legal outcome. I understand full well the reality behind this. What I'm saying is those who are personally opposed shouldn't force their views onto others.  People are just trying to live their lives and be happy.  No one should deny them the right to be married because their religion or morality is against it.  You have the right to feel that way and speak your mind, but don't force other's into living your path. 

Consider this option.  People want to make transitioning illegal and force people to live forever as their birth "sex' because they are morally opposed.  Wouldn't those people be better speaking out against it instead of forcing others to live their will.  It's not the same scenario, but I don't see the point in making a harmless act illegal and making people follow your morality.  You have the right to disagree, but you shouldn't try to dictate the lives of others.  My objection to the anti same sex marriage is the same thing against people who supported laws against gay sodomy.  You can dislike it, but leave people to live their own lives as long as they are harming no one.

Quote from: ZoeM on June 26, 2013, 10:19:50 AMConsider the rough equivalent - By some freak accident, New York elects a majority of Republicans to all state offices, who promptly strike down their gay marriage legislation and make it illegal.

Zoe, not all so-called 'republicans' support this position, 'the party' as we know it is changing. A more correct approach, from a constitutional point of view,

Voluntary associations are better than quotas . . . ( or 'votes', the tyrannical majority simply democratically imposing it's stupidity upon minorities )

It's not really about 'numbers', Big Brother needs to GET OUT of our private lives entirely !!!

Quote from: Libertarian Ron PaulI'd like to settle the debate by turning it into a First Amendment issue: the right of free speech. Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it will qualify as a civil contract if desired.

Just like you and I should have the freedom to express 'gender' !!

Quote from: Heather on June 26, 2013, 10:30:04 AM
Zoe how would you feel if they put your ability to transition up to a vote?

Slightly different scenario; there was no right to gay marriage (or ability to have such) until the last few years.

If that happened...
I'd be annoyed; and I'd move to a different state if it won.. But I'd still vote and respect the outcome.

This is my one and only problem with this whole thing: Why are we creating civil rights out of whole cloth like this? To my knowledge the nature of homosexuality remains nebulous w/r/t nature, nurture et al. And thus declaring it a right (and thus codifying one side's views on it) seems both premature and harmful.

Quote from: Kiera on June 26, 2013, 10:37:30 AM
Zoe, not all so-called 'republicans' support this position, 'the party' as we know it is changing. A more correct approach, from a constitutional point of view,

Voluntary associations are better than quotas . . .

And Big Brother needs to GET OUT of our private lives entirely !!!

That's true.  Parties differ by region.  I would argue that a Republican in New York has more in common than a democrat in Alabama.  Parties aren't as rigid on the local level.  While it was difficult to get gay marriage passed in New York, it's not going to be taken away by anyone.  Rights are harder to take away then to grant.

Quote from: ZoeM on June 26, 2013, 10:39:16 AM
Slightly different scenario; there was no right to gay marriage (or ability to have such) until the last few years.

If that happened...
I'd be annoyed; and I'd move to a different state if it won.. But I'd still vote and respect the outcome.

This is my one and only problem with this whole thing: Why are we creating civil rights out of whole cloth like this? To my knowledge the nature of homosexuality remains nebulous w/r/t nature, nurture et al. And thus declaring it a right (and thus codifying one side's views on it) seems both premature and harmful.

Because people who are in love and want to have the same relationship that all other couples have.  Even if the origins of homosexuality is unclear to you (which there is a body of evidence to prove nature when looking at both humans and the animal kingdom), that doesn't mean that you should extend your morality to prevent them from doing something that will harm no one.  The same way I don't care about the origins of a straight couples love, I don't care about the origins of gay persons relationship.  They just want to have their relationship  to be viewed equally in the eyes of the law, not necessarily by you or anyone else who opposes it.    Oppose it as much as you want, but don't relegate their relationship as second class through the law.  That's not fair.

By the way, if all the states opposed your transition, wouldn't you try a legal argument to prove you had the right to determine your own path in life?  Or would you listen to the "will of the people" who are denying you control over your life because they find it distasteful?

Quote from: ZoeM on June 26, 2013, 10:05:18 AM
The latter, interestingly, against the will of (what was at one point) a (slight) majority of its citizens.

This country wasn't founded on mob rule or majority rights, it was founded on human rights and the divine ideal of a perfect society. Excluding a percentage of people is wrong. It'll never be right.

Quote from: Heather on June 26, 2013, 10:30:04 AM
Zoe how would you feel if they put your ability to transition up to a vote?

If the majority of people who support DOMA had their druthers I would bet MTF and FTM HRT would be stopped and made illegal in a heartbeat. Make no mistake about even in the late 1970s what was then a movement towards trans rights took a left turn and most trans centers were closed down. But given the mood of the country it seems like this won't happen again. But we should protect our rights. And part of our rights, mine at least cause if I stopped being trans I'd by default be gay again, is taken away with DOMA. I find it strange that it is supported here when it conflicts with so much of who we are? I have no desire to be a second class citizen.

Quote from: ZoeM on June 26, 2013, 10:39:16 AM
Slightly different scenario; there was no right to gay marriage (or ability to have such) until the last few years.

If that happened...
I'd be annoyed; and I'd move to a different state if it won.. But I'd still vote and respect the outcome.

This is my one and only problem with this whole thing: Why are we creating civil rights out of whole cloth like this? To my knowledge the nature of homosexuality remains nebulous w/r/t nature, nurture et al. And thus declaring it a right (and thus codifying one side's views on it) seems both premature and harmful.

Zoe nobody making anybody get married here this is all about personal freedom and how one group has tried to force their beliefs on everybody else assuming they all agree with them. Yet the irony is this same group claims their all for freedom. I don't think who I fall in love with should ever be put to a vote. What happened to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Ok, there's no way I'm going to be able to hold my ground on this here, of all places, so I'm bowing out. And hoping this is not swiftly followed by legislation declaring Romans 1 the rough equivalent of Mein Kampf.

Quote from: ZoeM on June 26, 2013, 10:56:39 AM
Ok, there's no way I'm going to be able to hold my ground on this here, of all places, so I'm bowing out. And hoping this is not swiftly followed by legislation declaring Romans 1 the rough equivalent of Mein Kampf.

Zoe, no one will do that.  You have your right to be a Christian and believe your scripture.  Even if I don't agree with some of your beliefs, I would be the first person to defend your right to believe it.  Though, I think you have taken it too far by comparing support for same sex marriage with holding the belief that Christians are Nazis.  No one said that.  What people are saying is have your own moral beliefs, but don't force it onto others.  We have the right to live our own lives and choose our own paths as long as we are harming no one else or breaking the law in the process.

Quote from: ZoeM on June 26, 2013, 10:56:39 AM
Ok, there's no way I'm going to be able to hold my ground on this here, of all places, so I'm bowing out. And hoping this is not swiftly followed by legislation declaring Romans 1 the rough equivalent of Mein Kampf.

Zoe you don't have to bow out I respect your opinion. This ain't about the bible this about should one group be allowed to force their beliefs on everybody else. Nobody is making anybody be gay this is about freedom to live life the way you choose instead of the way somebody else chooses for you.

Quote from: ZoeM on June 26, 2013, 10:56:39 AM
Ok, there's no way I'm going to be able to hold my ground on this here, of all places, so I'm bowing out. And hoping this is not swiftly followed by legislation declaring Romans 1 the rough equivalent of Mein Kampf.

Christians have two weeklong federal holidays, the entire month of December devoted to it roughly (There is no war on Christmas there is a war on proper decoration techniques), when you go to court you have to swear on a new testament, everyone thanks God all the time, and on and on.

Really giving someone else rights is not the equivalent of taking something away from someone else. Supporters of DOMA are directly oppressing other people and this ruling doesn't now oppress them. The only thing this law does is give rights to the states in how they want to decide it. 

I know people like to seperate gay and trans people but I was gay (I put the B in BI lol) before I was trans so this is a pretty important issue to me and when I was younger I always wondered how I would get married and thought I'd be alone forever. So this is very heartening for LGBT youth.

Quote from: ZoeM on June 26, 2013, 10:56:39 AMswiftly followed by legislation declaring Romans 1 the rough equivalent of Mein Kampf.

Zoe, what about Roman's 13, which I think is more akin to your point?


No one has more respect for the Bible than I do but, like everything else these days, much remains open to interpretation but wouldn't this, in effect, include a 'democratic majority"?

We already have 'separation of church & state', we need to proceed as if we intend to keep it that way !!

This is a weird argument to be having here, especially because it is a trans issue, whether you know it or not.  Married trans people have been shut out from their legal spousal rights and even have had their marriages annulled after-the-fact by ex-husbands and greedy families after their happily-married-to-a-trans person family member died.  Those arguments always make the case that we are not real men and/or women, whichever happens to be convenient.  If same-sex marriage is legal, then those arguments have zero grounds.

Also, depending on the state you are from, you may be allowed to marry only men, only women, or even both, depending on where you are in your transition.  Also I believe Texas was trying to enact a law that didn't let us marry anybody cause they can't figure out our "real" sex.  Idk if that passed.  Oh, btw, even if you do marry the sex your state allows, your marriage is always in danger of being taken away from you because of the stuff I mentioned in the first paragraph.  And even if that nightmare doesn't happen to you, then soon as you cross state lines you may be still or not or maybe married depending on the state you visit or move to. Do you see the mess?  It is immediately untangled by gay marriage being made universally legal.

And don't get me started on the cost of not being able to be legally married or the spousal rights, which are SIGNIFICANT, that we deny a very large portion of society because of how they were born.  That is why this IS is a civil rights issue.  Also, what actual doubt is there about the nature vs. nurture origins of homosexuality, and what does that even matter when, however somebody turns out gay, we have proven a bajillion times over there is no changing it?

Quote from: learningtolive on June 26, 2013, 10:15:06 AM
Do propose that citizens should get to vote on the rights of the rest of their state's inhabitants?  I'd rather let the law and the courts do the talking when it comes to rights then people subjecting other's to their moral wills.  It's your prerogative to be against it, and I don't begrudge you this, but don't force it onto others.  Ballot initiatives are not always constitutional or wise by proxy.   If you are against it, continue your beliefs and sharing them, but we can't force other into leading the same path.

That's was majoritarian rule is all about.  I doubt you would make the same sort of argument if the Court had gone the other way.

This is the part of the Act that was ruled unconsittutional:

Section 3. Definition of marriage
    In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Sadly a misinformed post. While DOMA is dead, the supreme court DID NOT pass a vote on prop 8 but kicked it back to the local courts because no government official showed up to any of the hearings on it, only private citizens so if the 9th Circuit court of appeals chooses to uphold prop 8 same sex marriage will remain illegal. Also contrary to popular belief, the death of DOMA doesn't mean nationwide same sex marriage, it just means that people living in a state with legalized same sex marriage can claim federal death benefits, example a married couple in Iowa, but if that couple was married in Iowa but lives in Ohio they can not claim federal death benefits. Does this open a door to that being changed, yes but i still think this country is 5-10 years away from that door to federal same sex marriage laws being opened.

Quote from: Bailey on June 26, 2013, 12:08:03 PM
The fact that our ruling systems of semi-democracy are based on a logical fallacy should be extremely disturbing.

Welcome to the real world where what is played off as a democracy is really a republic.