Quote from: Jamie D on June 26, 2013, 12:00:44 PM
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.

In this case, the state was voting to deny rights to minorities.  I don't think procedural discrimination is what this country is about.  We used to have state mandates on slavery too.  Should we bring that back.  No.  I think having legal protections to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority is a wise practice.  What if there was vote on whether Christians should be able to congregate within the state and the voters took away that right?  Should we stand by and say okay.  No.  I realize there is protection in the first amendment for these things, but I don't see why others can make the argument that gays shouldn't be protected under the 14th amendment when it is clear that their relationships are being treated differently and not they are not equally being protected by the law.  I know as a Conservative you will disagree with that interpretation, but there is no denying in practice that gays who can't marry their loved ones and often face employment discrimination are not seen equally in the eyes of the law.

No matter your political leanings the fact remains DOMA was supposed to be a constitutional amendment and the fact is what do most amendments do: they protect minority rights. Right to vote, right to exist, right to pursue happiness. DOMA did the opposite: it denied rights. It squashed happiness. It had real real world consequences and protected the right of some to impose their views on a minority. That's wrong. l. It wasn't a "defense of marriage" it was a denial of human rights to one select group of people. It "othered" gay men and women.

Also, yes this does not make gay marriage legal. But it is a first step that admits DOMA is discrimination. But really a federal law is needed as some states will simply not do the right thing and afford equal rights to gay couples. But one state does not have to honor another state's legalization of marriage. That will make this a matter of interstate commerce and per the commerce clause make a federal law neccessary to avoid the messiness that happens when states fight.

I think of the children. Gay kids are finally not going to have to grow up in fear and in a climate of hate. I still have trouble on why this is even an issue. If a gay man gets married how does that effect someone else? It doesn't. No oneis forcing other people to marry gay couples if they don't want to it is just making all things equal. That is the eternal goal of our great republic. Equality, Fratenity, Liberty. Okay that's France lol

This is a trans issue. Life just became easier for many trans people.

Quote from: Joanna Dark on June 26, 2013, 12:22:16 PM
No matter your political leanings the fact remains DOMA was supposed to be a constitutional amendment and the fact is what do most amendments do: they protect minority rights. Right to vote, right to exist, right to pursue happiness. DOMA did the opposite: it denied rights. It squashed happiness. It had real real world consequences and protected the right of some to impose their views on a minority. That's wrong. l. It wasn't a "defense of marriage" it was a denial of human rights to one select group of people. It "othered" gay men and women.

Also, yes this does not make gay marriage legal. But it is a first step that admits DOMA is discrimination. But really a federal law is needed as some states will simply not do the right thing and afford equal rights to gay couples. But one state does not have to honor another state's legalization of marriage. That will make this a matter of interstate commerce and per the commerce clause make a federal law neccessary to avoid the messiness that happens when states fight.

I think of the children. Gay kids are finally not going to have to grow up in fear and in a climate of hate. I still have trouble on why this is even an issue. If a gay man gets married how does that effect someone else? It doesn't. No oneis forcing other people to marry gay couples if they don't want to it is just making all things equal. That is the eternal goal of our great republic. Equality, Fratenity, Liberty. Okay that's France lol

This is a trans issue. Life just became easier for many trans people.

Yeah but you know the true Red states like Texas will fight such a federal law, even to the point of a filibuster, and such a law would end up seeing so much red tape that it would take 5-10 years to pass....look at gun control, two bills hit a brick wall and, thankfully, lost all steam and faded so far into the background that no one even mentions it any more unless it's because a state slaughtered the second amendment and people are protesting. Do i feel it should be legal nationwide, yes. Do i feel now is the time for it, no. Why, because of our massive deficit, Clinton needing jailed for Banghazi, IRS scandal, Fast & Ferrous, Illegal phone tapping and so many other scandals that are facing our current administration that should be fixed and dealt with first.

Quote from: Jamie D on June 26, 2013, 12:00:44 PM
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.

DOMA does not make same sex marriage legal in all states, that's why there is more work to be done.

In issues of civil rights, majority rule is inherently unfair.  This is why state law, including proposition laws that were voted in by the population, must be checked against the constitution.  Where the constitution is wrong or incomplete we fix by amendments, for which there is a lengthy process.  The supreme court is the ultimate arbiter and interpreter of what the constitution says and means, and the bias through which they interpret things is influenced by the society they were raised in and the current views of things.  This keeps things evolving to match social changes, to a degree.  There is a reason we have this system, and it is designed this way, among other things, specifically to protect minorities from being bullied by the majority.  Though, obv, it only goes so far.

Quote from: kariann330 on June 26, 2013, 12:34:24 PM
Do i feel now is the time for it, no. Why, because of our massive deficit, Clinton needing jailed for Banghazi, IRS scandal, Fast & Ferrous, Illegal phone tapping and so many other scandals that are facing our current administration that should be fixed and dealt with first.

I neither know nor care or want to talk about those issues but even so our country can do more then one thing at a time. And what is more important then bestowing liberty and freedom on a segment of our society that currently deals with massive discrimination?

Quote from: kariann330 on June 26, 2013, 12:34:24 PM
Yeah but you know the true Red states like Texas will fight such a federal law, even to the point of a filibuster, and such a law would end up seeing so much red tape that it would take 5-10 years to pass

Texas is quickly becoming a Purple State.

Yup, well im gonna hop off this thread, i think i hear a drone circling my property.

Quote from: kariann330 on June 26, 2013, 12:46:37 PM
Yup, well im gonna hop off this thread, i think i hear a drone circling my property.

I understand your concern in that area, but it's possible to tackle to issues at a time.  Otherwise we will never make any progress. Unfortunately, this isn't something that is tied only to this administration, so waiting simply for the next administration won't clear the path.  Both Republicans and Democrats seem to love the wire tapping, drones, (IRS Scandal targeted groups on both sides of the aisle with increased scrutiny. So I don't see it as a political scandal, when so many political groups try to pretend they are for social welfare when they have political purposes, Fast and Furious originated from the Bush Whitehouse and was gleefully carried out by the ATF under Obama's watch, and there is shared blame over Benghazi (look at embassy security funding).  All these things will exist under the next administration and the next.  They should be addressed, but if we don't focus on anything but these issues, nothing else will ever get done for years because both dems and Republicans share their blame over these things.  The fact is gay marriage is very relevant to many people and it would be unfair for us to put it on the back burner for years.  It's not my top priority either (campaign finance, lobbyist reform and increased protections against civil liberties and journalists are my top issues) but it needs to be dealt with.

Quote from: learningtolive on June 26, 2013, 12:12:46 PM
In this case, the state was voting to deny rights to minorities.  I don't think procedural discrimination is what this country is about.  We used to have state mandates on slavery too.  Should we bring that back.  No.  I think having legal protections to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority is a wise practice.  What if there was vote on whether Christians should be able to congregate within the state and the voters took away that right?  Should we stand by and say okay.  No.  I realize there is protection in the first amendment for these things, but I don't see why others can make the argument that gays shouldn't be protected under the 14th amendment when it is clear that their relationships are being treated differently and not they are not equally being protected by the law.  I know as a Conservative you will disagree with that interpretation, but there is no denying in practice that gays who can't marry their loved ones and often face employment discrimination are not seen equally in the eyes of the law.

States have often "denied rights" for various reasons.  For instance, in some states convicted felons are denied the right to vote.  It is within their purview, unless those rights are guaranteed by a State or Federal Constitution.

In the case of Proposition 8, a law was enacted by the majority of the people (voting) through the lawful State initiative process (a progressive reform from the early 1900s).  It is a form of direct democracy.

The law was challenged in court and preserved on the State level by the State Supreme Court.  It was then challenged in Federal court.  The Governor and the Attorney General of the State, in a political decision, declined to defend the Proposition.  The question remains, who shall defend the People when their lawful will is thwarted?

It is a purely procedural question.  The USSC punted.

People who oppose this are going down on the losing side of history. This is like Japanese soldiers who kept fighting 10 years after Hiroshima. It's over.

Quote from: Jamie D on June 26, 2013, 01:20:36 PM
States have often "denied rights" for various reasons.  For instance, in some states convicted felons are denied the right to vote.  It is within their purview, unless those rights are guaranteed by a State or Federal Constitution.

In the case of Proposition 8, a law was enacted by the majority of the people (voting) through the lawful State initiative process (a progressive reform from the early 1900s).  It is a form of direct democracy.

The law was challenged in court and preserved on the State level by the State Supreme Court.  It was then challenged in Federal court.  The Governor and the Attorney General of the State, in a political decision, declined to defend the Proposition.  The question remains, who shall defend the People when their lawful will is thwarted?

It is a purely procedural question.  The USSC punted.

A lawful initiative process, doesn't necessary create lawful policy that is upheld by the Constitution.  That's where the problem lies.  We have a difference of opinion whether same-sex marriage could or should be protected under the 14th amendment, but that will not change how either of us feel.  I'm a textualist who looks at the wording and see whether that passage could be applied.  I know you don't care for my view, but that doesn't mean mine is lesser to yours simply because you have a strict and more narrow view on the constitution's applicability.  We just differ.  Today the court didn't solve this issue, so the argument is still alive and well.  But it has been ruled by the lower courts to have violated equal protection and it is a viable legal argument whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.

I am thankful that bad laws can be challenged and overturned.

We're talking a lot about prop8, which wasn't overturned, so.. idk.

Below is a section of the House report on DOMA, just to show the spirit under which that act was drafted:

QuoteCivil laws that permit only heterosexual marriage reflect and honor a collective moral judgment about human sexuality. This judgment entails both moral disapproval of homosexuality,54 and a moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality.

You may come to your own conclusions about how that makes you feel.  This was from just 17 years ago, y'all.  Think of how far we've come in such a short time!  I love how separate church and state were being kept.

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.

  ( huh? Our 'ruling systems', like many others, is based on CORRUPTION pure and simple )

Side note: funny how so-called Communist China is, in some ways, far ahead of us !!!

Hong Kong Court Supports Transsexual's Right to Wed

Quote from: classic97.net/news/hong-kong-court-supports-transsexual%E2%80%99s-right-wed-21-05-13A Hong Kong transsexual has won the right to marry her boyfriend, following an appeal to Hong Kong's top court. The Court of Final Appeal ruled that Hong Kong's current law, which barred the transsexual woman from marrying her male partner, is unconstitutional.

While similar, Hong Kong is fairly different from China.

Quote from: Naomi on June 27, 2013, 09:21:34 AM
While similar, Hong Kong is fairly different from China.

Granted but I find it interesting, telling(?), that they, contrary to the U.S, support "trans" more than "gay" ?

Found a great libertarian commentary I agree with 100% :

Quote from: personalliberty.com/2013/06/27/domas-demise/Some people feel same-sex marriages threaten the sanctity of traditional unions. The divorce rate in this country suggests same-sex marriage is not the reason that sanctity is cowering under the bed. As for individual nuptials, the fact that the guys across the street have matching wedding bands isn't going to get you out of taking out the garbage — nor is it going give you an alibi when your wife catches you with that hot new receptionist.

When it comes to the example same-sex marriages might set for the Nation's youth . . .

Can't do much more damage to 'traditional marriage' outside of what's already been done !

Quote from: Kiera on June 27, 2013, 11:09:35 AM
Can't do much more damage to 'traditional marriage' outside of what's already been done !

Here are 10 examples