23 votes

*D.O.M.A. Ruled Unconstitutional!*

No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court-doma-...




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

just curious

as lovely as it is to know everyone is thought of more equally... has anyone considered that you are now more equally subject to state subpression and violence?

the state doesn't give freedoms. they take freedoms. they give things to take control.

kind of concerned my friends celebrating aren't considering the bigger picture. but also admittedly glad they feel good temporarily that what they know the majority of people think is validated by a state. i just question if everyone considers the damage state sponsorship involves.

Fifth amendment? How about the 10th amendment!

not really sure what this has to do with due process.

Not exactly, Only part of DOMA was struck down

in addition, it only matters in states where marriage is legal for gays, has no standing for states that have outlawed gay marriage.

Hurray for States Rights!

THIS is what happens when the government uses tax code...

There never SHOULD have been any tax advantage to getting married and having babies - although I understand why the government does it; to encourge people to breed more taxpayers of course.

But now, anyone screaming about gay marriage and that the homosexual-marrieds get the same government benefits that the heterosexual-marrieds get, should shut up.

They have been all for the federal benefits for heteros all along.

So now when the homo-marrieds finally get the same benefits as the hetero-marrieds, they scream bloody murder.

But what do you expect when you get government involved in influencing social behavior?

Lost in this whole issue is that government in a free society has no business giving ANYONE any benefits for their lifestyle choices.

Also lost in all this is that there never should have been an income tax in the first place, so that rat-bastards like John McCain and Lyndsey Graham and central bankers and military contractors can use the money to go to war after war and kill as many Arabs as they possibly can.

Or so that politicians can give it away by the billions each year in foreign aid.

The point is, once you let the government influence social behavior with monetary advantages, don't be surprised when other groups (who you may disagree with) come asking for the SAME benefits.

We have become a nation of tribes - all standing in line at the government trough to get advantages for "their" group.

BUT WHAT HAPPENED TO THE INDIVIDUAL??? THE SMALLEST MINORITY IN THE WORLD IS THE INDIVIDUAL.

THAT is how this nation was set up - But that's not how it is anymore.

Once the idea of individual liberty is pushed aside (as has been aided and abetted by the Department of Education), we are no longer free persons - we exist under a tyranny.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

I think as an alternative to

I think as an alternative to all the "marrieds" I'd like to a start a "Single Americans" political party ("American Individualists Party"?)... we'd be largest in terms of sheer numbers (there are now more unmarried people in the US versus married people) and it could lead to the end of government-sponsored social engineering and benefits that NO ONE has a "right" to.

Bravo Velveeta!

BRAVO!

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

fireant's picture

Don't know why

you got down voted for such an on point rant...fixed it.

Undo what Wilson did

ACinMA's picture

This touches close to home for me

I live in MA, and years ago when MA legalized gay marriage my sister and her English citizen girlfriend were married, and shortly after my sister was forced to become an ex-patriot and leave our family for England because of DOMA and her wifes inability to stay here legally. It has been years of only getting to see her twice a year on holidays.. Ironically she is here visiting this week for my father birthday, along with my birthday, and today as she sat on my couch, we got the news that her, her wife, and their son finally be able to have their one wish, to move back home.

Being a libertarian, i despise that government has the power to dictate things like this. Certainly i would have much rather seen the supreme court decide the government has no right to have anything to do with marriage at all, but for now i celebrate, for the sake of my family.

Fall River, Bristol County, Massachusetts

ℛ[ƎVO˩]ution
"When one gets in bed with government,
one must expect the diseases it spreads."
‎"It's not like I'm a powerful person. My ideas are."

a tangle of issues at the surface

You give the impression that you might agree with Scalia's statements. What's odd is I agree with Scalia's statements [too] but not with his dissenting opinion/vote. To me they are not mutually exclusive [his statements and the majority decision]. I think a judge that voted to strike down DOMA could just as easily [perhaps more easily] have made Scalia's statements.

Interestingly, future legislation will have to sort out whether or not this opening will actually change anything, for as it stands, no federal agency is yet forced to recognize same-sex marriages. At this moment [now that DOMA is void] we actually exist in Scalia's ideal of federal neutrality, for the moment anyway, however fleetingly this moment shall reign. Federal agencies will no doubt not waste time in adjusting their respective rules to include same-sex marriage.

The ultimate "libertarian" outcome of the DOMA decision would be to recognize that this is the perfectly opportune moment for federal legislators and agencies to sift through all federal laws, statutes, and rules to remove anything tied to marriage whatsoever. I think this outcome highly unlikely.

The last federal issue to consider adjusting to your, mine, and Scalia's virtual federal utopia :D would coincidentally be that of international espousal. At first it would seem to be an issue in which the feds would have to come up with a clear legal definition of marriage, but when you really think it through as a libertarian, you can throw that out the window too.

From a libertarian perspective, I think the DOMA decision was the right one.

Shame On You

How can you be a libertarian and think this? Your view is "I don't want the government to do this therefore I want the courts to say it unconstitutional". This view is basically that the constitution is meaningless. This is certainly the prevailing opinion today but a very dangerous one. It is no wonder we have the government spying on us, we think the constitution is whatever 50% + 1 think it should be.

Shame on you for being so judgmental

AC stated they don't want the federal government dictating marriage which is a common libertarian position. The fact that AC is celebrating a ruling that might bring his/her family back together even though it is not an ideal ruling is nothing to be a shamed of.

ACinMA's picture

Shame on you

for trying to degrade me rather than teach me. Your other comments on this subject were much more informative than this. Some of us still have a lot to learn regarding the law and constitution, and this is why we are here. Maybe rather than making comments mocking my lack of knowledge on the subject, you should use your knowledge and educate me, and others, on what would be the best way to resolve this issue..

Fall River, Bristol County, Massachusetts

ℛ[ƎVO˩]ution
"When one gets in bed with government,
one must expect the diseases it spreads."
‎"It's not like I'm a powerful person. My ideas are."

Sorry

Fair enough, I apologize.

That Was Such A Fine Response

Mature and poised. Thank you for demonstrating the high caliber of discourse which is the hallmark of the best of DP.

Legal, shmegal!

Why even bother with legal marriage anyway? It's commerce, plain and simple. You merely increase your value as a tax asset of the government and actually decrease your own financial power.

You can be committed to your lover without getting the government / church stamp of approval. Do that and be a REAL rebel! There are no advantages to joining the Legal Marriage Country Club that cannot be arranged with a little estate planning, D-N-R authority clarification, etc. In medieval times marriage was just between two people who pledged themselves to each other--none of this show-offy, let's-get-a-bunch-of-expensive-gifts-from-people-and/or-pay-too-much-for-a-bad-DJ-and-a-venue-and-some-dry-chicken-breast-meal crap of today. (HA, most of the people who show of their wedding rings like they are some badges of superiority are the first ones to twist 'em off when they go to get facefuls of tits at the strip joint or try to flirt with the cute guys at their business conventions. Ridiculous!)

Legal marriage is a racket! Just ask anyone in the restaurant / hospitality business....

BUT... let the gays have it if they want it. Heteros (and Christians) have been making a farce of marriage for decades now, so what's the difference?

What would the Founders do?

Thanks for saving me a lot of typing

Good summary.

Only have to disagree on one point. Most married adults(men and women) have learned to leave the rings on - it tells the other ring bearers who the easy one night stands are.

Now the real issue is - can they force gay, married people to wear "different" rings so others can easily tell if they are gay - will save all those same aforementioned people a lot of headaches on those business trips.

Whoah!

LOL! Damn, that's off the hook! How clever we complicated human beings are....

[Shit, my sides hurt from laughing.]

There's something there to be sure! No offense to tha GLBT crew, but it does annoy me that they co-opted the rainbow for their "movement". But perhaps rainbow rings?

; )

What would the Founders do?

I absolutely agree

I share your perspective on the institution of marriage. This is the first time I've ever heard/read someone else express this point of view and boy am I delighted to see it. As far as I knew I was the only one who thought such a thing. I'm having my girlfriend read your comment now just so she can see at least one other person has come to this conclusion. Her cousin is doing the big wedding thing right now and I know its hard for my gal to accept how unorthodox I really am. People participate in their cultural traditions and institutions so blindly and without any critical thinking capacity that some really illogical things get by and are considered normal.

RIGHT ON!

Glad to hear it! Yeah, there aren't many of "us". LOL! It ain't easy either, and it may be more difficult for the man in the relationship (if hetero) because people look at it with the perspective of: "That guy is a tool. Why won't he just marry that poor woman? Why is she with him? What a loser. They aren't for real. They aren't serious. Et cetera."

Man, the shit I've heard from people over the 15 years I've been spiritually, mentally, and emotionally "married" to my girl... it is an exercise in patience and forgiveness. And the smugness from some friends. But a few people "get it", and they are GOLD. But, it's not about anybody else (Heck, perhaps that's selfish of us, but fuck it!).

Marriage means what it means to people, and that is fine. There is real beauty in that! I mean not to disrespect. It just is wack when people hate upon those of us who wish to live differently.

My Common Law Wife (LOL! Love that one....) is more of a firebrand about our type of freedom than I am, to be honest. She is one tough cookie. She hears some BS from people occasionally, but you know, the longer we go on, the less shit talk we hear. Friends' and family members' marriages have been born and have died in the time we've been together, so that (sad as it is) helps to cause some to shut the EFF up!

Best of luck to you and your love, TC!

; )

What would the Founders do?

Son Will Greenwald Now Return To The U.S.?

Or have his recent stories made that impossible?

Rothbard: "Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."

Eh? As far as I know, he

Eh? As far as I know, he lives in the US. Washington, no?

No, Brazil

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/06/26/supreme_court_d...

Rothbard: "Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."

I hope not

He needs to stay away from US soil, so he can keep reporting without being harassed.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

Or "Hastingsed"

my take on the whole gay marriage thing

Yes, the government should absolutely be out of the marriage business. However, given that this will not happen any time soon, what is the harm in allowing gays to marry? Let them have it!

BTW, the most interesting discussion on the gay marriage issue I have ever watched is this one between Justin Raimondo and Jonathan Rausch. Justin offers a very interesting perspective. Here we have a gay libertarian arguing against gay marriage and a gay social conservative arguing for gay marriage, which is the opposite of what you would expect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDU9kMtVVuE

We don't get to hear Justin speak too often, and that is a shame.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

DOMA was created to promote religious morality

The House concluded that DOMA expresses “both moral disapproval of homosexuality, and a moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality...” The stated purpose of the law was to promote an “interest in protecting the traditional moral teachings reflected in heterosexual-only marriage laws.”

It's a definitely a "no-brainer" that DOMA was wrong and unconstitutional

So?

It probably was created to promote religious morality but that is irrelevant. The federal government can regulate morality within its powers as defined in Article 1. Moreover, the states can regulate morality as they see fit so long as it doesn't violate a federal statue.

The vast majority of laws are moral laws. There is nothing wrong with this.

don't confuse moral and legal

Saying that "the vast majority of laws are moral, and that DOMA was promoting a particular morality and was therefore good," is equivalent, logically, to saying that "the vast majority of swans are white, a dove is white, and therefore a dove is a swan."

Yes, most laws have a moral basis, but not all morals should be legislated!

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

And?

Good thing I didn't say any of that.

I'm merely pointing out that a law can't be struck down just because it is trying to legislate a particular moral.

"Yes, most laws have a moral

"Yes, most laws have a moral basis, but not all morals should be legislated!"

most? i'd say some. definitively not most.