Supreme Court Strikes Down Key DOMA Provisions

[Nathan Drake]

I enjoy that you ignored my post simply because I know there is no way to give an answer that isn't a lie through purposeful omission of information. If you can't answer my last post, your argument already has absolutely no foundation. If you had actually bothered to read the rest of the thread, or at least have skimmed it, you would find that unless you define it incorrectly, marriage is not inherently a religious experience binding one man to one woman. It's simply a legal contract that binds two people in union.

Before anybody responds to Haloman further, I insist that he find me a legitimate definition of marriage that exclusively states it as only being binding as marriage through holy matrimony. As that is the root of the "one man, one woman" side of the debate, and DOMA as a whole, if that definition can not be located, it's nothing more than "I believe this because my opinion" versus anything that would be seen as legally relevant in the US.

 

[FAST6191]

Marriage = one man, one woman, (as in the majority of the United States, which is what we're discussing).

It could be argued that many non married couples living together in either sexual or non sexual relationships deserve the same advantages as married couples. Why shouldn't a single man receive the same tax advantages as married couples?

If a hotel banned female patrons from entering it wouldn't be the governments job to legally redefine women as men. Likewise, hospitals (not government) should change their policy.

The question is then is it a historical quirk and one that needs to be changed to conform with the modern world?

No doubt and in some cases rights are being granted to those in such situations (children being a good example) or can otherwise be obtained (I can write a will for instance and there is such a thing as a cohabitation agreement). Tax breaks are otherwise known as incentives but as governments rarely give things away we have to consider what they want to have incentives for. Historically (even back in ancient Rome) this was children, in the modern world this varies a bit and probably comes down more to financial stability (insurance, credit, general safety nets) which governments quite like for the buck ultimately stops with them and having a few layers in between helps stop them getting stung so much, possible aspects of housing (room-mates, lodgers and such not doing quite so well) a and the less cynical part of me would note that those in relations of any stripe do apparently do each other well and you generally want your subjects to have a better quality of life.

Your analogy fails as that would be discrimination in the case of the hotel and covered by other things. Though I might like hospitals to change policies it does come down from various laws (medical info being kind of private after all and a spouse being able to circumvent that to an extent) so it would then seem to be back in the government's court.

 

[1stClassZackFair]

Can someone please explain to me what people would gain from marriage? I'm not against same-sex marriage at all,In fact I'm all for it and screw what any religion says,I'm just wondering why it' so important. As said earlier,marriage doesn't equal or add to happiness. Look at Gene Simmons,he was happily unmarried with his gf for at least 30 years or so and only married her because she would pester him about it. It is said that 50% of marriages in the US result in a divorce,Idk if I'm making sense or not since I haven't slept in a while but I guess what I'm trying to say is marriage isnt needed. Why not just enjoy your life with your significant other regardless of marital status? Again,sorry if I don't make sense.

 

[FAST6191]

Can someone please explain to me what people would gain from marriage? I'm not against same-sex marriage at all,In fact I'm all for it and screw what any religion says,I'm just wondering why it' so important. As said earlier,marriage doesn't equal or add to happiness. Look at Gene Simmons,he was happily unmarried with his gf for at least 30 years or so and only married her because she would pester him about it. It is said that 50% of marriages in the US result in a divorce,Idk if I'm making sense or not since I haven't slept in a while but I guess what I'm trying to say is marriage isnt needed. Why not just enjoy your life with your significant other regardless of marital status? Again,sorry if I don't make sense.

Psychologically we could debate and discuss all week, legally it is pretty clear (rights upon death, visitation rights in places where privacy or other issues exist, various tax breaks or restrictions and so on) with many of those rights being automatically granted as a result of marriage (a relatively simple affair vs doing all the paperwork manually, if you can do such paperwork manually at all). An issue here is then there are various civil unions but they are not always equal to marriage and that is a disparity that realistically needs changing if you are going to not have discriminatory laws.

The percentage results thing is an interesting discussion as you then also have to consider how marriage is viewed in various places, indeed I have noted in the US it seems almost a "thing you do" type thing in a lot of cases where a lot of the rest of the world would leave it as a normal relationship. To that end in a lot of cases as far as the US is concerned you might almost want to change that to "percentage of failed relationships".

 

[Gahars]

case and point

"Case in point". The phrase is "case in point".

If you're going to try to dodge around someone's argument, at least use the right idioms.

 

[Lacius]

Marriage = one man, one woman, (as in the majority of the United States, which is what we're discussing).

If you're arguing that because something has been arbitrarily defined a certain way in the past, or because something is the majority, it should not be changed, then you probably would have also argued against interracial marriage, monogamous (as opposed to polygamous) marriage, etc. Speaking of the latter point, I haven't been paying attention to this thread in its entirety, so I don't know if you're religious, but the Bible most definitely does not define marriage as one man and one woman.

It could be argued that many non married couples living together in either sexual or non sexual relationships deserve the same advantages as married couples. Why shouldn't a single man receive the same tax advantages as married couples?

With some things, you're probably right that certain benefits are arbitrary. With others, however, the benefit cannot exist without two people, by definition (e.g. survivor benefits, etc). If you want to advocate the abolition of marriage rights and benefits, be my guest. This debate is primarily concerned with equality under the law.

If a hotel banned female patrons from entering it wouldn't be the governments job to legally redefine women as men.

You're probably not aware that your analogy makes the pro-gray argument. Allowing gays to get married is analogous to allowing female patrons into the hypothetical hospital. Redefining women as men for the purpose of being a hospital patron is analogous to redefining one of the gays as the opposite sex for the purpose of marriage.

Can someone please explain to me what people would gain from marriage? I'm not against same-sex marriage at all,In fact I'm all for it and screw what any religion says,I'm just wondering why it' so important.

It's primarily an equality issue. To ban gay marriage is to create second-class citizens. To ban recognition of gay marriage at the federal level but allow gays to get married in some states at the state level is to create "skim milk" marriages that are unnecessarily unequal and continue to say, "You are a second-class citizen" or "Your love isn't as good as their love."

As said earlier,marriage doesn't equal or add to happiness. Look at Gene Simmons,he was happily unmarried with his gf for at least 30 years or so and only married her because she would pester him about it. It is said that 50% of marriages in the US result in a divorce,Idk if I'm making sense or not since I haven't slept in a while but I guess what I'm trying to say is marriage isnt needed. Why not just enjoy your life with your significant other regardless of marital status? Again,sorry if I don't make sense.

You're making sense. You're correct that marriage does not inherently lead to happiness. Plenty of people are in loveless marriages. It's arguably the detrimental effect of banning one group of people from marriage that needs to be addressed. Likewise, if it's not a loveless union, marriage does have positive psychological effects.

 

[1stClassZackFair]

Psychologically we could debate and discuss all week, legally it is pretty clear (rights upon death, visitation rights in places where privacy or other issues exist, various tax breaks or restrictions and so on) with many of those rights being automatically granted as a result of marriage (a relatively simple affair vs doing all the paperwork manually, if you can do such paperwork manually at all). An issue here is then there are various civil unions but they are not always equal to marriage and that is a disparity that realistically needs changing if you are going to not have discriminatory laws.

The percentage results thing is an interesting discussion as you then also have to consider how marriage is viewed in various places, indeed I have noted in the US it seems almost a "thing you do" type thing in a lot of cases where a lot of the rest of the world would leave it as a normal relationship. To that end in a lot of cases as far as the US is concerned you might almost want to change that to "percentage of failed relationships".

It's primarily an equality issue. To ban gay marriage is to create second-class citizens. To ban recognition of gay marriage at the federal level but allow gays to get married in some states at the state level is to create "skim milk" marriages that are unnecessarily unequal and continue to say, "You are a second-class citizen" or "Your love isn't as good as their love."


You're also making sense. You're correct that marriage does not inherently lead to happiness. Plenty of people are in loveless marriages. It's arguably the detrimental effect of banning one group of people from marriage that needs to be addressed. Likewise, if it's not a loveless union, marriage does have positive psychological effects.

Thanks for explaining guys. It's true that psychologically we could argue forever however the main thing I wanted to know about was the legal benefits as I've never paid attention to a converstaion when the topic of marriage would come up lol.

 

[Lacius]

Thanks for explaining guys. It's true that psychologically we could argue forever however the main thing I wanted to know about was the legal benefits as I've never paid attention to a conversation when the topic of marriage would come up lol.

A lot of the legal rights and benefits have presumably already been covered throughout this thread (joint taxes, hospital visitation and decision rights, etc), so I'm not going to go into great detail. However, I'd like to mention the real-world consequence of the DOMA ruling (that allowed the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages) in which an intern printed the ruling as fast as he could and ran it to an immigration court so he could stop someone's husband from being deported just because the United States government didn't acknowledge the same-sex marriage before the ruling.

One can also look at Edith Windsor, the plaintiff in the DOMA case, who had to pay over $360,000 in estate taxes after her wife died; she would have had to have paid $0 if she and her wife had been a heterosexual couple.

 

[KingVamp]

A lot of the legal rights and benefits have presumably already been covered throughout this thread (joint taxes, hospital visitation and decision rights, etc), so I'm not going to go into great detail. However, I'd like to mention the real-world consequence of the DOMA ruling (that allowed the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages) in which an intern printed the ruling as fast as he could and ran it to an immigration court so he could stop someone's husband from being deported just because the United States government didn't acknowledge the same-sex marriage before the ruling.


One can also look at Edith Windsor, the plaintiff in the DOMA case, who had to pay over $360,000 in estate taxes after her wife died; she would have had to have paid $0 if she and her wife had been a heterosexual couple.

I know this is a different subject/thread, but do you think DOMA ruling has any effect on polygamy standing?

 

[Lacius]

I know this is a different subject/thread, but do you think DOMA ruling has any effect on polygamy standing?

DOMA's newfound unconstitutionality has no lawful effect on polygamy; there are other laws that specifically outlaw polygamy and bigamy in the United States, both at the state and federal level. As for setting precedent for future cases dealing with polygamy, I really doubt it (although it's possible).

 

[The Catboy]

If you can, please give me a simple, logical argument as to why the definition of marriage should be changed.

Because it's not really being change, marriage is just a legal contract between two parties and the government often using another party such as the Church to witness that contract being made. In a simple break down of the legal definition.
But if you want a simple argument, the fact that you can't sell your daughter for 3 goats, kidnap someone to marry (legally that is.), and buy a wife off of someone pretty much shows that the definition of marriage has been changed.
Marriage predates Christianity and was even part of cultures like the Greeks, Romans, and Native Americans, all of which actually had same-sex marriage and that was a normal every day things. Christianity did not invent marriage nor does it have the right to define something that doesn't belong to them, they are just another middle man for the state to the contract.

 

[UltraHurricane]

i think at this point i just have to step back and wonder at those that oppose same-sex marriage and ask... why do you people care?

why are some of you so obsessed with intruding on something that's not even any of your business in the first place?
This is probably the biggest non-issue that has ever been blown out of proportions and yet we continue on this pointless debate by talking about trivial crap like "should we really change the legal definition of marriage?" or "should we even treat gay people like human begins?" I guaran-fucking-tee that if we fully legalize it the next day nothing in your life is going to change for the worst. NOTHING. Children aren't gonna be force to be taught gayness in schools, there isn't gonna be total anarchy on marriage and it's certainly not going to bring about the fucking end times. What do you people honestly have to lose? ...other then bruising your holier-than-thou egos?

jesus christ we are gonna look so fucking stupid generations from now because we tried so hard to make ourselves believe this was a real issue

 

[AbyssalMonkey]

i think at this point i just have to step back and wonder at those that oppose same-sex marriage and ask... why do you people care?

The only real issue people can have is that it will cost them more insurance money. But my counter argument to that is that these couples will adopt and later on it will do more good than harm, causing insurance to go back down.

 

[Haloman800]

Because it's not really being change,

If it's not being "change", then why are we having this discussion? Why does this thread exist? We are discussing United States law, which marriage (in the vast majority of states) = One Man, One Woman.

An issue here is then there are various civil unions but they are not always equal to marriage and that is a disparity that realistically needs changing if you are going to not have discriminatory laws

If you're unhappy with civil union benefits, then you should be rallying for them to be increased. This does not prove that the definition of marriage should be changed.

If you're arguing that because something has been arbitrarily defined a certain way in the past, or because something is the majority, it should not be changed, then you probably would have also argued against interracial marriage, monogamous (as opposed to polygamous) marriage, etc. Speaking of the latter point, I haven't been paying attention to this thread in its entirety, so I don't know if you're religious, but the Bible most definitely does not define marriage as one man and one woman.

Interracial marriage dates back as far as the Bible. That's not an issue. Stay on topic.

You're probably not aware that your analogy makes the pro-gray argument. Allowing gays to get married is analogous to allowing female patrons into the hypothetical hospital. Redefining women as men for the purpose of being a hospital patron is analogous to redefining one of the gays as the opposite sex for the purpose of marriage.

You seem a little confused. If a hospital has a stupid rule, it's not the government's job to change a definition to circumvent it. It's a problem with the hospital's bill. If you have an issue with that, take it up with the hospital.

It's primarily an equality issue. To ban gay marriage is to create second-class citizens. To ban recognition of gay marriage at the federal level but allow gays to get married in some states at the state level is to create "skim milk" marriages that are unnecessarily unequal and continue to say, "You are a second-class citizen" or "Your love isn't as good as their love."

Man/Man ≠ Man/Woman. Race equality does not mean I can claim to be aboriginal to reap the benefits of assistance programs.

You're making sense. You're correct that marriage does not inherently lead to happiness. Plenty of people are in loveless marriages. It's arguably the detrimental effect of banning one group of people from marriage that needs to be addressed. Likewise, if it's not a loveless union, marriage does have positive psychological effects.

If you imply that it is a bad thing that marriage has strayed from its traditional roots, then why would you rally to further deviate it? Marriage has been distorted and watered down, therefore we should further distort and water down marriage?

I guaran-fucking-tee that if we fully legalize it the next day nothing in your life is going to change for the worst. NOTHING.

This does not prove that the definition of marriage should be changed. We are not obliged to change definitions based on the assertions that the majority won't be affected.

 

[Lacius]

The only real issue people can have is that it will cost them more insurance money. But my counter argument to that is that these couples will adopt and later on it will do more good than harm, causing insurance to go back down.

1. Anyone who says insurance or taxes is why he or she is against gay marriage is lying.

2. An individual's health insurance costs will not go up because more people might get health insurance after the gay marriage rulings.

3. It's true that the recent marriage cases could cause tax revenue to go down marginally due to gay couples no longer having to pay as much (albeit there are other factors that might balance that out or even raise revenue). Regardless, anyone who would be against gay marriage for this reason should then be against most other types of marriage in a selfish attempt to lower his or her tax obligations as much as possible. Should we ban interracial marriages again in an effort to increase revenue and reduce the deficit?

If you're unhappy with civil union benefits, then you should be rallying for them to be increased. This does not prove that the definition of marriage should be changed.

"Separate but equal" is never equal.
Equality issues aside, certain rights and benefits require it to be marriage. For example, there are employee unions that specifically require marriage for partner benefits.
Logistic issues like the one above aside, not a single compelling reason has been provided to put gay unions on one side with limited rights/benefits and heterosexual relationships on the other.

Interracial marriage dates back as far as the Bible. That's not an issue. Stay on topic.

Before the 1967 Supreme Court ruling that legalized interracial marriage throughout the United States, the state of interracial marriage was very similar to the state of gay marriage today, being legal in some states and illegal in others (particularly the South). The Bible was also used back then in offense against interracial marriage. It's quite on topic to bring it up.

You seem a little confused. If a hospital has a stupid rule, it's not the government's job to change a definition to circumvent it. It's a problem with the hospital's bill. If you have an issue with that, take it up with the hospital.

Well, first of all, the topic of gay marriage deals directly with law and policy, which is the government's purview. Second, it is the government's job to step in when people's rights are being violated. The Civil Rights Act, for example, dealt in part with the treatment of people by race, even with regard to private institutions. Title II, for example, "outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce."

Man/Man ≠ Man/Woman.

You're right. Man/Man is not the same as Man/Woman. That doesn't mean one is less than the other or that they shouldn't be treated equally under the law.

If you imply that it is a bad thing that marriage has strayed from its traditional roots, then why would you rally to further deviate it? Marriage has been distorted and watered down, therefore we should further distort and water down marriage?

I didn't say it was a bad thing that marriage has become more inclusive and equal over the years. I explicitly stated that it's a bad thing that gay couples suffer the detrimental psychological effects of being told they're second-class citizens in states that do not allow same-sex marriage.

This does not prove that the definition of marriage should be changed. We are not obliged to change definitions based on the assertions that the majority won't be affected.

Actually, we only make things illegal or deny people specific rights when ample reason has been provided to do so, not the other way around. You could take away knowledge of all the positive things about gay marriage (e.g. equality, stability for couples and families (financial and otherwise), the positive psychological effects, etc), and you've still given no reason to make gay marriage illegal. Clinging to the sound bite "marriage is one man and one woman," ignoring that's not even the case in the Bible or would even matter if it were, does nothing to make any argument against gay marriage. Interracial marriage was illegal in my state of Missouri until the 1967 Supreme Court decision. Should interracial couples in Missouri have just been all, "Well, marriage is defined as one man of the same race and one woman of the same race here. I guess that's that"?

 

[FAST6191]

If you're unhappy with civil union benefits, then you should be rallying for them to be increased. This does not prove that the definition of marriage should be changed.

You have an interesting mindset with regards to this topic, speculating much further would probably not serve to do much other than entertain a few people.

So anyway marriage -- not a sacred/immutable word by any means. To the best of my knowledge there are no such words in English either and as soon as such things happen you tend to have a dead language on your hands or at the very least a dead word.

Civil unions and marriages
Broadly aimed at allowing people to enter into a contract which affords a host of rights, responsibilities, benefits and whatever else. Society sees no reason to (no longer) deny any of those to those engaged in relationships between those of the same sex.

Basic logic says if words are exact synonyms you can probably afford to drop one or the other or substitute one for the other unless you are engaged in wordplay. Basic logic also says if you going to have two complex programmable systems do the same thing and you do not need redundancy you might as well work from the same design spec.

 

[LoganK93]

I'm sorry, but for those of you arguing that marriage shouldn't change, let me just point out that EVERYTHING CHANGES WITH TIME. If nothing changed, we would not have modern medicine, modern technology, or even fashion as we see it today. People would be being put to death for being un-able to birth a son, there would just be so many things. There is really only one reason that everyone is against gay marriage, and without a doubt that is the Bible. There has thus far been no argument that has shown me it will drive our country into the ground. It affects straight people in no way, unless they suddenly decide that because us dirty "faggots" being able to be married somehow makes their marriage worth less, which is their own problem anyway. The procreation point is moot because I know several heterosexual married couples who either use condoms, have had vasectomies or tubes tied, are just infertile, or have gone through menopause. I say if procreation is the only reason for marriage then the binding contract should be void upon the discovery of infertility, or of the woman going through menopause as then the marriage is contributing nothing to our planet which is obviously dwindling in population since the argument seems to be that we desperately need more babies. I wish you could all take a step back and see it from the other direction. If you knew you loved someone, knew that you wanted to spend your life with them, and knew that other people could be with the person they love, and have it be legally recognized and you couldn't have the same thing, with an adult, consenting human being, you'd fight for it. Hell, I don't think at this point in our world it should be an argument. We always teach our kids not to discriminate, "People may be different colors and have different accents and even speak different languages Johnny, but if THEY ARE GAY YOU SHOULD TREAT THEM LIKE NOTHING BECAUSE THAT IS GROSS AND GOD SAID IT WAS EVIL 3000 YEARS AGO IN A BOOK HE DIDN'T WRITE."

 

[Lacius]

There is really only one reason that everyone is against gay marriage, and without a doubt that is the Bible.

Just about everyone who is against gay marriage uses their religion as the reason why, but a lot of those people are using their religion as a cover for their prejudice. In reality, many of them just don't like things that are different and/or think homosexuality is icky. I'm honestly not sure which reason is more ridiculous.

 

[Haloman800]

Do you think gay marriage is a human right?

 

[Sicklyboy]

Do you think gay marriage is a human right?

I think freedom from oppression is a human right.