SCOTUS takes on Prop 8 & DOMA!

[bae]

I'll ask again, why do we allow the government to define our lives?

Because not enough of us have hit the "watering the tree of Liberty" stage yet.

[gimmethesimplelife]

Well of course it is. DOMA specifies marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Like many democratically inspired laws, it allows the tyranny of the majority to affect the minority.

I'll ask again, why do we allow the government to define our lives? As a conservative, I'm against our government treating anyone differently, be they rich, poor, straight, gay, black, white, brown, etc. (Actually what I really don't understand is why so many liberals are in favor of identity politics as this is exactly what it always leads to.)

I follow your beginning here but then get lost on the second paragraph. Why do we allow the government to define our lives? Fair question in my book. Because given the current system we live under, in this case discussing same sex marriage, this is the only way for the mythical Sven and I to have the same rights and responsibilities as the mythical Lucy and you have. I can see some points in what you are saying about why is the government part of this - why is the government intruding in this when two consenting adults can figure this one out on their own - why? Because until there is some kind of major societal change, this is the only way it seems that Sven and I can have what you and Lucy can easily have - those rights and responsibilities. You bring up interesting points, Alan, (and I can see you are great to debate with), but.....in society as it is right now, to have what you an Lucy can easily have, the only way seems to be getting the government into it and state by state trying to make same sex marriage legal. Fair answer? Rob PS If society were to change and another method could achieve similar results, I'd be open to it. Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

Correct. We surrendered when we had our child.



Indeed so. My father and his partner of 30+ years have not the same option :-(

Congrats to your father and his partner BTW.....Rob

[redfox]

I think we should be asking, why is the government involved in any of this? A marriage is simply a public declaration of unity, the joining of two individuals into one unit. Once that pairing has been accomplished, who is the government to decide how that unit's property should be dispersed outside of refereeing a division of property upon divorce?

By all means, ask. In the meantime, let's move forward with marriage equality, or rescind federal recognition of all marriages, and all the financial entanglements that have emerged as a result of this recognition. BTW, historically, marriage was a property rights contract. This property included the woman & her inheritance.

[creaker]

Well of course it is. DOMA specifies marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Like many democratically inspired laws, it allows the tyranny of the majority to affect the minority.

I'll ask again, why do we allow the government to define our lives? As a conservative, I'm against our government treating anyone differently, be they rich, poor, straight, gay, black, white, brown, etc. (Actually what I really don't understand is why so many liberals are in favor of identity politics as this is exactly what it always leads to.)

Unless we remove all the legal, economic ramifications of marriage, the state has to be in there somewhere. Personally I'd like to see the whole thing tossed for a much more generic legal definition, like allowing people to form a household (like forming a corporation, a legal document defining rights and obligations) in its place. And leave marriage as a strictly religious institution.

[peggy]

Well, I've read that the Obama administration is planning to NOT defend DOMA before the Supremes, in hopes they kill it forever, paving the way for the feds to legally recognize the states that allow same sex marriage. Obama is just one person, and not king, as it turns out, and must protect and defend the laws no matter how onerous they may be to him. He wants this law, DOMA, to go away as much as most of the rest of us.
However, the republicans are gearing up for a fight in their march to solidify THEIR vision of marriage by writing INTO the constitution this discrimination.
Sorry Alan, you're not going to twist this to somehow blame the democrats for this discrimination while supporting and defending the very ones who so very very much want to keep it and write it into the constitution!

What many don't realize is Clinton signed the DOMA in an effort to PROTECT gays, or rather to protect an individual states right to allow same sex marriage. Hawaii was having a serious talk with itself about same sex marriage and the republicans were afraid their states would have to recognize same sex couples from Hawaii if they passed a law allowing it. With a growing anti-gay force in the republican congress who were pushing to amend the constitution to add this official discrimination, Clinton felt this act was the only way to pacify these right-wing haters and signed it so they would back off and allow each state to determine for themselves within their state. Clinton actually changed his mind about this law quite a while ago, and would like to see it go away as well.

[bae]

However, the republicans are gearing up for a fight in their march to solidify THEIR vision of marriage by writing INTO the constitution this discrimination.

I think polluting our Constitution with such a thing would push quite a few folks I know into the "watering the tree of Liberty" zone. I suspect it'd make the Stonewall Riots look like a meeting of the garden club...

[peggy]

I think polluting our Constitution with such a thing would push quite a few folks I know into the "watering the tree of Liberty" zone. I suspect it'd make the Stonewall Riots look like a meeting of the garden club...

Absolutely! Never in our history, since it's beginning, have we tried to write discrimination INTO the constitution. Frankly I think they will lose. I don't think they can come up with any reasonable argument that convinces anyone why your father and step father, or my daughter and any future SO, shouldn't marry. I think in the cold light of the Supreme court, emotional rhetoric will not trump simple law/rights laid out clearly in the constitution.

[redfox]

At 12:01 am, 3 minutes from now, Judy Mary Yu will conduct the first legal marriage of two women in Seattle. Yay!

[redfox]

... and a bit of humor!

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/a...t?oid=15449639