SCOTUS takes on Prop 8 & DOMA!

[Gregg]

I get the urge to give the Liberty tree a drink when access to benefits are protected for one group, but denied to another. That is overly simplistic in practice, but it works for me. As to why we continue to allow the State to intervene in our personal affairs, it is only because we have not yet objected loudly enough and forced it to stop. By now that tree is getting pretty thirsty...

[Alan]

As to why we continue to allow the State to intervene in our personal affairs, it is only because we have not yet objected loudly enough and forced it to stop.

That's true. But another reason is that the vast majority of us prefer that our laws give special preference or, obversely, slight attention to groups/individuals/causes that make us feel better about ourselves. If we really approved of equal protection under the law we'd never allow hate crime legislation, affirmative action, progressive taxation, etc., all staples of identity politics.

[creaker]

That's true. But another reason is that the vast majority of us prefer that our laws give special preference or, obversely, slight attention to groups/individuals/causes that make us feel better about ourselves. If we really approved of equal protection under the law we'd never allow hate crime legislation, affirmative action, progressive taxation, etc., all staples of identity politics.

If equal protection under the law had actually happened many of those things would never had been considered in the first place.

[gimmethesimplelife]

If equal protection under the law had actually happened many of those things would never had been considered in the first place.

BINGO! Which is why it seems to me that the government has to get into it for better or worse.....Rob

[Alan]

So, you guys are in favor of treating people differently, except when you're not?

[gimmethesimplelife]

So, you guys are in favor of treating people differently, except when you're not?

Alan, I'm not sure if you were commenting on my post or others? My point above was that if equal protection under the law - or some kind of framework - had taken place in the first place, there would not be any real need to have the government involved in "identity politics" as you put it. Unfortunately, this has not been the case, hence my support (and expectation if I may be so bold) of the government getting involved. In a perfect world, though, this would not be needed. Rob

[Alan]

Ahhh, I get it now. The best way to eliminate discrimination and injustice is through discrimination and injustice. Imagine my embarrassment.

[Zoebird]

Or until you move to some state that doesn't honor gay marriage, and decide to press your rights, and find out that the Federal government will not line up on your side to enforce Article IV Section 1 of the US Constitution, which requires simply that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

this is the real sticking point -- state and federal levels.

I think that there are good things about entitlements around marriage -- like spousal privilege, next of kin stuff for medical/legal stuff is pretty valuable. Testate issues are helpful, but not necessary in terms of 'rights.' But since they are federal and state entitlements, might as well apply to all kinds of marriages, as per above.

[gimmethesimplelife]

Ahhh, I get it now. The best way to eliminate discrimination and injustice is through discrimination and injustice. Imagine my embarrassment.

? Sorry you lost me here Alan.....? Rob

[creaker]

Ahhh, I get it now. The best way to eliminate discrimination and injustice is through discrimination and injustice. Imagine my embarrassment.

Probably not. But leaving them just as they are is probably not the best way, either.