Prop. 8 & DOMA Predictions.

I'm with you on that and thus why I do not support any govt intrusion into the bedroom be it straight or gay sex.

gay sex, straight sex, however I choose to engage in it should have no effect whatsoever on my individual liberty. By allowing the govt to grow in size and create rules for married couples was wrong and needs to be revoked. We are individuals and a single adult should be treated the same as someone who wants to take a partner for life in the eyes of God. The govt should not be involved.

What's next, special rules for those who despise peanut butter?

 

Amen!!

 

Which is why we don't protect other freedoms of choice like religion with equal vigor, right? The seeking and finding of romantic partners is an integral part of being human, if unjust restrictions, prosecution and preferential treatment are enacted, it strikes me as a little disingenuous to not see this as a serious problem. Sure you can choose to supress your homosexuality, that doesn't mean it's any less serious of a restriction that attacks a fundimental part of who they are without good reason. It's an unjust denial of freedom without due process and an attack on the individual's pursuit of happiness. It may not be as rediculous as attacking someone for an immutable characteristic of race, but protecting the freedom o choice is no joke.

If the solution is to get the government out of the regulation of the bedroom and marriage, fine, but show me first that there is a chance in hell that the US and State government will do so before we start thinking of that as anything but a nice thought that we quickly set aside, like thinking how great the world would be if we eliminated hunger. Nice thought, but let's get back to reality first. Reality is that there are restrictions on marriage, the government is involved with it, some of those restrictions are justified and others are in question.

It's a little disengenous to compare such restrictions and reulation with special interests about liking peanut butter. Such an issue is hardly of the same degree of significance in most people's lives, and carries significantly less risks, problems and benefits for society, or the legal and financial structure of your household.

May I ask, did you tie the knot officially when you married?

 

what a hoot

you say AMEN about personal liberty but have vote Obama in your signature..........too funny

 

You 'laugh', I'll VOTE.

 

and continue to support that which you abhor

too funny

 

You've got it backwards, that's what they did when they passed DOMA. They effectively used the Constitution to enshrine discrimination into the law. It's about time someone cleaned up all that wee wee.

 

In any case, none of us RULE the world... we can only contribute to it.

 

Amen to that!!

 

??? You are the one insisting we license and regulate those who have sex with the same sex in bed.

 

That would require treating the married, the same as the unmarried.

 

... so that the unmarried could file a joint tax return with nobody, make medical decisions for nobody and have medical decisions made for them by nobody, add nobody to their insurance and have themselves added to nobody's insurance, to not have to testify in court against nobody and having this nobody not have to testify in court agains them, to have the property they have passed to nobody in the event of their death and having nobody's property passed to them in the event of their death, to be buried next to nobody in veteran's cemeteries, to have joint custody and ownership with nobody.

That just doesn't make sense, how would one treat a non-married person like a married person? The situation are dissimilar entirely. Marriage is about facilitating the union of people, the concept doesn't even make sense to apply to an individual alone.

 

No, it would be with the person of their choice, whether they were married or not.

 

... ya that's pretty much what would happen with same-sex marriage being allowed. You can perform such actions with the person of your choice, it's just done via a marriage license (as opposed to how it works today where it's only with the opposite-sex person of your choice). The only restrictions that would be left are those that are judged by the court to have good cause for a significantly important state interest... if such cause can't be found, then those barriers will be eliminated too.

 

I think we'll see Section 3 of DOMA struck down.

I will not be surprised though if they vacate the rulings in the Prop 8 case and allow the amendment to stand, saying it's not a federal issue. I hope I'm wrong about that, but time will tell.

 

Just a bit more explanation on this post of mine from yesterday:

I don't think the court is going to change direction to consider same-sex orientation a suspect class requiring heightened or strict scrutiny. I think they are more likely to invalidate DOMA section 3 along the lines of the First District's narrow ruling finding no rational basis for its existence.

I think it will make a difference to them that DOMA is federal law, while Prop 8 is a voter-enacted amendment to a state constitution. While the 9th Circuit's ruling in the Prop 8 case cites Romer fairly heavily, I think the SCOTUS will thread the needle, drawing a distinction between Colorado's amendment 2 directly targeting orientation, as contrasted with Prop 8 whose wording skates a thin line in avoidance of direct reference.. The trouble here is that the 9th's ruling asks us to posit as true that voters were motivated by animus toward same-sex orientation, using Prop 8 to express disapproval of homosexuality. I'm not sure the evidence of animus that has been presented will be enough to sway the Supreme Court justices. I think they will conclude that while animus in the campaign is evident, they aren't in a position to assume it was the primary motivation of the voters. Surely it was for some, probably many voters. But all or most? I don't think the SCOTUS will be willing to say so.

I think they will let Prop 8 stand, to avoid the implications that voiding it could potentionally have for other states' amendments. So long as the majority of states continue to ban recognition of same-sex couples' marriages in their constitutions, SCOTUS will not act to unilaterally void those amendments. They will wait until such time as a 'supermajority' of states have repealed or struck down those amendments on their own.

 

I tend to agree. I've heard independent experts come to conclusions similar to yours above.

Even so, people need to realize and accept that homosexual Americans and their advocates will not stop fighting for equal rights; whether in this era or those to come.

 

Homosexuals have no desire for equal rights. THEY WANT the UNEQUAL rights provided to married heterosexual couples because they are the only couples with the potential of procreation. UNEQUAL rights by design. Had they been advocating for equal rights in marriage, they likely would have already had it.

 

Nope, sorry, no matter how many times you repeat this argument...it doesn't change reality.

Homosexuals want equality in marriage. Nothing more nothing less.

 

the potential for procreation is irrelevant. that's why couples with an impossibility of procreation can and do marry.

 

Odd that they only insist on "gay marriage". Odd that every court thats created this right of gay marriage, did so only for gays. Creating this right on the basis of animus towards homosexuals that they perceive to be the sole basis of marriages limitation to heterosexual couples.

 

Irrelevant in the case of that individual couple. Controlling in the case of marriages limitation to heterosexuals in 44 states.

 

nope. irrelevant in all 50 states. which is why couples with an impossibility of procreation can and do marry in all 50 states.

 

nonsense. those states simply removed the gender restriction. two straigh males can now marry. sexual orientation is irrelevant, and not even a consideration.

 

Actually state laws allow for the annulment or dissolution of marriages for a failure to consummate the relationship. No state with gay marriage has yet eliminated those laws. Although I cant imagine how they would apply them in the case of gay couples as two people of the same sex cannot physically consummate a marriage. Im sure if they can change the meaning of marriage they can change the definition of consummation.