Up for Debate: DOMA ruling

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 at 11:30pm

Break down the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act. What do you think the repercussions in time will be? How will the states react? What is your reaction to Justice Scalia's dissent?

Filed under: City Voices
Tagged: Up for Debate

89 Comments on this post:

By: BenDover on 6/27/13 at 10:32

How else do you decide the question except with majority popular consent, brrrk?

If you go down the path of a minority right to act on a perversion then it opens the door to consensual incest, polygamy, bestiality, MABLA and every other whacko perversion you can think of.

How is the view of one judge or a panel of judges deciding these more correct than the population at large having the say and deciding what the social thresholds are. The judiciary should defer to the people on this matter no matter how far superior you consider yourself to the people.

By: BenDover on 6/27/13 at 10:36

I'll try to check back later this afternoon guys.

By: brrrrk on 6/27/13 at 10:42

BenDover said on 6/27/13 at 11:32

"How else do you decide the question except with majority popular consent, brrrk?"

We have a set of guidelines, a Constitution, by which we call ourselves a government. It's by those guidelines that RIGHTS should be determined. Individual RIGHTS are not, and should not be, dictated by the masses.

By: Kosh III on 6/27/13 at 10:48

"How is the view of one judge or a panel of judges deciding these more correct than the population at large having the say and deciding what the social thresholds are."

With that line of thinking, we'd still be an oligarchy or a few rich white men ruling the country; women, blacks, gays, non-WASP and others would still be second, third or no-class.

How do you think a plebiscite in Alabama on segregation would have voted after Brown v Board of Education in the 50s? You know the answer.

By: brrrrk on 6/27/13 at 10:55

BenDover said on 6/27/13 at 11:32

"How is the view of one judge or a panel of judges deciding these more correct than the population at large having the say and deciding what the social thresholds are. The judiciary should defer to the people on this matter no matter how far superior you consider yourself to the people."

Well, hopefully that one judge or that panel of judges have a better understanding of the Constitution than your average person. To argue that you shouldn't have some cases decided by people who may have a better understanding of Constitutional law is like arguing that there's no reason why you shouldn't have your appendix removed by the car mechanic down the street.

By: brrrrk on 6/27/13 at 11:15

Kosh III said on 6/27/13 at 11:48

"With that line of thinking, we'd still be an oligarchy or a few rich white men ruling the country; women, blacks, gays, non-WASP and others would still be second, third or no-class."

The Conservative heaven...... if you think I'm kidding, read Russel Kirk's (the man touted by the right as the father of the modern conservative movement) book, The Conservative Mind. He lays it all out in black (begrudgingly) and white.....

By: Captain Nemo on 6/27/13 at 12:13

I'm actually for gay marriage and all manner of sexual perversion, blanket.

Wow Ben just what do you consider perversion…woman on top?

By: Captain Nemo on 6/27/13 at 12:24

By: brrrrk on 6/27/13 at 11:06
MamaG said on 6/27/13 at 10:57

"I applaud this decision. I fail to see any reason why two men or two women who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together is really anyone else business."

Agreed. And this slippery slope, man on dog bullshit that we hear from the likes of Beck, Santorum, and Paul is just ludicrous and nothing more than fear mongering. Do Conservatives not understand the legal concept of "consenting"? Actually I'm sure Beck, Santorum, and Paul do, but explaining that to their mouth breathing constituents would do nothing to get them riled up against people who have "the HOMO"..

Children and animals do not have the same rights as conceding adults. Therefore it is society that must protect them for those that would do them harm.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 6/27/13 at 12:24

LOL, Nemo!

By: Captain Nemo on 6/27/13 at 12:27

"How is the view of one judge or a panel of judges deciding these more correct than the population at large having the say and deciding what the social thresholds are?"

I believe that 55 % of Americans supports same sex marriages.

By: Captain Nemo on 6/27/13 at 12:33

Now that people of the same sex can marry, will the right-wing fringe continue to alienate them from the GOP, by their hateful persecution.

By: brrrrk on 6/27/13 at 1:09

BenDover said on 6/27/13 at 11:32

"If you go down the path of a minority right to act on a perversion then it opens the door to consensual incest, polygamy, bestiality, MABLA and every other whacko perversion you can think of."

BenYogiJug, I would bet my bottom dollar that there are things that you do in the sack that would make the rest of us toss our pop tarts. But the slippery slope argument (as I pointed out before) is bullshit.... and you know it. Consensual incest? Give me a break.... talk about a road too far.

By: dargent7 on 6/27/13 at 1:21

Yogi's 1st post out of the gate at 5:54am shows why America is in deep horse doo-doo.
"Marriage to create thru love..."! Yea,...the divorce rate is 55%....70% in Cali...some "love".
Homosexuals cannot join in holy matrimony? Not capable of and enjoy LOVE like hetero's?
Horsesh!t. They are hard-wired to love just as straights.
And what's his psychosis re: Obama's gay now?
"Never in my 82 years has a leader been open to discuss homosexuality....."
Well, Reagan was 74 when he took office...Obama just 47.
I believe he turns 52 on August 4th.
Smartest and coolest guy in any room, summit, briefing, decision making.
Deal with it, yogi.
Like legalization of marijuana, and stop bombing and invading countries, it will take the USA 25 more years to get it's sh!t together as "the leader of the free world".

By: dargent7 on 6/27/13 at 1:24

Yogi: Budlight has a GOVERNMENT job....like the one's she's railed against for 5 years.
No one else on this board is employed by the Federal Government.
Myself, I work for the crime boss head of the Gambino Family, ie., Tony Soprano. RIP

By: dargent7 on 6/27/13 at 1:34

As long as a person views gays as "sexual perversion" they will never be open minded (read: heart) and realize homosexuality isn't a "perversion".
As far as pedophiles, pornography, child rapists,...I think hetero's have cornered that market 100:1.
Each state can't be allowed to decide for itself the rights of gays or to be married.
Then all of the RED Southern states and eg., Utah, Wyoming, OK, TX. would outlaw it and make it a crime.
America has to have uniformity and agreement among all 50...or 57 as Obama likes to refer to it.

By: BenDover on 6/27/13 at 2:04

The arguments I make on this topic (and on the Civil War, for that matter) are not 'bullsh!t' as you say brrrrrk.

Why shouldn't the minority of people in this country who happen to fall into romantic love with their siblings be offered the same protection by a judge concerned about minority rights that you are asking for, for gay couples? If they agree not to have children (which is wholly controllable with birth control or abortion) what business is it of ours who they marry?

Your argument says that it's nobody's business except the consenting adults what goes on in the bedroom. I'm not making a slippery-slope argument I'm making a logical consistency argument to prove that it IS privy of a society to determine its mores and thresholds for things like marriage.

The reason it makes no sense to you is that your cognitive dissonance has kicked into high gear making you at first agitated and then dismissive in order to reconcile your current world view with this indisputable logic.

And so it goes... another day at the City Paper.

By: brrrrk on 6/27/13 at 2:24

BenDover said on 6/27/13 at 3:04

"Your argument says that it's nobody's business except the consenting adults what goes on in the bedroom. I'm not making a slippery-slope argument I'm making a logical consistency argument to prove that it IS privy of a society to determine its mores and thresholds for things like marriage."

It may be the privy of society (which ever society you are part of)..... but it is not the privy of Government, especially when we live in a multi-societal, multi-cultural country like ours....

Seriously Ben, is someone forcing you to be Gay, is someone pressuring you to get Gay married? No. Just because you don't like it; just because it makes you uncomfortable, doesn't give you the right to outlaw it.

Funny how conservatives are all about FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM, until it's something they disapprove of..... then it's time to oppress, suppress, and pull the pillories out of storage...

By: Blanketnazi2 on 6/27/13 at 2:27

Funny how Ben thinks only OTHER people suffer from "cognitive dissonance." Sheesh.

By: brrrrk on 6/27/13 at 2:30

Blanketnazi2 said on 6/27/13 at 3:27

"Funny how Ben thinks only OTHER people suffer from "cognitive dissonance." Sheesh."

Also funny how he seems to ignore the fact that RIGHTS are a Constitutional issue and not a majority issue.

By: BenDover on 6/27/13 at 2:32

I'm for gay marriage.

Technology has made the taboo against incest obsolete. Are you for advocating that as well so you will be logically consistent about minority rights and their need for Civil rights protections?

The distinction in our position lies in the fact that you don't agree that setting the threshold of state sanctioned marriage belongs to the people. If you make the minority right protection to be logically consistent you must also protect the behavior of other minorities that you may not, yourself, agree with.

By: brrrrk on 6/27/13 at 2:36

BenDover said on 6/27/13 at 3:32

"If you make the minority right protection to be logically consistent you must also protect the behavior of other minorities that you may not, yourself, agree with."

HOLY SHIT.....he finally gets it!!!!!!!!!!!

By: BenDover on 6/27/13 at 2:44

That's right, now the minority of siblings who fall in love and want to marry have standing based on your position, right? [given there will be no natural children; as that is no longer useful in defining a family unit due to technology advances and the introduction of homosexuality to marriage]

By: Blanketnazi2 on 6/27/13 at 2:49

If someone finds 5 straw men propped up in the forest in the form of a circle, did a homosexual God put them there?

By: Blanketnazi2 on 6/27/13 at 2:50

Ben, where is the organized movement for siblings wanting to marry? Geez, talk about a strawman!

By: BenDover on 6/27/13 at 2:57

There need only be one couple, blanket, and the same judge who claims his right to override the citizenry on Gay Marriage would be logically obligated to do the same for the childless incestuous couple. If he bases his decision on anything other than the law and injects his opinion or where he thinks the country is heading, etc... it is a flawed decision. You of all people should see the danger of such and overreach of power that is.

By: brrrrk on 6/27/13 at 2:59

BenDover said on 6/27/13 at 3:44

"That's right, now the minority of siblings who fall in love and want to marry have standing based on your position, right?"

Once again, you're conflating Constitutional rights with societal constructs.... see, I can used big words too Ben.

As long as it's between two (or more) consenting adults; you got the hots for your sister... I really don't care.

By: BenDover on 6/27/13 at 3:06

The implication in the context of the discussion was obviously with respect to state sanctioned marriage, brrrrrk.

Go ahead... crack open that closed door to your mind a little and make just a token effort not to reject the point just because you don't like it.

By: brrrrk on 6/27/13 at 3:06

BenDover said on 6/27/13 at 3:57

"If he bases his decision on anything other than the law and injects his opinion or where he thinks the country is heading, etc... it is a flawed decision."

As it should be..... legal decisions shouldn't be based of what is liked or disliked, but on the law. What's the point of having laws in the first place it can all be tossed aside at the whim of a judge who likes or dislikes something based on his own personal views? You of all people should see the danger of such an overreach of power that is.

By: brrrrk on 6/27/13 at 3:08

BenDover said on 6/27/13 at 4:06

"Go ahead... crack open that closed door to your mind a little and make just a token effort not to reject the point just because you don't like it."

Pot, Kettle; Kettle, Pot.....

By: BenDover on 6/27/13 at 3:13

Well then if he throws out a ban on gay marriage to protect minority rights yet does not throw out a ban on childless incestuous marriage to protect the even smaller minority's rights; he's either wrong on the first point or wrong on the 2nd.

And in both cases I believe he is wrong if he decides against the public or their representative laws because how is his opinion more important than that of the will of the people on these two matters.

By: brrrrk on 6/27/13 at 3:25

BenDover said on 6/27/13 at 4:13

"Well then if he throws out a ban on gay marriage to protect minority rights yet does not throw out a ban on childless incestuous marriage to protect the even smaller minority's rights; he's either wrong on the first point or wrong on the 2nd."

If that childless incestuous married couple you're yammering about (by the way, does this couple happen to live next to that faux welfare queen that Reagan lied about?) decides to take it to the supreme court. I'll be there to back them up... because frankly, I don't see they're relationship as any more or less un-Constitutional than that of a gay married couple. Once again, you're conflating societal mores with Constitutional rights....

By: brrrrk on 6/27/13 at 3:31

Ben

The way I see it, you and the rest of your Conservative covey are all about defending the Constitution only when it serves your purposes.... but as soon as it doesn't, you toss it aside...

By: BenDover on 6/27/13 at 3:47

Why now, look at the slippery slope you have slid down, brrrk. Funny where our biases lead us when confronted with logical inconsistencies.

Now we have you defending state sanctioned incestuous marriages between consenting adults. We can safely say you are an outlier with that position; but just curious... where is it that you draw the line? You're OK with siblings... Mother and Son?... Father and Daughter? ... How about Polygamy? If everyone's in love then what's the harm, right? Does there need to be a national standard for age? I read some actor married a 16 year old a few years back with parental consent in Vegas. What are your thoughts there because each of these minority sexual preferences deserves the same protection as Homosexuality right?

If the judge says that the state cannot infringe on one minority sexual preference's right to marriage then how can they infringe on another.

You're going to be one busy pervert proponent in front of one very powerful judge there brrrrk.

By: brrrrk on 6/27/13 at 3:51

Ben

I repeat.....

The way I see it, you and the rest of your Conservative covey are all about defending the Constitution only when it serves your purposes.... but as soon as it doesn't, you toss it aside...

By: brrrrk on 6/27/13 at 3:53

Ben,

We are either a society of laws bound by our Constitution or we aren't.... you can't have it both ways.

By: yogiman on 6/27/13 at 3:53

How do you know "he" will be 52 on August 4th, dargent7? Because he said he would? I hope I'm around when you all finally get the facts in your feeble brains. Let's see if there's even an election in 2016.

Not being legally It apparently took a "cool" guy to usurp that office, he did pull it off with a congress full of communist supporting him.

By: yogiman on 6/27/13 at 3:56

Oh heck, I just noticed; it's almost 5PM and you all are off of work. Ah well, You'll be back tomorrow morning to ridicule budlight for posting at work.

By: bfra on 6/27/13 at 4:08

The slopjar poster chimed in with nothing, as usual.

By: BenDover on 6/27/13 at 4:09

I don' t have time to debate it now brrrrk, but if it comes back up I would be interested to know what constitutional argument you are making.

The constitution would say the judge cannot legislate from the bench and that the will of the people should prevail except for the very narrowly defined powers enumerated in the constitution [presumably influenced by case law and legal precedent].

The Civil Rights protections from discrimination based on race color creed religion sex or national origin do not emanate from the constitution but from the 1967 Civil Rights Act Passed by our representative democracy. It is the will of the public.

Are you adding homosexuality as a protected class of people under the civil rights act? If so why not send that back to the legislature and let them do it? What has happened is that the law in question specifically said just the opposite about homosexuals marriage.

A constitutional argument of Equal Protection under the 14th has not been made, to my knowledge because a gay man can marry a woman just the same as a lesbian woman can marry a man.

I just don't know where you are going with it.

Simply stated you are saying that government and the governed should be required to recognize the marriage of homosexuals (and by extension, any minority marriage relationship including the incestuous sibling example) as a constitutional right. The argument just kinda dead-ends there with some nebulous discrimination talk.

I'll have to save it for another day though... busy packing tonight.

Y'all have a great evening!