Section 3 of DOMA struck down!

Posts : 333 Join date : 2012-11-07

Another win for the LGBT community. Look for more victories to follow.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court/2013/06/26/f0039814-d9ab-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html?hpid=z1

Posts : 4629 Join date : 2009-10-07

ilaugh wrote:: Another win for the LGBT community. Look for more victories to follow.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court/2013/06/26/f0039814-d9ab-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html?hpid=z1

I figured that this would be struck down. One question is and I am not smart enough to answer it. Did the supreme court over step it's bounds? I really do not care about this anymore. The Amnesty is far more troubling then this will ever be.

Now as long as the supreme court does not make Pastor's who are against gay marriage perform gay marriage I have no problem with this. I have believed though it should be up to each and every individual state.

Posts : 333 Join date : 2012-11-07

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:: I have believed though it should be up to each and every individual state.

It still is, Section 3 defined marriage as being between a man and a woman for the purposes of federal benefits. Now the federal government must acknowledge gay marriage from states where it's legal.

Amy Howe from Scotus Blog wrote:: The federal Defense of Marriage Act defines “marriage,” for purposes of over a thousand federal laws and programs, as a union between a man and a woman only. Today the Court ruled, by a vote of five to four, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy, that the law is unconstitutional. The Court explained that the states have long had the responsibility of regulating and defining marriage, and some states have opted to allow same-sex couples to marry to give them the protection and dignity associated with marriage. By denying recognition to same-sex couples who are legally married, federal law discriminates against them to express disapproval of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. This decision means that same-sex couples who are legally married must now be treated the same under federal law as married opposite-sex couples.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/detail-on-united-states-v-windsor-in-plain-english/

Posts : 4629 Join date : 2009-10-07

In a ripping dissent, Scalia says that Justice Anthony Kennedy and his colleagues in the majority have resorted to calling opponents of gay marriage "enemies of the human race."

But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con- demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to "dis- parage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence -- indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/scalias-blistering-dissent-on-doma/277245/

Posts : 333 Join date : 2012-11-07

Justice Anthony Kennedy, said that the law was tantamount to the "deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment."

Kennedy, along with Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment. Some of the highlights from his ruling:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/windsor-v-us-ruling_n_3454920.html

Posts : 333 Join date : 2012-11-07

Scalia lost this round and honestly, to me, his dissent sounds more partisan that judicial.

Posts : 4629 Join date : 2009-10-07

ilaugh wrote:: Scalia lost this round and honestly, to me, his dissent sounds more partisan that judicial.

He does make some valid points. Really though this does not make gay marriage constitutional. I just wonder when there is going to be lawsuit so you can marry your sheep.

Posts : 333 Join date : 2012-11-07

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:: I just wonder when there is going to be lawsuit so you can marry your sheep.

Are we really going to go down the road of slippery slope fallacies?

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:: Really though this does not make gay marriage constitutional.

It does however say that at least part of the Defense of Marriage Act is Unconstitutional and that the federal government must recognize married gay couples from states where gay marriage is legal.

Subject: Re: Section 3 of DOMA struck down! Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:41 pm

Of course the many that do have relations with their animals (not just live stock, but apparently dogs as well, or so the local papers were just talking about. Well not 'just' but recently!) Then when will the age of consent be changed? I mean, you are considered a legal adult when you are 18, but not enough to DRINK yet. Of course, you can get a drivers license at 16. I also believe in some states you can MARRY at 14 (with parents approval) but does one still need parental approval if one is EMANCIPATED? How easy would THAT be for a court to lower THAT age and make (going to take this all the way out) pedophilia now extra easy to do, anyway?
I ask only because I am a survivor of an ongoing rape when I was less than 10, and since it was a family member (not immediate), it got looked over. Actually, since I never told anyone, it was 'easy' to look it over, but then, I WAS just a kid back then. When I wanted to SAY something to the culprit, he was on his deathbed and, in fact, passed away before I got the chance to tell him I forgave him. Le sigh. Now, IF someone does something to me that I want to forgive, best believe I am doing it right away!

Posts : 333 Join date : 2012-11-07

Walterth3rd wrote:: Of course the many that do have relations with their animals (not just live stock, but apparently dogs as well, or so the local papers were just talking about. Well not 'just' but recently!) Then when will the age of consent be changed? I mean, you are considered a legal adult when you are 18, but not enough to DRINK yet. Of course, you can get a drivers license at 16. I also believe in some states you can MARRY at 14 (with parents approval) but does one still need parental approval if one is EMANCIPATED? How easy would THAT be for a court to lower THAT age and make (going to take this all the way out) pedophilia now extra easy to do, anyway?
I ask only because I am a survivor of an ongoing rape when I was less than 10, and since it was a family member (not immediate), it got looked over. Actually, since I never told anyone, it was 'easy' to look it over, but then, I WAS just a kid back then. When I wanted to SAY something to the culprit, he was on his deathbed and, in fact, passed away before I got the chance to tell him I forgave him. Le sigh. Now, IF someone does something to me that I want to forgive, best believe I am doing it right away!

I'm sorry to hear about your past.

But since you're asking I'll refer you to my post directly above yours where I talk about fallacious arguments. It's absurd to think that because gay marriage is becoming legal in more states, or that the federal government now acknowledges it, that these actions will somehow open the door to legalized bestiality or pedophilia.

As sci-fi fans some here seem to have a hard time grasping how these slippery slope arguments are illogical.

Posts : 4629 Join date : 2009-10-07

ilaugh wrote:

Walterth3rd wrote:: Of course the many that do have relations with their animals (not just live stock, but apparently dogs as well, or so the local papers were just talking about. Well not 'just' but recently!) Then when will the age of consent be changed? I mean, you are considered a legal adult when you are 18, but not enough to DRINK yet. Of course, you can get a drivers license at 16. I also believe in some states you can MARRY at 14 (with parents approval) but does one still need parental approval if one is EMANCIPATED? How easy would THAT be for a court to lower THAT age and make (going to take this all the way out) pedophilia now extra easy to do, anyway?
I ask only because I am a survivor of an ongoing rape when I was less than 10, and since it was a family member (not immediate), it got looked over. Actually, since I never told anyone, it was 'easy' to look it over, but then, I WAS just a kid back then. When I wanted to SAY something to the culprit, he was on his deathbed and, in fact, passed away before I got the chance to tell him I forgave him. Le sigh. Now, IF someone does something to me that I want to forgive, best believe I am doing it right away!

I'm sorry to hear about your past.

But since you're asking I'll refer you to my post directly above yours where I talk about fallacious arguments. It's absurd to think that because gay marriage is becoming legal in more states, or that the federal government now acknowledges it, that these actions will somehow open the door to legalized bestiality or pedophilia.

As sci-fi fans some here seem to have a hard time grasping how these slippery slope arguments are illogical.

I will ask this. Who are you to judge those people that believe in that?

Posts : 333 Join date : 2012-11-07

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:: I will ask this. Who are you to judge those people that believe in that?

I'm not judging, just pointing out that slippery slope arguments don't hold water. Especially when it comes to legal matters. Every argument lives or dies on it's own merits. Gay marriage hasn't started to gain acceptance and legal statues because the federal government shot down a ban on interracial marriage in 1967.

Posts : 4629 Join date : 2009-10-07

ilaugh wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:: I will ask this. Who are you to judge those people that believe in that?

I'm not judging, just pointing out that slippery slope arguments don't hold water. Especially when it comes to legal matters. Every argument lives or dies on it's own merits. Gay marriage hasn't started to gain acceptance and legal statues because the federal government shot down a ban on interracial marriage in 1967.

Sorry I was just being cute. It is a argument I have heard from the left and was just turning around.

Subject: Re: Section 3 of DOMA struck down! Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:57 pm

The slippery slope argument is used when there are no real logical objections to something. There's no reason to deny gay people the ability to marry except that you don't like gay people and wanted them treated differently. You can object on your religious grounds, but it doesn't effect you so there's no legal reason to deny them. You can argue that it somehow diminishes your straight marriage, but it doesn't so again no grounds. So what's left? Well now people can marry sheep. No, they can't. Marriage is at a government level a legal contract. How can an organism that has no capacity to express consent to entering into a legal contract be considered the next logical step to awarding gay people the right to marry? It can't because it isn't logical it's emotional. And it's dumb. Railing against gay people is the only socially acceptable form of public discrimination left (unless you count anti-muslim discrimination) and now that it's disappearing the people who propagate these lies have almost nothing left to feel superior over other people.

Subject: Re: Section 3 of DOMA struck down! Fri Jun 28, 2013 7:28 pm

The "slippery slope" argument is very real indeed.

Let's look at it in another context.
40 years ago, when the anti-smoking zealots began their rise to power, it was unthinkable that people would be barred from smoking on their own property or in their own homes or outdoors.

Gradually, over time, smoking restrictions have slowly became more onerous.
Now, smoking is banned in almost any public settings, indoors or out, and within the past 6 months, I've read about proposals to ban smoking in people's private home & automobiles if children are in picture.

I'm not defending smoking. It's a filthy, disgusting habit which had me hooked for 24 years.

But it is an excellent illustration of how changes can be wrought upon a society little by little where if those changes had been attempted all at once, they wouldn't have had a chance.

Posts : 4629 Join date : 2009-10-07

Samurai wrote:: The slippery slope argument is used when there are no real logical objections to something. There's no reason to deny gay people the ability to marry except that you don't like gay people and wanted them treated differently. You can object on your religious grounds, but it doesn't effect you so there's no legal reason to deny them. You can argue that it somehow diminishes your straight marriage, but it doesn't so again no grounds. So what's left? Well now people can marry sheep. No, they can't. Marriage is at a government level a legal contract. How can an organism that has no capacity to express consent to entering into a legal contract be considered the next logical step to awarding gay people the right to marry? It can't because it isn't logical it's emotional. And it's dumb. Railing against gay people is the only socially acceptable form of public discrimination left (unless you count anti-muslim discrimination) and now that it's disappearing the people who propagate these lies have almost nothing left to feel superior over other people.

Both sides use the slippery slope but then again lets use the slippery slope argument. Bill Clinton Echelon. Bush Wiretapping calls from outside the United States to inside the United States. Obama doing the same thing but now collecting emails and phone numbers. If gay marriage is legal then you have to make all marriage legal to no matter who what you marry. It is the next logical step.

Posts : 4629 Join date : 2009-10-07

Annoyed wrote:: The "slippery slope" argument is very real indeed.

Let's look at it in another context.
40 years ago, when the anti-smoking zealots began their rise to power, it was unthinkable that people would be barred from smoking on their own property or in their own homes or outdoors.

Gradually, over time, smoking restrictions have slowly became more onerous.
Now, smoking is banned in almost any public settings, indoors or out, and within the past 6 months, I've read about proposals to ban smoking in people's private home & automobiles if children are in picture.

I'm not defending smoking. It's a filthy, disgusting habit which had me hooked for 24 years.

But it is an excellent illustration of how changes can be wrought upon a society little by little where if those changes had been attempted all at once, they wouldn't have had a chance.

The left always claims there is no slipper slope. Yet we just provided two examples.

Posts : 333 Join date : 2012-11-07

Annoyed wrote:: The "slippery slope" argument is very real indeed.

Let's look at it in another context.
40 years ago, when the anti-smoking zealots began their rise to power, it was unthinkable that people would be barred from smoking on their own property or in their own homes or outdoors.

Gradually, over time, smoking restrictions have slowly became more onerous.
Now, smoking is banned in almost any public settings, indoors or out, and within the past 6 months, I've read about proposals to ban smoking in people's private home & automobiles if children are in picture.

I'm not defending smoking. It's a filthy, disgusting habit which had me hooked for 24 years.

But it is an excellent illustration of how changes can be wrought upon a society little by little where if those changes had been attempted all at once, they wouldn't have had a chance.

Not really a great example. Public smoking issues were brought about by people and groups that are concerned about their health and the effects of second hand smoke. I agree that smoking gas become more and more demonized over the years but if an argument is valid and can be won on it's own merits it's not really a slippery slope argument.

It's like polygamy. If there were enough people practicing it in America, and the general mood of the populace of any given state decided that it should become legal, polygamists and their organizations would have to make an argument for it to the state, and saying "But you let gays marry" isn't going to have any weight in that argument. Gay marriage does not beget polygamy, which in turn does not bring about people marrying their dogs. So when people like Bill O'Reilly says garbage like "You would let everybody get married who want to get married. You want to marry a turtle, you can," he is using fallacious reasoning.

Posts : 333 Join date : 2012-11-07

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:: Bill Clinton Echelon. Bush Wiretapping calls from outside the United States to inside the United States. Obama doing the same thing but now collecting emails and phone numbers.

Again, not a great example. The government has been collecting phone number data for years. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/735/
Actual Wiretapping still requires a warrant, so does reading emails. This isn't a case of slippery slope, it's just updating already existing laws to cover newer technology.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:: If gay marriage is legal then you have to make all marriage legal to no matter who what you marry. It is the next logical step.

Now that is a slippery slope fallacy.

Posts : 333 Join date : 2012-11-07

A slippery slope argument would be more akin to; Obamacare will lead to communism.

Posts : 4629 Join date : 2009-10-07

ilaugh wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:: Bill Clinton Echelon. Bush Wiretapping calls from outside the United States to inside the United States. Obama doing the same thing but now collecting emails and phone numbers.

Again, not a great example. The government has been collecting phone number data for years. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/735/
Actual Wiretapping still requires a warrant, so does reading emails. This isn't a case of slippery slope, it's just updating already existing laws to cover newer technology.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:: If gay marriage is legal then you have to make all marriage legal to no matter who what you marry. It is the next logical step.

Now that is a slippery slope fallacy.

Oh wait just a second. Why can't they marry there dog, sheep or horse? As long as they love them. Which again I could less if they did. Why can't we Americans just do whatever we wish? What does it matter if someone get married to there dog? Does it hurt you me or anyone else? Nope. We might think it be strange but to them it is normal. Just like 2 people of the same sex think it is normal.

Posts : 333 Join date : 2012-11-07

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

ilaugh wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:: Bill Clinton Echelon. Bush Wiretapping calls from outside the United States to inside the United States. Obama doing the same thing but now collecting emails and phone numbers.

Again, not a great example. The government has been collecting phone number data for years. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/735/
Actual Wiretapping still requires a warrant, so does reading emails. This isn't a case of slippery slope, it's just updating already existing laws to cover newer technology.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:: If gay marriage is legal then you have to make all marriage legal to no matter who what you marry. It is the next logical step.

Now that is a slippery slope fallacy.

Oh wait just a second. Why can't they marry there dog, sheep or horse? As long as they love them. Which again I could less if they did. Why can't we Americans just do whatever we wish? What does it matter if someone get married to there dog? Does it hurt you me or anyone else? Nope. We might think it be strange but to them it is normal. Just like 2 people of the same sex think it is normal.

Now I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

» Time to move this one to the cancelled section