More on Gay Marriage

[Jind]

But you are missing my point. The government's role in marriage should be contract enforcement and contracts have to be between adults of sound mind. If some backwoods snake handling church wants to marry children in a non-legal capacity they can do that now.

I'll even be more specific as I mentioned earlier - the licensing and legal standing of marriage is a STATE government issue and the only role the FEDERAL government has in it is that it has a constitutional duty, for the reason in my previous post, to treat marriages recognized in individual states as legal and therefore subject to the same benefits as any other marriage at the federal level.

For example - in the good ole US of A, polygamy is illegal, not at the federal level but in every state either as part of their constitutions or as a law with varying degrees of penalties dependent upon state - some it's a misdemeanor, others a felony, and some states even still have simple cohabitation as illegal while not actively enforced.

Summarized - marriage has always been a state sanctioned/governed issue. Sure some backwater church could call something a marriage but unless the state actually recognizes it, it brings no benefits or perks from any level of government. It really is that simple. That's all this DOMA case is about. No grand conspiracy.

 

[colonel kurtz]

No grand conspiracy.

oh, it is a grand conspiracy...being put forth by the gays to further their agenda of, you know...being accepted as equal

 

[Nuno Filipe]

We've had gay marriage in Canada since 2005, and things are pretty much the same. The world still turns, most drummers cant play with metronome, religion is still bullshit, and life goes on. I don't even know why anyone is debating this.

You forgot this Glenn

 

[AntonioPetrole]

I'm going to be the odd man out here, and before I say anything, I have no problem with gays and of course I think they should get married, but imo why does anyone care? Personally I think getting married in the first place is ridiculous. It blows my mind that people set themselves into this contract all for what? A tax break? I don't understand why people are pushing this issue sooooo hard. The people who run the country now are never going to be okay with gays, they were brought up in a different time and they had different thoughts on it back then. Just give it some time and all those people will be long gone and the newer generations will be okay with it. That being said, I don't know too many gay people who care about being married, they are just happy to be together without much ridicule from the public. It seems to be a lot of equal rights driven middle class white people are making a huge issue to be apart of something. We don't make gays use different bathrooms, we don't make them sit on different places on the bus. And sure, once in a while someone will be killed for being gay, and that is an awful thing. But guess what? Once in a while someone will be killed for being black, for being jewish, even for being white. Making the fact that gays can't get married such a huge issue is almost like going to a store, seeing something for 35% off and saying wait, I want the thing that I want to be 35% off, why can't I have that?

Again, the idea of marriage is such a silly thing to begin with.

I'm just ranting off the top of my head so if I sound insane I'm sorry, I just don't see why this is literally the biggest issue as opposed to national debt, student loans, unemployment etc.

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

NYS has been doing the gay marriage thing for a while now. I still go to work, have a house, have a kid, have a wife......

In other words life didn't change at all.

 

[Jind]

For me it's really the simple belief that as a US citizen we are all entitled to the same rights, the same protections under the law. If a church does not want to marry a couple that's their business and their right, however if a state recognizes a marriage (if in there bailiwick to decide what constitutes a marriage) and the federal government affords benefits (over 1100 separate programs) to married couples recognized by the individual states (by the way it's a hell of a lot more than a tax break - talk about painting something with with the simple stick) then as a constitutional guarantee, it must be afforded to all.

As for marriage in the first place - hey it's worked for me for the past 16 years, but I'm sure it's not what works for many others. Also it's not that gay marriage is the biggest issue - it's just the biggest issue this week since the court heard arguments over two cases relating to it. Once again a slight over-exaggeration in reading that it's "the biggest issue" in the country right now.

By the way - I'd be willing to make the argument that the national debt is pretty far down on the list of pressing issues with immediate impact on us right now. I'll agree with unemployment - but the cool thing about unemployment is that if we work on it instead of this hyper focus on the much less currently important national debt, the debt will be easier to reduce once decent employment exists - tada. Simple rule - you spend when it's rainy and you save when it's sunny, or more simply a recession is not the time to cut even more - a la austerity. It's worked oh so well for most of Europe right?

People only think the national debt is an immediate threat because they by into the hype being shoveled by those with specific desires to gut our government and the safety net systems. Do long term changes need to be made to programs - sure, but get people back to work first.

 

[egan.]

http://www.marriageequality.org/get-the-facts

 

[AntonioPetrole]

http://www.marriageequality.org/get-the-facts

This helps put things in perspective a lot for me, honestly I haven't even heard 1/10 of those things.

 

[TheWinterSnow]

The irony in your last two post was too much for me. Yes, two quotes you intended to be directed at two different audiences and about two different individuals, yet oh so fitting about the second and the group of so called Libertarians that have been sucked in by the kindly old man that speaks about the wonders of how no bad things would happen if everything simply self-regulated. We would not have the hungry, the poor - the greedy bastards would suddenly grow big hearts and find it in their interest to provide for them, we would not be in wars because everyone else in the world would also seek out the same existence, they would be like that because recreational drug use would be completely legal in every way - hell who wants to fight when perpetually stoned right? I know - exaggerated points, but it all sounds good at a rally

Squishy libertarians prop up Ron Paul as their idol because Ayn Rand is just too damned unlikable in that "I've got mine so fuck you sort of way".

Talk about falling for the "charismatic charm"

Mind you - I consider myself a somewhat fiscal conservative (very much in the small-c camp) but I'm clearly and in almost every way a social liberal and believe in the collective existence, the importance of "us" and not the singular importance on "I", "me" - every man for themselves type mentality.

The Ron Paul comment was entirely sarcastic. I have not been one of the blind Ron Paul supporters, I have been familiar with the liberty movement more based on my own studies, mainly the philosophers of Greece, their contribution to Egypt after the conquer of Alexander the Great, the policies of Egypt (including equality rights) and the city of Alexandria, the reasons of its fall, the reason for the fall of the Roman Empire and how our Founding fathers took the lessons learned and added to the philosophy. Furthermore, in my own study of politics and regulation from the middle of the 19th century to just shy of WWI proved time and time again how free markets worked, how regulation worked and shows us why we became the biggest and richest country of the modern world. Among many other factors just understanding what took place in history and how societies have worked, understanding philosophy of classical antiquity, you don't come to the conclusions like this:

the wonders of how no bad things would happen if everything simply self-regulated. We would not have the hungry, the poor - the greedy bastards would suddenly grow big hearts and find it in their interest to provide for them, we would not be in wars because everyone else in the world would also seek out the same existence

The people that believed the Ron Paul movement or any other liberty movement was more or less a Utopian mindset just proves they don't have a deeper understanding of the whole philosophical understanding of liberty outside what they heard regurgitated from said modern liberty movements. To fully understand it requires a little bit more study than just listening to what you hear about it in the news. Of course there are also people of said movement who don't have a deeper understanding of the ideals they are preaching, and those are the "squishy libertarians"

As for the collective existence, I personally disagree with the concept. I am in more of the Aristotelian mindset where man values the common wealth with less value than his own:

What is common to the greatest number gets the least amount of care. Men pay most attention to what is their own; they care less for what is common; or at any rate they care for it only to the extent to which each is individually concerned. Even when there is no other cause for inattention, men are more prone to neglect their duty when they think that another is attending to it.

The last part in bold is a large part of the current political climate and this is the big reason why central economic planning for the most part, does not work. Again I think this issue is more of a "agree to disagree".

As for the right of gay marriage, like mentioned before the 14th and 5th amendments prove under our constitution that all political bodies, both the federal government and the states cannot deny the right to marriage under any circumstances. The whole topic should be a no brainer.