The Supreme Court has officially declared DOMA to be unconstitutional.

More disgusting Goverment worshipers.

Um, you do realize that if the Supreme Court decided NOT to hear the challenge to Prop 8, that would mean it would automatically be repealed and marriages could resume in California?
 
The good news is however, that with the supreme court decision to hear AFER’s and their opponents’ case, is that AFER now plans to argue before the court for full federal marriage equality in the US.  
This means if they win, gay marriage will come to all of the US, even the most hillbilly of states. This would also mean elimination of any legal troubles already married same-sex couples have, such as the inability to jointly pay taxes to the feds.
 
I hate to be a plug, but if you want to support them, here’s a link to a donation page

Oh, this isn’t about another goddamn internet censorship law? Okay then I could care le-WAIT DOMA IS SUPPPOSE TO DO WHAT?! AW HELL NO!!

@BP:
 
Unless you built (from raw materials you gathered yourself) and programmed the computer you typed that statement on… you received government assistance in performing that action.
 
The government underwrites entire concepts in economics, starting with money. Which I know is how I got my computer. Also included are all the roads it needed to travel to arrive to the point of sale, any trade agreements from anywhere along its supply chain to get say rare earth elements from China, the research projects that fueled the technological innovation. Oh yeah and millennium of history of government actions to shape the world into its current form.
 
The reality is you are insignificant same with pretty much everyone browsing this site. Only through the action of government is a life so cushy as to allow the internet in the first place possible.
 
Any role for the proverbial ‘self-made man’ vanished long ago, as nothing you (or anyone else in America) have done was not assisted in some manner by millennium of government.
 
The difference between “protected” and “given” is about as meaningful as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Because the reality is that either way your “rights” without government are precisely what you have the physical ability to enact yourself.

Sora that’s my point. The Constitution still says that our rights are only protected by the government, but the people in power today are out there telling us that it’s the government “giving” us our rights. Honestly, look up any speech today by a Republican or Democrat today. All of them want to give people the notion that only the man in Washington can provide for you, that you need to depend on him, that you are very much incapable of doing anything without him. And we have many on the left wing crying out to the rafters that the government should be our protector and provider. That you never did anything for yourself that the government didn’t assist you in. This is the line of thinking that prevails today and it sickens me.

@BP:
 
“And there you have it, a fed that constantly grows stronger while the states grow weaker.”
 
“We go from “liberties that are natural given rights” to “liberties given to us by the government”.”
 
These two statements are rather unrelated. The first is certainly true, but that was rather settled by the Civil War and made rather crystalline by the 14th Amendment. We can have a pendantic argument over whether there is sufficient justification for federal powers, but the reality is that they exist and have for a long time now.
 
However diffuse versus centralized authority has nothing to do with the nature of liberty. Strictly speaking rights are still “protected” not “given” by the Constitution, against both State and Federal interference.
 
Notably though the difference isn’t terribly relevant as far as any actual policy goes its a philosophical discussion more then anything.

gg More things have been MONOPOLIZED by the government. It’s not that we wouldn’t have them if the government didn’t provide it but no one but the government can provide it. Like space travel, which only until recently, was a government only enterprise. Now we have private companies like Space X doing more than NASA ever could and with less money to boot.

not to mention there was nothing stopping Britain from coming right back in and taking over.

and that would have resulted in us looking less like America and looking more like the Balkans, Africa, or even Afghanistan. Would you really want to live in a world like that? BP, more stuff has been provided by the government than you know.

To be honest Splinter, the original Colonies never really wanted much to do with eachother in the first place. They were merely united in their desire to be free from British rule and once that was achieved, most folks wanted to say “welp, shits done, now I want you guys to leave me alone”. The states were always intended to be nearly autonomous, but a few in the federal government were peeved at how little power they had and quickly went about to change that. And there you have it, a fed that constantly grows stronger while the states grow weaker. We go from “liberties that are natural given rights” to “liberties given to us by the government”. It sickens me, it really does, but not as much as the people who willingly want this shift to happen so they can get free goodies paid for with someone else’s money.

@BP:
 
“since marriage is a religious concept and should stay that way.”
 
This is actually wrong, marriage is both much older an more universal then any particular religion. It is a social/cultural institution first, a religious one second.
 
Its underlying purpose is rather inheritance oriented and built upon ensuring bloodline continuity in the centuries before genetic testing. IE nothing about being in love and everything about ensuring everyone knows who their father is.
 
Now then that receding relevance (along with femminism) call into question whether it is an institution the government should be involved with. Especially when such a high percentage of the relationships end sooner then death.

@BronyHeresy  
There is a reason the Articles of Confederation were discarded, you know. They made the economy unstable(each state printed their own money, and the feds could not regulate domestic or foreign commerce), Congress could not enforce any laws without an executive branch or raise any taxes, the states bickered among themselves, and then there was shit like Shay’s Rebellion. The Articles of Confederation were a complete and utter failure. “United States” they were not.

@gg6666
 
Are you going to use a poll with limited results as an example that noridc countries are a bastion of happiness and sunshine? Are you one of those folks that take the WHO seriously even though their criteria is based on countries with a UHC concept and not based on actual quality of care? Which the US constantly scores the highest on?

@BH  
Careful how you define “protection” since many feel that having someone else pay for their medical care and housing falls under that clause.

@BP you have never met a gay person in your life have you

@gg666:
 
I personally would prefer the court to take the neutral ground, which I find likely, leaving the more pertinent questions to the legislative ends of things.

and please, you are one to talk about a false god. at least we have proof they exist.

so then why are the happiest and least corrupt countries semi-socialist?

I personally feel the government should develop a cause that allows couples to apply for a union contract of some sort that allows them to qualify for all of the tax breaks married couples receive. But they shouldn’t be allowed to call it marriage since marriage is a religious concept and should stay that way. I personally feel this is just about homosexuals wanting to take away a concept that belongs to heterosexuals, and not just about being able to be legal butt buddies that can get a little less money taken from them by Uncle Sam

@BP  
Again, I say, the government’s only job is to protect the people. If that was all they did, we wouldn’t have Chaos and Violence.

BH the government should control some aspects of society, if only to prevent chaos and violence. I do agree that these new groups whom want a nanny state that cares for them from cradle to grave are seriously incorrect however.

What you’re talking about isn’t order. It’s oppression. An ugly word, but like it or not, it’s the truth. When the government controls everything, you really just have a false god callimg itself Government. Communism, Socialism, those don’t work, because they turn into Statism, calling itself by its original name.

i know that Sora but progress does take time. we are moving at a faster pace than ever before

@gg666:
 
I’d find it fairly unlikely to have the entire DOMA stricken by the court. Its completely possible they can rule on the specific case like “DOMA does not allow the Federal Government to charge estate taxes as if the recipent was unmarried” as that’s the particulars of the case.
 
Which could set useful precedents for other cases where state recognition conflicts with federal lackthereof.
 
You won’t find it striking down the core provisions of not forcing other states to recognize homosexual marriages. The question will likely hinge on how the court feels the federal government has disposed of its authority.
 
I’d even consider a fairly likely confirm DOMA entirely under the idea that ultimately the legislatures are free to define marriage how they want.
 
(Ergo at the macro level the Court tells us all to go fight this in relevant legislatures)