SCOTUS scraps DOMA

[Clayton Bigsby]

It doesn't work for Concealed Carry Permits/Licenses. It also doesn't automatically work for various professional licenses (ie pharmacists, lawyers, etc).

But it works for fucking marriage licenses. You guys are being ridiculous here.

So who among us here has had their marriage declared null and void just because the state you're stationed in doesn't do things exactly like the state of your residency, or where your marriage was executed? It hasn't happened.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Clayton Bigsby

[HeloDude]

But it works for fucking marriage licenses. You guys are being ridiculous here.

So who among us here has had their marriage declared null and void just because the state you're stationed in doesn't do things exactly like the state of your residency, or where your marriage was executed? It hasn't happened.

Getting a little emotional there bud...I'd have a drink if I were you.

I'm not saying it 'should' be null and void--I think you'll see from my postings over the last year or so that I believe SCOTUS should rule that you can't discriminate amongst any makeup of groups when it comes personal unions/contracts based on the 14th Amendment. That being said, Oklahoma has still said that they will not recognize a gay marriage, and unless I'm mistaken, nothing ruled on today changes that. Now, if a civilian gay couple who was legally married in Massachusetts moves to Oklahoma and become Oklahoma residents, will their new State allow them to file their taxes as a married couple or won't they? I have no clue...maybe it's already happened? By all means if someone has an article/info on this issue then please share.

You're trying to say just because a State currently recognizes other marriage licenses from all the other States that they can't all of a sudden change their law. That being said, I think it would be unConstitutional if they did...but in that regard, then why have any State laws when it comes to marriage laws and just a national standard? Maybe that's where we're headed? I'm watching it unfold just as everyone else, but it is far from a done deal.

[Clayton Bigsby]

No emotion, just think this is pretty clear cut. It's nothing like a concealed carriage permit, which is explicitly for only one state with limited reciprocity.

I ran into this - my marriage is by Contract, allowed by my home state's law. No marriage certificate, just the original notarized and signed contract in a safe. Moved to Hawaii years back and my wife, while getting her driver's license ran into some issues - they were originally considering our marriage as a common law marriage, which surprisingly Hawaii doesn't go for (the conservative/liberal divide in Hawaii is really interesting). However upon some research on their part they found that it was indeed legal in the original state of issuance and honored it as such.

I can see where states can say they won't issue same sex licenses (or contracts if they do that), but can't see how they won't honor licenses issued in other states. Don't see the precedent.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Clayton Bigsby

[busdriver]

Hopefully this is the first step in getting the government out of the marriage buisness. As Helodude has said before, the fed should care about contract law and that's it, marriage is a religious matter and the fed shouldn't give two shits.

[Vertigo]

Hopefully this is the first step in getting the government out of the marriage buisness. As Helodude has said before, the fed should care about contract law and that's it, marriage is a religious matter and the fed shouldn't give two shits.

Holy matrimony is a religious matter.

Marriage is the joining of two things. In this case, people. Religion plays no part in that.

[pawnman]

My specific question has been answered; a chaplain can walk if asked to do something against his or her faith. I did not know that.

But my initial point was what happens when those who don't cotton to such and are ordered to do things against their personal religious or moral beliefs? So for the specific UCMJ article - the number I don't know - but "failure to obey" is my point.

Amn Bill and George want to get married. Only chaplain is Father Maloney, a Catholic and he says "sorry, I can't." Amn Bill and George go to the wing commander and say they are being denied their right (now true due to the ruling). Could/can wing commander then order Chaplain Maloney to perform the service since it is his, Maloney's duty, to provide spiritual guidance and comfort to all airman/families who request such?

Apparently, the answer is 'no.'

My main point is for those that will have to actually deal with situations like this and way too many others that this and other recent changes in our military, never mind society, are going to have to handle. And handle flawlessly, lest the politically correct gods smite thee.

But I learned something as well.

Right now, the repeal of DOMA doesn't guarantee the federal government must provide you with the means to be married, it only provides federal benefits once you are legally married.

But it works for fucking marriage licenses. You guys are being ridiculous here.

So who among us here has had their marriage declared null and void just because the state you're stationed in doesn't do things exactly like the state of your residency, or where your marriage was executed? It hasn't happened.

Would it work if someone has a gay marriage and moves to a state where gay marriage is specifically prohibited? I would guess this will be another court case in the near future. The difference for other marriage licenses is there is not a state in the union that won't recognize a heterosexual couple.

[HeloDude]

Would it work if someone has a gay marriage and moves to a state where gay marriage is specifically prohibited? I would guess this will be another court case in the near future. The difference for other marriage licenses is there is not a state in the union that won't recognize a heterosexual couple.

Shack. I know it may not have been with their legal lanes/precedent per se, but SCOTUS should have just ruled all entirely on the subject of gay marriage and been done with it. Now it's just going to be legal battles after legal battles and more tax money wasted on clogging up the courts.

I will say one thing though--it will make an interesting debate on where States' Rights play into the whole mess. Abortion can not be purely banned but different States can have different limits, same with gun rights, etc...have to see how this one plays out.

[WAG]

Marriage is the joining of two things. In this case, people. Religion plays no part in that.

While we are in the business of redefining marriage, why not start legalizing polygamy and incest?

If a loving/committed relationship is the sole criterion required for marriage and sexual orientation is none of our business, then what right do we (you) have to limit sibling lovers and those that desire to wed their many lovers?

Under what circumstances do we draw the line? A prejudice is either wrong or it isn't...

[Day Man]

I totally agree.

[pawnman]

While we are in the business of redefining marriage, why not start legalizing polygamy and incest? If a loving/committed relationship is the sole criterion required for marriage and sexual orientation is none of our business, then what right do we (you) have to limit sibling lovers and those that desire to wed their many lovers? Under what circumstances do we draw the line? A prejudice is either wrong or it isn't...

Because that's what happened when we struck down racial barriers to marriage.

Hey, maybe we'll get to that point if those demographics can muster enough support. One fight at a time.

[joe1234]

I know HeloDude has proposed this before, and i agree with him. The only logical conclusion is a complete de-coupling of marriage from government and government enforcement. That means I can remain single my entire life, enter into a contract with anyone I want that grants them hospital visitation, joint tax filing, dependent BAH or FSP, adopt a kid, or even sponsor someone as into the country for immigration purposes.

Either everyone gets that right, or nobody does. Using a religious law to define government law and confer benefits to some, but not all of the population due to a law based solely on a religious definition is such a blatant disregard of the Constitution, and the only reason it's gone on this long is due to tyranny of the majority. The greatest thing about striking down DOMA is that marriage benefits are no longer monopolized by a certain segment of the population.

[WAG]

Because that's what happened when we struck down racial barriers to marriage.

Hey, maybe we'll get to that point if those demographics can muster enough support. One fight at a time.

So am I correct when I say you believe our "predetermined" sexual desires should be protected and considered as a nondiscriminatory class along with that of race, nationality, and sex?

If emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction (feelings) are to be protected just like race, then you are correct in agreeing that a predisposition to having desires toward siblings and multiple lovers should also be "protected" (and I applaud you for your consistency)

What a wonderful society that will/must be...

[jumpnjive]

This may be a little off topic, but with DADT off the table, and same sex marriage being recognized federally, what is going to stop enlisted booze buddies from legally wedding their bros for the added benifits? Early out of the dorms, BAS, BAH/OHA, Fam Sep, which equals more cash to party and live off of. And best/worst of all, that brief recess from blackout drunkenness that we all enjoyed following a TDY would be gone too. Thanks to Joint Spouse Assignment, that boozehound that has been raiding your fridge and peeing the guest bed for the past 2 years is coming with you...then when your 4/6/8 years or whatever is up, sign the divorce papers and go on your marry way like it never happened.

[pawnman]

This may be a little off topic, but with DADT off the table, and same sex marriage being recognized federally, what is going to stop enlisted booze buddies from legally wedding their bros for the added benifits? Early out of the dorms, BAS, BAH/OHA, Fam Sep, which equals more cash to party and live off of. And best/worst of all, that brief recess from blackout drunkenness that we all enjoyed following a TDY would be gone too. Thanks to Joint Spouse Assignment, that boozehound that has been raiding your fridge and peeing the guest bed for the past 2 years is coming with you...then when your 4/6/8 years or whatever is up, sign the divorce papers and go on your marry way like it never happened.

What was stopping a male and female airman from doing this already? What stops people from marrying the first person they see outside the gate to get out of the dorms?

[Flaco]

Because that's what happened when we struck down racial barriers to marriage.

Hey, maybe we'll get to that point if those demographics can muster enough support. One fight at a time.

Am I understanding you correctly that you would be OK with incestual marraiges as long as enough people supported it? Do you believe anything can be "right" or "wrong"? Serious question.

[HeloDude]

What was stopping a male and female airman from doing this already? What stops people from marrying the first person they see outside the gate to get out of the dorms?

Well if it's mil dating mil, shear numbers prevented this from happening as much as it could happen now, just a fact. If I were a young E wanting to get out of the dorms, I personally would feel more comfortable entering into a "fake" marriage with a good buddy vs with a girl who I am friends with. If 2 dudes aren't gay and marry then there is less of an opportunity for one person to get upset when the other person is banging somebody else. Plus, as a straight guy, there are a lot more guys I would trust to not fvck me over than most girls--female friends get psycho once in a while, my guy friends, not so much.

[Jughead]

If 2 dudes aren't gay and marry then there is less of an opportunity for one person to get upset when the other person is banging somebody else.

I can't wait for the first UCMJ adultery case in this scenario...!

[Vertigo]

While we are in the business of redefining marriage, why not start legalizing polygamy and incest?

If a loving/committed relationship is the sole criterion required for marriage and sexual orientation is none of our business, then what right do we (you) have to limit sibling lovers and those that desire to wed their many lovers?

Under what circumstances do we draw the line? A prejudice is either wrong or it isn't...

We didn't redefine marriage. The church did. Marriage was around before Christianity.

The rest of your post is right. A contract between two or more consenting adults should be honored if the government is going to be in that business.

[WAG]

Marriage was around before Christianity.

...but neither was same-sex marriage. Therefore, you are redefining it

[Flaco]

If you’re against gay marriage, just say so. But if you attack this issue only on the grounds that “if we allow this, then people will eventually want to marry their kids, dogs, etc.,” it suggests that we need to disallow it not because it’s wrong, but because it could lead to other wrongs. We need to continue denying rights, benifits and happiness to gay people…..not because gay marriage is wrong, but because beastiality is wrong. ....Not because gay marriage is wrong, but because incest is wrong. We're going to keep punishing people and limiting their right because gay marriage is wrong based on things other people might eventually do. Is that how a 'wonderful society' works?

FIFY

[brickhistory]

Notice that very few people in the anti-gay marriage crowd are willing to debate gay marriage simply on the merits of gay marriage anymore. Their playbook has been whittled away to the point where this tired, unoriginal, reductio ad absurdum argument that it will open the doors to pedophilia, necrophilia, beastiality, incest, and inanimate-object marriage is all that remains. ….That, and a lot of hyperventilating.

If you’re against gay marriage, just say so. But if you attack this issue only on the grounds that “if we allow this, then people will eventually want to marry their kids, dogs, etc.,” it suggests that we need to disallow it not because it’s wrong, but because it could lead to other wrongs. We need to continue denying rights, benifits and happiness to gay people…..not because gay marriage is wrong, but because beastiality is wrong. ....Not because gay marriage is wrong, but because incest is wrong. We're going to keep punishing people and limiting their rights based on things other people might eventually do. Is that how a 'wonderful society' works?

We're going to tell gay people “I'm free to marry the person I love, but I’m sorry, we can’t allow you to marry the person you love because if we do, someone else might then want to marry their dog ….or maybe their sneakers….or maybe their Grandmother.” You can’t be serious. The idea of looking another human being in the eye and saying that is incomprehensible to me.

If you're against gay marriage, cool, but have the courage of your convictions and say so because the incest, etc. argument is critically flawed standing by itself. In any case, I think it’s hilarious that this issue is the crushing blow against American marriage and families….not the decades-long divorce rate above 50%.

Nice writing, but flawed logic. The argument has been about "marriage equality before the law." Denying agreed upon relationship contracts between/among any consenting adults is by definition discrimination. Rights/benefits/recognition for any such arrangement should be forthcoming according to the argument just made and won before the Supreme Court.

Polygamists are already making this argument. Successfully with this ruling, I'd say. I can't wait to see what other arrangements come out of the woodwork. People think up the craziest sh1t...

[WAG]

Notice that very few people in the anti-gay marriage crowd are willing to debate gay marriage simply on the merits of gay marriage anymore. Their playbook has been whittled away to the point where this tired, unoriginal, reductio ad absurdum argument that it will open the doors to pedophilia, necrophilia, beastiality, incest, and inanimate-object marriage is all that remains. ….That, and a lot of hyperventilating.

If you’re against gay marriage, just say so. But if you attack this issue only on the grounds that “if we allow this, then people will eventually want to marry their kids, dogs, etc.,” it suggests that we need to disallow it not because it’s wrong, but because it could lead to other wrongs. We need to continue denying rights, benifits and happiness to gay people…..not because gay marriage is wrong, but because beastiality is wrong. ....Not because gay marriage is wrong, but because incest is wrong. We're going to keep punishing people and limiting their rights based on things other people might eventually do. Is that how a 'wonderful society' works?

We're going to tell gay people “I'm free to marry the person I love, but I’m sorry, we can’t allow you to marry the person you love because if we do, someone else might then want to marry their dog ….or maybe their sneakers….or maybe their Grandmother.” You can’t be serious. The idea of looking another human being in the eye and saying that is incomprehensible to me.

If you're against gay marriage, cool, but have the courage of your convictions and say so because the incest, etc. argument is critically flawed standing by itself. In any case, I think it’s hilarious that this issue is the crushing blow against American marriage and families….not the decades-long divorce rate above 50%.

I'm against gay marriage (Wow! Did he just say that?). That should have been pretty obvious already smart guy. The argument against gay marriage has been very well documented and I'm not going to regurgitate it for your understanding. You simply choose not to listen and fall back on the common liberal tactic of belittling your opponents discussion: "playbook has been whittled away." Now we are stuck with the illegitimate decisions of the SCOTUS Prop 8/DOMA ruling. You can read Scalia's dissent for a real decision.

I am not the one that brought up bestiality and inanimate objects into this discussion but thanks for putting those words in my mouth. I was specifically discussing polygamy and incest which involves consenting adults. And YES, I will look at you same sex marriage advocates and homosexuals in the eye and ask "Why is it okay for you to marry another person of the same sex yet not allow someone who loves multiple people to wed?" Again, if loving someone else is the sole criterion for marriage then how can you dare deny others that same right?

Perhaps you belittle that argument because you realize it reveals your hypocrisy regarding civil rights. What it boils down to is that we draw a different line in the sand between right (male and female; the natural law of mankind that led to the creation of you and me) and wrong (everything else). The sad thing is that you are willing to fudge that gray area and deny the "rights" of other people's sexual desires yet insist that we are the ones that are close-minded. At least Vertigo is consistent and not a hypocrite.

Finally, for your edification regarding the flawed 50% divorce stat: http://psychcentral....-divorce/all/1/

Edited June 28, 2013 by WAG

[Gravedigger]

Well said HOSS. To take it a step further, you guys realize you don't have to become gay now and marry a man right? I'm not really sure how this even affects you. I didn't want to marry a man, so I married a woman. If my neighbor wants to marry his boyfriend how the fuck does that affect my wife and I?

And what if a gay couple adopts a child? Are you guys going to go out and adopt that child in the orphanage to stop that? I'd rather live in a gay home with loving parents than an orphanage if I were a kid.

[brickhistory]

Well said HOSS. To take it a step further, you guys realize you don't have to become gay now and marry a man right? I'm not really sure how this even affects you. I didn't want to marry a man, so I married a woman. If my neighbor wants to marry his boyfriend how the fuck does that affect my wife and I?

And what if a gay couple adopts a child? Are you guys going to go out and adopt that child in the orphanage to stop that? I'd rather live in a gay home with loving parents than an orphanage if I were a kid.

I do realize it, thank you.

I think I want to marry several wives (simulataneously). You cool with that?

Edited June 27, 2013 by brickhistory

[Gravedigger]

Absolutely. If you and the wives are consenting and of age. My wife likes that new Polygamy show a lot, and they bring up a lot of the same points gay people bring up. Valid points IMHO.