SCOTUS scraps DOMA

[GovernmentMan]

Try any Arby's

That's nasty. Bunny Ranch or maybe some place that doesn't have vats of cheese goop in the back. Unless that's your thing. Expect them to charge extra, if so. Link is NSFW.

[WAG]

the fact that the more studied you are about religion the more likely you are to agree with it/you.

That is all.

Yes, it was a jab. A well deserved one at that. My point is that if you are going to criticize a religious practice you should really study the practice before making obtuse generalizations. A more sophisticated/educated understanding of the matter DOES give you more flexibility to criticize. That's universal with regard to any subject. On that note, you are right. That is all. I'm over this topic. <and all rejoiced>

Edited June 30, 2013 by WAG

[so.it.goes]

Yes, it was a jab. A well deserved one at that. My point is that if you are going to criticize a religious practice you should really study the practice before making obtuse generalizations. A more sophisticated/educated understanding of the matter DOES give you more flexibility to criticize. That's universal with regard to any subject. On that note, you are right. That is all. I'm over this topic. &lt;and all rejoiced&gt;

I do agree with you in that regard, and certainly appreciate your post... Have a good weekend.

[pawnman]

I believe it's something along the lines of "honor thy father and thy mother" or maybe that's Old Testament/10 Commandments.

Either way, I'm not arguing from a religious point of view.

Perhaps because the concept of one mother, one father/one man, one woman derives from Judeo-Christianity as well as other religions, maybe you're on to something.

I'm arguing that the standards were destroyed by this ruling therefore holding the line anywhere is illogical. In both the marriage of gays, soon to be many other combinations, and for three parent IVF, simply because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

But if all bets are off, then all bets should be off. Strong survive and flourish, the weak get trampled and killed off.

I believe that's called a state of nature so it goes against the religion thing.

Well, maybe the Christianity portion. I'm pretty sure we've shown that the Judaism portion of your argument is pretty weak if you are trying to argue against polygamy.

So as a "religious" scholar turned atheist...are you telling me your mind was changed based on the same interpretation of Christian practice that HOSS broke down for us ("The Bible clearly expects us to keep slaves"...seriously??)

If so, please PM as I would love to be "disappointed" by your revelation.

I can respect that you actively followed and studied your religion for years and then chose to separate from it. On that note, I would hope (based on your experience) you would understand the offensiveness of HOSS's obtuse generalizations.... and I'm the one accused of being condescending..got it.

It is interesting how many people use the bible to justify whatever stance they have, but ignore all the verses that impose other restrictions. Sometimes the religious apologists try to tell us that it's because the Old Testament rules don't apply, since Jesus took care of it for us (nevermind that Jesus said not one letter would be removed from the law), yet even these people who point to Paul's admonition against gays ignore the commands that women must cover their heads and be silent in church.

[brickhistory]

Well, maybe the Christianity portion. I'm pretty sure we've shown that the Judaism portion of your argument is pretty weak if you are trying to argue against polygamy.

To the contrary, I'm thinking that all the rules are out the window to include restrictions against polygamy and other combinations. "Equality of marriage" either is or it isn't.

I also look forward to reading about how future leaders here will deal with this brave new world you are celebrating.

No doubt the counter will be "just fine, thank you very much." And that maybe, but my enjoyment of my "told you so" bourbon will be that much sweeter thinking about the puzzles that will have to be sorted out now:

- transgender in the military - why not? And what to do about quarters/hygiene for such?

- polygamist marriages - why not? And how to deal with custody rulings following inevitable divorces? Will married quarters have to be larger to reasonably accomodate such? Why not?

- related to the hot topic currently - what to do about sexual harassement/assualt/rape and will the inevitable spike in homosexual (inevitable because larger numbers will be allowed in/will be married to such, not because there is a proclivity for such behavior) assualts on same gender victims receive adequate attention?

- y'all have fun with it; dealing with these and many more 'fairness' issues will further take your time away from developing warriors, honing combat skills, and devoting resources to military purposes and not social equality issues.

[pawnman]

To the contrary, I'm thinking that all the rules are out the window to include restrictions against polygamy and other combinations. "Equality of marriage" either is or it isn't.

I also look forward to reading about how future leaders here will deal with this brave new world you are celebrating.

No doubt the counter will be "just fine, thank you very much." And that maybe, but my enjoyment of my "told you so" bourbon will be that much sweeter thinking about the puzzles that will have to be sorted out now:

- transgender in the military - why not? And what to do about quarters/hygiene for such?

- polygamist marriages - why not? And how to deal with custody rulings following inevitable divorces? Will married quarters have to be larger to reasonably accomodate such? Why not?

- related to the hot topic currently - what to do about sexual harassement/assualt/rape and will the inevitable spike in homosexual (inevitable because larger numbers will be allowed in/will be married to such, not because there is a proclivity for such behavior) assualts on same gender victims receive adequate attention?

- y'all have fun with it; dealing with these and many more 'fairness' issues will further take your time away from developing warriors, honing combat skills, and devoting resources to military purposes and not social equality issues.

Can't wait. I'd rather deal with the problems than just say "we're going to deny rights to this entire group, because it's more convenient".

[brickhistory]

Can't wait. I'd rather deal with the problems than just say "we're going to deny rights to this entire group, because it's more convenient".

You will get your wish. And if "this group" gets their 'just' rights, why not all the others mentioned in this thread regarding marriage - polygamists, incestous ones, bestiality ones, whatever else man can come up with and he/she will because he's a weird sumbitch?

As to "entire groups" being denied, I assume you are good with handicapped - physically or mentally - being allowed to serve in our armed forces? The rules banning such have been mainly because it's been "more convenient." Same as those now antiquated notions about knowingly inserting homesexuals in with the large majority who aren't. "Convenience for the few" was outweighed by the logistics/good order and morale/focus on the military mission by the many.

I think the plot has been lost, but I'm just an observor now. I do hope you will share some anecdotes of how you handled some of the gnarly command decisions awaiting you and your contemporaries.

[WAG]

It is interesting how many people use the bible to justify whatever stance they have, but ignore all the verses that impose other restrictions. Sometimes the religious apologists try to tell us that it's because the Old Testament rules don't apply, since Jesus took care of it for us (nevermind that Jesus said not one letter would be removed from the law), yet even these people who point to Paul's admonition against gays ignore the commands that women must cover their heads and be silent in church.

So you are assuming I subscribe to sola scriptura? Hmmm...

[Flaco]

"we're going to deny rights sanctioning an unnatural activity to this entire group by a very small (albeit rather vocal) fragment of society, because it's more convenient just as we don't sanction other unnatural activities".

FIFY

[Finance_Guy]

I believe this little nugget is directly related (no pun intended) to the "equality of marriage" argument that this ruling opened.

http://www.breitbart...hree-parent-IVF

If three can now be the 'parents,' why can't three or more marriages, or other currently not recognized arrangements, not be valid?

Good god this will wreak havoc on determining BAH entitlements and other "dependent" related entitlements. I've not seen any changes to the entitlement REGs but no DOD is going to have a tough time--an you thought the REGs were tough to interpret now. I say we just get rid of any Dependent driven pay entitlements. Give one BAH rate and do away with the With or Without Dependent rates. Don't even get me started on FSA. Dig up history on the purpose of FSA(below) and I don't see how two dudes married to each other should qualify (the other dude can certainly handle yard or automotive work--you would hope). I guess the two dudes could adopt a child and that might fit FSA better. I don't really agree with Mil-to-Mil couples with no kids getting FSA either, but they do.

This is just going to get messy and I'm not looking forward to the crap finance is about to be fed. Finance is going to need a legal read from JA on every "marriage" certificate once DOD determines what the hell they are going to do with entitlements.

FSA:

In 1963, Congress established the family separation allowance to help offset the additional expenses that may be incurred by the dependents of servicemembers who are away from their permanent duty station for more than 30 consecutive days. Additional expenses may include the costs associated with home repairs, automobile maintenance, and childcare that could have been performed by the deployed service member.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/250/243126.pdf

[ThreeHoler]

Wow, I thought FSA was designed to cover the costs of visiting one's dependents. The more you know...sounds like time to get rid of that shit.

I'm all for getting rid of the dependent BAH rate. It is piss-poor social engineering at best.

[brickhistory]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/office-of-personnel-management-benefits-now-available-to-same-sex-spouses-93584.html?hp=r7

Attorney General Eric Holder welcomed Friday’s announcement. “Americans in same-sex marriages are entitled to equal protection and equal treatment under the law,” he said in a statement. “By extending health insurance and other important benefits to federal employees and their families, regardless of whether they are in same-sex or opposite-sex marriages, the Obama administration is making real the promise of this important decision.”

So I can assume that I and my 4 sister-wives can look foward to "equal protection and equal treatment under the law?" Since previously, same sex marriage was against the federal law (DOMA) and still is in 35 states (although federal law trumps state law so the de facto ruling was for nationwide same-sex marriage), why can't I have anti-polygamy statutes ignored and/or overturned? Incest ones? Others that haven't even been thought of yet?

For the ID card, will it say "spouse" for each one or will it be in marriage order, i.e., Spouse 1, Spouse 2, etc?

For those that choose to marry their age of consent sibling, will the card say "Spouse" or "Dependent?"

Brave new world indeed...

[TreeA10]

There are some states with birth certificates now that say Parent 1 and Parent 2 vs Father or Mother.

[Buddy Spike]

There are some states with birth certificates now that say Parent 1 and Parent 2 vs Father or Mother.

[pitts2112]

To the contrary, I'm thinking that all the rules are out the window to include restrictions against polygamy and other combinations. "Equality of marriage" either is or it isn't.

I also look forward to reading about how future leaders here will deal with this brave new world you are celebrating.

No doubt the counter will be "just fine, thank you very much." And that maybe, but my enjoyment of my "told you so" bourbon will be that much sweeter thinking about the puzzles that will have to be sorted out now:

- transgender in the military - why not? And what to do about quarters/hygiene for such?

- polygamist marriages - why not? And how to deal with custody rulings following inevitable divorces? Will married quarters have to be larger to reasonably accomodate such? Why not?

- related to the hot topic currently - what to do about sexual harassement/assualt/rape and will the inevitable spike in homosexual (inevitable because larger numbers will be allowed in/will be married to such, not because there is a proclivity for such behavior) assualts on same gender victims receive adequate attention?

- y'all have fun with it; dealing with these and many more 'fairness' issues will further take your time away from developing warriors, honing combat skills, and devoting resources to military purposes and not social equality issues.

Your argument is completely invalid. That's like saying that we never should have passed any civil rights legislation because we wouldn't know what to do with all the extra drinking fountains and "coloreds only" signs.

Just because something is difficult, or new, doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.

[GovernmentMan]

Good god this will wreak havoc on determining BAH entitlements and other "dependent" related entitlements. I've not seen any changes to the entitlement REGs but no DOD is going to have a tough time--an you thought the REGs were tough to interpret now. I say we just get rid of any Dependent driven pay entitlements. Give one BAH rate and do away with the With or Without Dependent rates. Don't even get me started on FSA. Dig up history on the purpose of FSA(below) and I don't see how two dudes married to each other should qualify (the other dude can certainly handle yard or automotive work--you would hope). I guess the two dudes could adopt a child and that might fit FSA better. I don't really agree with Mil-to-Mil couples with no kids getting FSA either, but they do.

This is just going to get messy and I'm not looking forward to the crap finance is about to be fed. Finance is going to need a legal read from JA on every "marriage" certificate once DOD determines what the hell they are going to do with entitlements.

FSA:

In 1963, Congress established the family separation allowance to help offset the additional expenses that may be incurred by the dependents of servicemembers who are away from their permanent duty station for more than 30 consecutive days. Additional expenses may include the costs associated with home repairs, automobile maintenance, and childcare that could have been performed by the deployed service member.

http://www.gao.gov/a.../250/243126.pdf

As a married, straight guy, I'll be the first to admit that "more money cuz you're married" is not really fair. Obviously, I won't campaign for it being shut down, but if it does eventually get removed (BAH w/ dependents, married filing jointly, etc.) I can't really put forth an ethical argument as to why it should be retained. A considerable number of emphasis is placed on giving married folks a break, so they can get on with the cranking out of babies. That worked pretty nicely during Manifest Destiny, but not so much these days. If you can't afford kids yet, then don't have kids yet. *cue the socialism/abortion slippery slope*

[brickhistory]

Just because something is difficult, or new, doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.

Err, is this the exact argument used to pass and support gay marriage?

"Equality of marriage" either is a valid concept or it is not. That you don't like the examples given or the potentials for further combinations is ironic indeed.

[pitts2112]

Err, is this the exact argument used to pass and support gay marriage?

"Equality of marriage" either is a valid concept or it is not. That you don't like the examples given or the potentials for further combinations is ironic indeed.

You missed my point. I didn't argue that any of those are arguments used to pass and support marriage equality, but I did say they're completely invalid reasons for withholding it.

I also didn't mention anything about any other combinations. But, if I had, that would be a logical fallacy on your part. Simply because I support gay marriage does not automatically mean I support all further "combinations".

edited to cover grammar failure.

Edited June 30, 2013 by pitts2112

[WAG]

You missed my point. I didn't argue that any of those are arguments used to pass and support marriage equality, but I did say they're completely invalid reasons for withholding it.

I also didn't mention anything about any other combinations. But, if I had, that would be a logical fallacy on your part. Simply because I support gay marriage does not automatically mean I support all further "combinations".

edited to cover grammar failure.

So now that we are all on board with subjective morality.. .whose opinion on right and wrong should we go with from here on forward in this country?

Edited June 30, 2013 by WAG

[brickhistory]

You missed my point. I didn't argue that any of those are arguments used to pass and support marriage equality, but I did say they're completely invalid reasons for withholding it.

I also didn't mention anything about any other combinations. But, if I had, that would be a logical fallacy on your part. Simply because I support gay marriage does not automatically mean I support all further "combinations".

edited to cover grammar failure.

No, I gathered your point. Mine remains valid. You, and others, are arguing that 'this' is the end of the matter. Now that homosexuals can legally marry, the issue is settled.

I don't think it is. I see many legal challenges arguing for legal equality and recognition of these different combinations using this same logic.

And they'd be correct.

As noted above, you (and those supporting the same including the Supreme Court) have substituted your opinion/values/judgement for what has been.

So you state that your opinion and judgement is the end of the matter? No other combinations can be or should be considered valid?

Convenient, if illogical.

[pitts2112]

Neither convenient

No, I gathered your point. Mine remains valid. You, and others, are arguing that 'this' is the end of the matter. Now that homosexuals can legally marry, the issue is settled.

I don't think it is. I see many legal challenges arguing for legal equality and recognition of these different combinations using this same logic.

And they'd be correct.

As noted above, you (and those supporting the same including the Supreme Court) have substituted your opinion/values/judgement for what has been.

So you state that your opinion and judgement is the end of the matter? No other combinations can be or should be considered valid?

Convenient, if illogical.

Neither convenient nor logical.

The world evolves. Some of it, anyway. There was a time when stealing bread was a hanging offense. Should we go back to that because it is "what has been"? There was a time when the Irish weren't employable in this country. Let's go back to that.

On what basis do you believe your opinion is more valid than any other? - and don't quote the bible because that's just not a valid source.

And your logic is still false. This is one issue. It's not related to bestiality or bigamy or even cannabilism, for crying out loud. Each will have to be raised and dealt with in it's own time. Simply because inequality for sexual preference was rightly found unconstitutional, that doesn't lead to an assumption anything else will.

But let's take this out of the realm of mythology and personal opinion. it's not my values/opinion/judgement that has carried the day. It's against the very Constitution that you're defending to deny civil rights to people for what science is now telling us is a genetic condition.

I'll tell you where I'm coming from on this. When I was 22, I was as bigoted and ignorant on this score as you and some of the other guys here are. I had no respect for fags and didn't think they had any rights to anything, much less being in the military. I even worked for one who was as flaming as you could get and I barely tolerated his presence. Then on day my girlfriend dumped me. I was in bits when I went to work that night. My boss noticed and asked me what was up. I told him I'd just been dumped and we ended up in an hour long conversation about relationships - love, emotions, getting dumped, the lot. We both knew he was talking about guys and I was talking about girls, but the words, the feelings, the affect on our lives was exactly the same. That day at work I realized he had the same emotions that I did, in every single way. That's what convinced me that we're actually the same, and that homosexuality was about as valid a reason to hate someone as their liking the wrong breakfast cereal.

Be honest. Opposition to the Supreme Court's ruling is actually about personal prejudice. It's about righteous judgement, ignorance, and a wilfull decision to not have one's prejudices questioned or challenged, because that might end up leading to a different conclusion.

[pawnman]

You will get your wish. And if "this group" gets their 'just' rights, why not all the others mentioned in this thread regarding marriage - polygamists, incestous ones, bestiality ones, whatever else man can come up with and he/she will because he's a weird sumbitch?

As to "entire groups" being denied, I assume you are good with handicapped - physically or mentally - being allowed to serve in our armed forces? The rules banning such have been mainly because it's been "more convenient." Same as those now antiquated notions about knowingly inserting homesexuals in with the large majority who aren't. "Convenience for the few" was outweighed by the logistics/good order and morale/focus on the military mission by the many.

I think the plot has been lost, but I'm just an observor now. I do hope you will share some anecdotes of how you handled some of the gnarly command decisions awaiting you and your contemporaries.

So we've now sunk to the level of comparing gays to the mentally handicapped. Awesome.

As for physically handicapped...wasn't the a whole thread praising the female senator who reemed out a supposedly "disabled" vet? The woman lost both legs in a helo crash, yet still serves as a LtCol in the reserves (guard? doesn't make a difference to the point).

And when we recognize animals as having all the same legal rights to enter contracts as humans, maybe then I'll take your beastiality argument seriously.

[Flaco]

I'll tell you where I'm coming from on this. When I was 22, I was as bigoted and ignorant on this score as you and some of the other guys here are. I had no respect for fags and didn't think they had any rights to anything, much less being in the military. I even worked for one who was as flaming as you could get and I barely tolerated his presence. Then on day my girlfriend dumped me. I was in bits when I went to work that night. My boss noticed and asked me what was up. I told him I'd just been dumped and we ended up in an hour long conversation about relationships - love, emotions, getting dumped, the lot. We both knew he was talking about guys and I was talking about girls, but the words, the feelings, the affect on our lives was exactly the same. That day at work I realized he had the same emotions that I did, in every single way. That's what convinced me that we're actually the same, and that homosexuality was about as valid a reason to hate someone as their liking the wrong breakfast cereal.

Be honest. Opposition to the Supreme Court's ruling is actually about personal prejudice. It's about righteous judgement, ignorance, and a wilfull decision to not have one's prejudices questioned or challenged, because that might end up leading to a different conclusion.

Standing up for what you believe is right and not sanctioning unnatural behavior is not bigotry. It's called standing for your principles. Nor am I ignorant on the issue.

You had what sounds like was a very emotional experience with a gay dude. That's very sweet. Does that mean you had to accept his sexuality as normal behavior?

[pitts2112]

Standing up for what you believe is right and not sanctioning unnatural behavior is not bigotry. It's called standing for your principles. Nor am I ignorant on the issue.

You had what sounds like was a very emotional experience with a gay dude. That's very sweet. Does that mean you had to accept his sexuality as normal behavior?

Absolutely. Because it is. It's as normal as being left handed which, while not common, is normal.

You're not ignorant on the issue. Glad to hear it. Is that lack of ignorance based on first-hand experience with gay people? How many times have you had a beer with someone who's gay and talked about it (and I don't mean the sex)?

[lloyd christmas]

I'll tell you where I'm coming from on this. When I was 22, I was as bigoted and ignorant on this score as you and some of the other guys here are. I had no respect for fags and didn't think they had any rights to anything, much less being in the military. I even worked for one who was as flaming as you could get and I barely tolerated his presence. Then on day my girlfriend dumped me. I was in bits when I went to work that night. My boss noticed and asked me what was up. I told him I'd just been dumped and we ended up in an hour long conversation about relationships - love, emotions, getting dumped, the lot. We both knew he was talking about guys and I was talking about girls, but the words, the feelings, the affect on our lives was exactly the same. That day at work I realized he had the same emotions that I did, in every single way. That's what convinced me that we're actually the same, and that homosexuality was about as valid a reason to hate someone as their liking the wrong breakfast cereal.

I find it really funny that you think people with differing opinions are bigoted and ignorant. Before I joined the military, I had a guy that worked for me at an airport. He was as flaming gay as you can get. He harassed me and the other dudes at work constantly. Eventually, I had enough and went to my boss. My boss brought in another manager who was gay to shed some light on what was going on with this dude. He said to me, you went to college right? I told him that I had. He said how many nights a week did you go out looking for women? I said all the time. He wanted to know how many times that worked out for me. I was honest and told him not as much as I would have liked. He explained that gay dudes are still dudes so they don't say no like most women do. He said it is normal and common for dudes to go out to these the gay clubs and get busy with multiple dudes in these clubs every night. He explained that this dude doesn't understand that his coworkers weren't interested or that he was even harassing other people. It was normal for him. Another story, I have a family member that runs a fairly large organization. This is a public service organization that employs a large number of gays. He talks all the time about how the lesbians in the company "recruit" and prey on recently single women. He sees it every day. That is where I have a problem. Our society has been led to believe that the homosexual lifestyle is just about peoples feelings and equality. We have been fed this "ideal" stereotype of gays by the media and Hollywood. Gays are portrayed on TV as healthy, educated committed people who are just like you and me while heterosexuals are portrayed as dysfunctional. We have mommy swap shows and shows like Mistresses on ABC. There are plenty of studies that show the rates of domestic abuse, substance abuse, number of partners, lengths of relationships and health issues are much worse for gays than straight people. The lifestyle has serious consequences. Not to mention anatomy, biology, religion or evolution don't jive with the gay lifestyle.

Edited July 1, 2013 by lloyd christmas