View Full Version : Supreme Court Ruling on DOMA
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court-doma-decision_n_3454811.html
In yet another split decision by SCOTUS (5-4) DOMA is struck down.
All these split rulings are telling of the bigger picture- indicative of the ever increasing division in our country/nation right now. A nation divided...
-From the article-
WASHINGTON -- The Defense of Marriage Act, the law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by the states, is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday by a 5-4 vote.
"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”
Justice Kennedy delivered the court’s opinion, and was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito all filed dissenting opinions.
-End Article Snippet-
Army Chief
06-26-13, 09:54
All these split rulings are telling of the bigger picture- indicative of the ever increasing division in our country/nation right now. A nation divided...
Lest this devolve into yet another well-worn discussion of all-things-homosexual (please don't), I think we really need to keep our focus right where you've placed it: on the fact that these idealogical divisions only seem to be growing in both scope and intensity.
What all of this means for the future of our nation is really the core issue at hand here. We seem to have lost the ability to reason together and, when warranted, to compromise on even the most basic of terms. I'm left to wonder where such a path can lead ...
AC
montanadave
06-26-13, 09:56
I understand that this is an issue which creates deep divides amongst the M4C community and I don't expect folks with firmly held convictions are likely to shift their positions.
That said, I support the Supreme Court's decision.
They also vacated the appeals court's decision on Prop 8.
Army Chief
06-26-13, 10:01
I've not really looked into the matter enough to speak competently one way or the other, but I readily acknowledge that it is possible to make bad law for a good -- or otherwise well-intended -- purpose.
To wit, Prohibition makes a lot of conceptual sense when you consider the damage alcohol consumption inflicts upon our society every day, but as the law of the land, it simply led to greater problems (while doing precious little to foster the righteousness it was intended to enforce).
One size rarely fits all.
AC
Lest this devolve into yet another well-worn discussion of all-things-homosexual (please don't), I think we really need to keep our focus right where you've placed it: on the fact that these idealogical divisions only seem to be growing in both scope and intensity.
What all of this means for the future of our nation is really the core issue at hand here. We seem to have lost the ability to reason together and, when warranted, to compromise on even the most basic of terms. I'm left to wonder where such a path can lead ...
AC
I was somewhat hesitant in posting this as I do not want to see the homosexual debates of late on M4C rehashed and a subsequent thread lock.
But I posted it anyways as there are quite a few bigger picture issues with this ruling.
Please everyone take the guidance AC has layed down seriously and lets all debate this one with the utmost civility and respect.
The increasing division of our nation with our government seemingly homogenizing into a single party crony controlled system bent on dividing us citizens further and further along all sorts of idealogical, social, racial and political lines is becomming more and more aparant everyday and is doing us great harm.
Not only growing in scope and intensity, but the pace at which these divisions are opening up/deepening is increasing as well. The ease in which people are taking sides and riding the hard line is troubling.
Our nation seems more divided today than it ever has been. And it seems to be catalysed from within.
One truly has to question why we are being polarized to this extent , for what purpose and how long we can hold this charade together before the very fabric of our nation is torn and damaged beyond repair.
Federal tax breaks and benefits should not exist for any married couple regardless of sexual orientation.
You file your income taxes seperately.
You do not get a tax credit for children.
This gay vs. straight issue is caused by our tax laws.
Army Chief
06-26-13, 10:23
Federal tax breaks and benefits should not exist for any married couple regardless of sexual orientation.
Not to take this too far afield, since we weren't really headed in this direction (and I would prefer not to linger), but if we can agree that the family is the building block of our society, and a strong, functioning society is foundational to our nation, then I'm not sure what might be particularly grievous about the government providing a modicum of tax code support to encourage the formation of (and stability within) said families. Not that the tax codes make a great deal of sense to me in the first place, but I digress.
Merely my opinion, and worth precisely what was paid for it. ;)
AC
Not to take this too far afield, since we weren't really headed in this direction (and I would prefer not to linger), but if we can agree that the family is the building block of our society, and a strong, functioning society is foundational to our nation, then I'm not sure what might be particularly grievous about the government providing a modicum of tax code support to encourage the formation of (and stability within) said families. Not that the tax codes make a great deal of sense to me in the first place, but I digress.
Merely my opinion, and worth precisely what was paid for it. ;)
AC
Yes I understand why these breaks exist. It is to premote the creation of a family.
Howevery, married couples with children drain more on the system than single people. They should not have to pay less.
brickboy240
06-26-13, 10:26
Ok now that we are through with this non-issue...how about getting back to issues that really affect most of the population?
Jobs, revamping the tax code, fixing our monetary policy...things like that.
Who cares what the homos do....I want the REAL problems fixed. Gay marriage has no real impact on my daily life or the financial well being of me and my family.
-brickboy240
polymorpheous
06-26-13, 10:27
I believe that Scott is hinting at social engineering using the tax code.
The doma case was brought about because of taxes, particularly the estate tax.
If discussing the case itself, discussing taxes is very on-topic.
theblackknight
06-26-13, 10:40
They've just granted individuals more personal freedom, this can't be good.
sent from mah gun,using my sights
Should be an interesting battle when health plans start dropping spouses due to Omaocare.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-your-boss-is-dumping-your-wife-2013-02-22
Army Chief
06-26-13, 10:51
I had a professor in graduate school who made it a point to tie everything in public policy -- and I mean everything -- to money. I was idealistic and took good-natured umbrage to the belief that such decisions were not more often made for the greater good, or to uphold some basic moral tenet within our society. "If you want to find the absolute ground zero point in any issue in the public debate," he would say, "look for the money. Follow the money trail, and you will see who is really doing what, and why."
I choked on that for a good, long while until one day I realized that there was actually a lot of wisdom in his words. It rubbed the optimistic side of me all wrong, of course, but over time I came to see that there is indeed an underpinning financial stake in every piece of legislation. If you gents are tracking correctly, it would seem that we've found one here, as well.
Interesting. Perhaps a bit vexing -- but interesting, nonetheless.
AC
Taxes are meant to support government programs and functions. IMO, encouraging marriage or child birth isn't one of those functions. That is a social engineering nudge.
I'm in line with whoever a said "who cares". Lets move on to addressing real issues that are meaningful to keeping the country alive. The whole homosexual marriage issue IMO is like treating an ingrown toenail instead of figuring out what all that bloods is spewing out of the patients chest is.
I had a professor in graduate school who made it a point to tie everything in public policy -- and I mean everything -- to money. I was idealistic and took good-natured umbrage to the belief that such decisions were not more often made for the greater good, or to uphold some basic moral tenet within our society. "If you want to find the absolute ground zero point in any issue in the public debate," he would say, "look for the money. Follow the money trail, and you will see who is really doing what, and why."
I choked on that for a good, long while until one day I realized that there was actually a lot of wisdom in his words. It rubbed the optimistic side of me all wrong, of course, but over time I came to see that there is indeed an underpinning financial stake in every piece of legislation. If you gents are tracking correctly, it would seem that we've found one here, as well.
Interesting. Perhaps a bit vexing -- but interesting, nonetheless.
AC
I had a science teacher in high school do the same thing using the globull warming scam as an example after teaching us the junk science behind it. Changed the way I looked at the world forever.
I had a professor in graduate school who made it a point to tie everything in public policy -- and I mean everything -- to money. I was idealistic and took good-natured umbrage to the belief that such decisions were not more often made for the greater good, or to uphold some basic moral tenet within our society. "If you want to find the absolute ground zero point in any issue in the public debate," he would say, "look for the money. Follow the money trail, and you will see who is really doing what, and why."
I choked on that for a good, long while until one day I realized that there was actually a lot of wisdom in his words. It rubbed the optimistic side of me all wrong, of course, but over time I came to see that there is indeed an underpinning financial stake in every piece of legislation. If you gents are tracking correctly, it would seem that we've found one here, as well.
Interesting. Perhaps a bit vexing -- but interesting, nonetheless.
AC
What is DOMA about? What did Federal non-recognition of same-sex marriages really do? It granted certain benefits to heterosexual married couples that did not carry over to homosexual married couples. Those benefits are based primarily on money. There are no current laws, to my knowledge, that prevent same sex couples from living together, adopting children, etc. State laws generally provide all the support they need in other issues. It's the monetary issues in the Federal realm that matter... the subsequent related issue of equal protection / equal treatment comed later.
There's always a realist and an idealist view of things. The opponents of DOMA framed them as equal taxation and equal treatment, which is a strong foundation to stand on. After all, the country has fought wars based on taxation and equality. The proponents of DOMA had the ideal view of protecting the heterosexual marriage for the sake of the children... which is at odds with the dual realities that heterosexual couples without children still benefit from marriage laws and that there isn't proof that a male and female are required to be good parents, only that the parents are good.
There is a religious argument, but no one mentions it really because it'll just get shot down in court by the first amendment. If anything, the religious argument should be to remove marriage from Federal jurisdiction in its entirety, perhaps make it only a religious construct with no presence in any law whatsoever.
brickboy240
06-26-13, 11:28
Abortion....immigration reform...and yes...gay marriage are all distraction issues.
Issues used by the government/media complex to dice us all up into little groups and divert attention from the fact that they have no plans to fix what is wrong economically in America.
While our job market and financial situation in America crumbles with little attention....we scream and claw at each other because some crack whore gets her 5th abortion or because two boys that live in another state (and we do not know) wish to tie the knot.
Keep your eye on the ball folks...this is all one huge distraction and a real non-issue.
-brickboy240
"For no legitimate purpose".
A VERY useful phrase, that. It means everything--and nothing. Expect to see it used against us in the near future to crush resistance.
This is not judicial review. It is naked power in the service of "fundamental transformation".
:suicide2:
There are two issues here. The first is the concept of marriage equality. The second is DOMA. Personally, I am a supporter of [I]civil [I] marriage equality. Reasonable people can disagree on the issue. I'd just state that my heterosexual marriage does not need the federal government to "defend" it, nor will it be undermined by my gay friends marrying.
DOMA is a different question. I have a take on this that I don't hear often. Marriage Equality not withstanding, DOMA was not a conservative law. If you are a political conservative (as opposed to social/religious conservative), and support states rights, this was blatant federal interference in the state's long established role of regulating marriage. IF you believe in states rights, and are politically consistent, the striking down of DOMA should be something that you support. IF you are a libertarian, extending liberty and equality and removing federal discrimination should be a good thing. I have friends from all over the sprectrum on this. But when you strip away the biomechanics of homosexual sex that make some uncomfortable, DOMA was federal discrimination against a group of people that have engaged in legally recognized union in a dozen states. There was no prevailing federal interest there, so to my mind, its good riddance to a bad law.
Alpha Sierra
06-26-13, 11:45
We seem to have lost the ability to reason together and, when warranted, to compromise on even the most basic of terms. I'm left to wonder where such a path can lead ...
Wonder no more. It leads right to secession and dissolution of the union in favor of smaller confederations of like minded states.
Will Ellen degeneras pay her fair share or exploit the tax loophole as being able to file as a married couple?
Abortion....immigration reform...and yes...gay marriage are all distraction issues.
Issues used by the government/media complex to dice us all up into little groups and divert attention from the fact that they have no plans to fix what is wrong economically in America.
While our job market and financial situation in America crumbles with little attention....we scream and claw at each other because some crack whore gets her 5th abortion or because two boys that live in another state (and we do not know) wish to tie the knot.
Keep your eye on the ball folks...this is all one huge distraction and a real non-issue.
-brickboy240
Immigration reform is not a distraction if you're buying new votes with green cards thereby adding millions of supporters to your power base.
"For no legitimate purpose".
A VERY useful phrase, that. It means everything--and nothing. Expect to see it used against us in the near future to crush resistance.
This is not judicial review. It is naked power in the service of "fundamental transformation".
:suicide2:
You're going to have to explain that better please. I don't follow.
RogerinTPA
06-26-13, 13:06
Wonder no more. It leads right to secession and dissolution of the union in favor of smaller confederations of like minded states.
This struck me as being comical. Not your words, but the idea of a separate conservative & liberal country. Who would pay for all of the liberals entitlements since no one will work on their side???:lol:
This struck me as being comical. Not your words, but the idea of a separate conservative & liberal country. Who would pay for all of the liberals entitlements since no one will work on their side???:lol:
Top ten recipients of federal spending were: Florida, Texas, California, New York, Lousiana, New Jersey, Penn, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. So who is funding who?
Don't know about the others, but Texas is a net contributor.
Also, 7 of those 10 states are in the top 10 for US population. An eighth is number 11. One would expect that the areas of high population would be among the highest of funds recipients.
Top ten recipients of federal spending were: Florida, Texas, California, New York, Lousiana, New Jersey, Penn, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. So who is funding who?
Those states include major cities and areas hit by natural disasters, as well as unique expenses - it's not a straight comparison. Look at Wellfare Spending by state and you'll see a slightly different picture:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_welfare_spend
The reason why Florida and Texas still rank high is because, even though the states are conservative, they house very large liberal, wellfare cities (Houston, Miami, etc.). With exception to those, you see a very clear pattern of left-leaning states having higher wellfare expenses.
NeoNeanderthal
06-26-13, 13:56
I agree with the many people on here that have stated "marriage" should be a religious status/term and have nothing to do with the government.
Imagine if you got tax breaks/benefits if you were baptized. It's kind of ludicrous if you think about it.
To all the people saying "great, now lets move on…" The issue is far from settled. SCOTUS has forced the marriage equality issue to become a states rights issue. If your state allows it, you are now eligible for state ANS federal marriage benefits, regardless of who you marry. If your state doesn't, your screwed. This will be the new issue. Ether allowing same-sex marriage state by state. Or having a federal mandate allowing same sex couples to marry in any-state.
30 cal slut
06-26-13, 13:58
:blink:
http://www.jaswholesale.com/product_images/4/2/3/423.jpg
DOMA is a different question. I have a take on this that I don't hear often. Marriage Equality not withstanding, DOMA was not a conservative law. If you are a political conservative (as opposed to social/religious conservative), and support states rights, this was blatant federal interference in the state's long established role of regulating marriage. IF you believe in states rights, and are politically consistent, the striking down of DOMA should be something that you support. IF you are a libertarian, extending liberty and equality and removing federal discrimination should be a good thing. I have friends from all over the sprectrum on this. But when you strip away the biomechanics of homosexual sex that make some uncomfortable, DOMA was federal discrimination against a group of people that have engaged in legally recognized union in a dozen states. There was no prevailing federal interest there, so to my mind, its good riddance to a bad law.
I think you and I are tracking together on this.
IMO there is nothing in the Constitution(I just read through it to double check) that says anything about marriage(both hetero and homo sexual) so IMO the Federal government had no standing to put DOMA into place in the first place and thus its an unconstitutional law. If its not in the Constitution than it automatically goes to States rights, which, if I am reading the decision correctly, is exactly what the Supreme court did, they dissented to the state and said because the state voted for it, than it was legal IN THAT STATE.
To ME this isnt about the Supreme court choosing gay or straight its about choosing to follow the Constitution. I am very much a states rights person and if one state chooses to do something(what ever that is) that is NOT laid out in the Constitution than they should be able to do what they want. I also have the right to live there or not.
brickboy240
06-26-13, 15:09
Way too much time and effort has been wasted by those getting their panties in a wad over two homos tying the knot.
...that much I do know.
-brickboy240
morbidbattlecry
06-26-13, 15:18
Anyone who is a big proponent of states rights should study up on how well that worked for the south during the civil war. Oh and whoever said global warming is a scam, its real deal with it.
Anyone who is a big proponent of states rights should study up on how well that worked for the south during the civil war.
There's states rights, then there's secession and slavery.
Moose-Knuckle
06-26-13, 16:10
ROTFLMFAO, the War of Northern Aggression and the global warming scam all in a thread about the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government interpreting the institution of marriage . . .
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/thomasderail.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/AKS-74/media/thomasderail.jpg.html)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court-doma-decision_n_3454811.html
In yet another split decision by SCOTUS (5-4) DOMA is struck down.
All these split rulings are telling of the bigger picture- indicative of the ever increasing division in our country/nation right now. A nation divided...
-From the article-
WASHINGTON -- The Defense of Marriage Act, the law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by the states, is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday by a 5-4 vote.
"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”
Justice Kennedy delivered the court’s opinion, and was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito all filed dissenting opinions.
-End Article Snippet-
Interesting response from the King, http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-i-wont-make-churches-conduct-gay-marriages/article/2532418
President Obama, in his statement hailing the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, promised that he wouldn’t try to force religious institutions to conduct gay marriages.
This creatures arrogance is virtually stupefying....
morbidbattlecry
06-26-13, 17:09
ROTFLMFAO, the War of Northern Aggression and the global warming scam all in a thread about the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government interpreting the institution of marriage . . .
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/thomasderail.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/AKS-74/media/thomasderail.jpg.html)
I love it when people call it the War of Northern Aggression :lol:
Moose-Knuckle
06-26-13, 17:14
Interesting response from the King, http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-i-wont-make-churches-conduct-gay-marriages/article/2532418
This creatures arrogance is virtually stupefying....
Indeed and while he is on his $100 million dollar tax payer funded safari in Africa no less. His highness also had to tweet about "civil disobedience" in Austin.
"Something special is happening in Austin tonight" - BHO
https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/349703625616011264
Wild Scene: Protesters Flood Texas Capitol to Stop Abortion Bill
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/06/26/video-protesters-flood-texas-capitol-stop-abortion-bill?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FoxNewsInsider+(Fox+News+Insider)
Moose-Knuckle
06-26-13, 17:15
I love it when people call it the War of Northern Aggression :lol:
My point, you just proved it. ;)
GeorgiaBoy
06-26-13, 17:20
Anyone who is a big proponent of states rights should study up on how well that worked for the south during the civil war. Oh and whoever said global warming is a scam, its real deal with it.
Thank you! :agree:
There's states rights, then there's secession and slavery.
"Of all these interpretations, the state's-rights argument is perhaps the weakest. It fails to ask the question, state's rights for what purpose? State's rights, or sovereignty, was always more a means than an end, an instrument to achieve a certain goal more than a principle." - James McPherson, The Mighty Scourge
MountainRaven
06-26-13, 19:49
"Of all these interpretations, the state's-rights argument is perhaps the weakest. It fails to ask the question, state's rights for what purpose? State's rights, or sovereignty, was always more a means than an end, an instrument to achieve a certain goal more than a principle." - James McPherson, The Mighty Scourge
Funny that the Confederacy was the first to trample on those rights and stomped hardest. They instituted a draft before the Union did and had difficulty getting the states to pay to protect the other states, which made the Confederacy more centralized and authoritarian... so much so that South Carolina threatened to leave the Confederacy.
Calling the American Civil War the 'War of Northern Aggression' is about as accurate as calling American involvement in WWII's PTO the 'War of American Aggression': There was no will in the Union to fight the Confederacy until the attack on Fort Sumter just as there was no will in the United States to fight Imperial Japan until the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Lest this devolve into yet another well-worn discussion of all-things-homosexual (please don't), I think we really need to keep our focus right where you've placed it: on the fact that these idealogical divisions only seem to be growing in both scope and intensity.
What all of this means for the future of our nation is really the core issue at hand here. We seem to have lost the ability to reason together and, when warranted, to compromise on even the most basic of terms. I'm left to wonder where such a path can lead ...
AC
I think that it all comes down to the fact that we, as a nation, no longer have a core set of values and principles that we stand for. The nation was stood up by a group a folks that had a homogenizing theme, or a set of beliefs (I'm not talking about religion here), that they stood for as a collective. We don't have that any more. Rather than a nation of immigrants in pursuit of freedom and opportunity, we are now a nation of special interests. Each has their own agenda. We don't really have anything to bring us together or unify us anymore. Usually a common enemy does that for us, but there are so many sympathizers among us now, we can't even go after the orchestrators of 9/11 without dissenters. Drivers licenses for illegal immigrants! Are we f'ing serious?
I'd be the first to say that even our 2nd Amendment community is a special interest. But we're a special interest that is consistent with the founding Constitution of this country. I'm afraid to see where this two hundred plus year experiment takes us.
RogerinTPA
06-26-13, 21:08
I think that it all comes down to the fact that we, as a nation, no longer have a core set of values and principles that we stand for. The nation was stood up by a group a folks that had a homogenizing theme, or a set of beliefs (I'm not talking about religion here), that they stood for as a collective. We don't have that any more. Rather than a nation of immigrants in pursuit of freedom and opportunity, we are now a nation of special interests. Each has their own agenda. We don't really have anything to bring us together or unify us anymore. Usually a common enemy does that for us, but there are so many sympathizers among us now, we can't even go after the orchestrators of 9/11 without dissenters. Drivers licenses for illegal immigrants! Are we f'ing serious?
I'd be the first to say that even our 2nd Amendment community is a special interest. But we're a special interest that is consistent with the founding Constitution of this country. I'm afraid to see where this two hundred plus year experiment takes us.
Agreed. I really can't get too excited about this topic since it has already been settled since the beginning of time by a higher power. Government doesn't give us our rights as they are inalienable. I am not a gay hater but I do not condone or support the behavior. I've always been of the opinion that I really don't care what other people do as long as that conduct and behavior doesn't affect me. The problem I have is when people try to chastise, persecute, hate or stigmatize others who do not believe what they do. The moment a person tries to force their opinion down someone else's throats, then I have a serious problem with it. The subject solicits a big 'yawn' from me. As far as our individual lives are concerned, who cares.
The real issue is we continually appoint or vote in corrupt political whores who have a proven track record of failure, does not act in the best interest of their constituents or the nation, and will lie to our faces with an angelic shit eating grin.
We are losing our Christian faith, moral compass, individuality, compassion, patriotism, and everything that defined us as Americans...all through governmental and nefarious political action from the left, while being forced to recognize, accept and turn the other cheek of an extremely hostile religion that actively wants to convert or kill us. Our nation is on the fast track to destruction by the communist/socialist/progressive movement in every moral and meaningful way through indoctrination in the public school system and undergraduate levels. We, as a nation, or majority of it, has lost its collective mind. We have way bigger fish to fry in this country than this BS.
My thoughts are that scotus should not be able to overturn what the citizens of california voted in.
The problem I have is when people try to chastise, persecute, hate or stigmatize others who do not believe what they do. The moment a person tries to force their opinion down someone else's throats, then I have a serious problem with it.
Concur. Demonizing/branding what is biologically intuitively obvious as "hate" typifies intolerance. I don't even need to bring matters of faith into this. This is not "normal" or "alternative" behavior and it is being taught as such, and if you happen to disagree, you're the one considered to have a mental defect.
Army Chief
06-26-13, 22:04
I have long noticed that I tend to find myself in ready agreement with Roger on most issues of consequence.
Nothing has changed.
AC
All about money,votes and diverting peoples attention from the hard issues ruining this country. Let them marry for their happiness.
Alaskapopo
06-26-13, 22:35
Lest this devolve into yet another well-worn discussion of all-things-homosexual (please don't), I think we really need to keep our focus right where you've placed it: on the fact that these idealogical divisions only seem to be growing in both scope and intensity.
What all of this means for the future of our nation is really the core issue at hand here. We seem to have lost the ability to reason together and, when warranted, to compromise on even the most basic of terms. I'm left to wonder where such a path can lead ...
AC
Very true we are very divided and both sides are getting less and less tolerant. Not a good sign of things to come.
Pat
Alaskapopo
06-26-13, 22:36
My thoughts are that scotus should not be able to overturn what the citizens of california voted in.
Really what if the citizens of California voted to ban all guns. I think SCOTUS is doing what its supposed to. It supposed to be the final check and balance to ensure we don't have tyranny of the majority.
Pat
All about money,votes and diverting peoples attention from the hard issues ruining this country. Let them marry for their happiness.
Yahtzee! If homos believe that the govt gives 2 drops of KY about their perceived equality, then they are as silly as the their predecessors. Look forward to seeing how Obamacare will result in higher premiums due to a risky lifestyle.
Alaskapopo
06-26-13, 23:09
Yahtzee! If homos believe that the govt gives 2 drops of KY about their perceived equality, then they are as silly as the their predecessors. Look forward to seeing how Obamacare will result in higher premiums due to a risky lifestyle.
According to some being a gun owner is a risky life style.
Pat
According to some being a gun owner is a risky life style.
Pat
Understood, it's rains on the just and the unjust alike. Out.
GeorgiaBoy
06-26-13, 23:36
I do not buy the argument that we are more divided now than ever before.
There have been much more divided times in our relatively young nation. There was no hunky-dory wonderful time of everyone in America getting along and believing in the same morals, values, principles, ethics, religion, politics, etc.
Our political division could originally be traced back to Tories vs. Patriots. There are ALWAYS at least two sides in America and it will always be that way. Each side wants the other to conform to the other's beliefs. Often that doesn't fully happen, which simply results in one side giving up something to the other. For the last 200 years the side that generally gets what it wants is the "progressive" side. Whether it was abolition, woman's suffrage, workers rights, civil rights, and now gay rights, the tide of history will most likely conform to progressive thought.
And, news flash, the Founding Fathers were "progressives" for their time! If the Founders would have listened to a the 1700's "conservatives", we would still be part of the British Crown... :lol:
And, news flash, the Founding Fathers were "progressives" for their time! If the Founders would have listened to a the 1700's "conservatives", we would still be part of the British Crown... :lol:
They were Libertarians in a time of rampant authoritarianism. Trying to call them "progressives" is a semantics game, as they shared nothing in common with modern progressives.
GeorgiaBoy
06-27-13, 00:08
They were Libertarians in a time of rampant authoritarianism. Trying to call them "progressives" is a semantics game, as they shared nothing in common with modern progressives.
And conservatives that believed in monarchy at the time share nothing with modern conservatives. I'm not seeing your point, as I don't think you are understanding mine.
Add to that that our modern conception/interpretation of "libertarian" (as I'm assuming you are talking about modern libertarianism) cannot truly be compared to the ideologies of the 18th century.
Next on deck:
Hollywood Star Embraces Incest
"Who gives a s--- if people judge you? I'm not saying this is an absolute, but in a way, if you're not having kids, who gives a damn? Love who you want. Isn't that what we say? Gay marriage -- love who you want? If it's your brother or sister, it's super weird, but if you look at it, you're not hurting anybody except every single person who freaks out because you're in love with one another."
http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2012/09/12/hollywood_star_embraces_incest/page/full
From the philosopher Peter Kreeft:
"How important is the issue [of moral relativism]? The issue of moral relativism is merely the single most important issue of our age, for no society in all of human history has ever survived without rejecting the philosophy that I am about to refute. There has never been a society of relativists. Therefore, our society will do one of three things: either disprove one of the most universally established laws of all history; or repent of its relativism and survive; or persist in its relativism and perish.
http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism/relativism_transcription.htm
Yet another Republican "issue" like abortion that is perceived as legislating religion and costing votes.
If you don't approve of abortion, don't have one.
If you don't approve of homosexuality, don't be one.
If you don't like guns, don't own one.
Seems so simple but Republicans continue to champion crusades that the Democrats can easily spin as hatred and restriction of rights and this takes attention away from the gross infringements of the Democrats regarding rights.
Republicans need to almost be a single issue platform...the economy.
We need fiscal Republicans who are going to stop spending and then try and find a way to budget us out of the huge debt we've built over the last decade or so.
Get us out of debt to China. Secure the borders, bring those NAFTA jobs back home and get rid of Federally approved racism in the form of affirmative action and when all of that is done you can waste time with crap like "defining marriage."
Alaskapopo
06-27-13, 03:13
Yet another Republican "issue" like abortion that is perceived as legislating religion and costing votes.
If you don't approve of abortion, don't have one.
If you don't approve of homosexuality, don't be one.
If you don't like guns, don't own one.
Seems so simple but Republicans continue to champion crusades that the Democrats can easily spin as hatred and restriction of rights and this takes attention away from the gross infringements of the Democrats regarding rights.
Republicans need to almost be a single issue platform...the economy.
We need fiscal Republicans who are going to stop spending and then try and find a way to budget us out of the huge debt we've built over the last decade or so.
Get us out of debt to China. Secure the borders, bring those NAFTA jobs back home and get rid of Federally approved racism in the form of affirmative action and when all of that is done you can waste time with crap like "defining marriage."
I agree the way it is now Republicans want to attack civil rights as well just different rights than the Democrats want to attack.
Pat
Kreeft has it right. No moral compass, expect chaos.
Way too much time and effort has been wasted by those getting their panties in a wad over two homos tying the knot.
...that much I do know.
-brickboy240
Everyone should have the same opportunity to experience at least one crappy marriage...
...
Imagine if you got tax breaks/benefits if you were baptized. It's kind of ludicrous if you think about it.
I was circumcised as a young innocent child and had no say in the matter.....I demand compensation!
Collectively our country is in a death spiral... and this is only going to exacerbate matters..
The gov has absolutely no business being involved in the institution of marriage.. At the very least this is a states rights issue to let them define it how they want. Scalia was spot on...
Anybody figured out yet what the cost to taxpayers is? Because it was about the MONEY as much as it was the POLITICS....
And, if you heard the speaches made afterwards, this is only a step in the process, as the stated goal is to now overturn the 39 other states laws that haven't made gay marriage legal...yet...
Anybody figured out yet what the cost to taxpayers is? Because it was about the MONEY as much as it was the POLITICS....
And, if you heard the speaches made afterwards, this is only a step in the process, as the stated goal is to now overturn the 39 other states laws that haven't made gay marriage legal...yet...
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/308085-gay-lobbys-next-target-benefits-in-all-50-states
Alaskapopo
06-27-13, 13:08
Kreeft has it right. No moral compass, expect chaos.
Moral compass change. This country was founded on Puritans who burned people they thought were witches. We have evolved into better people over time giving up old traditions and false beliefs.
Pat
Moral compass change. This country was founded on Puritans who burned people they thought were witches. We have evolved into better people over time giving up old traditions and false beliefs.
Pat
You forget, that moral compass is what got us to where we are today. Our Republic doesn't normally exist in nature as a political system; it's created and only exists when the proper care and attention is paid to it..It may well be that all this social engineering in the name of good could totally destroy the very system we enjoy.
Alaskapopo
06-27-13, 14:15
You forget, that moral compass is what got us to where we are today. Our Republic doesn't normally exist in nature as a political system; it's created and only exists when the proper care and attention is paid to it..It may well be that all this social engineering in the name of good could totally destroy the very system we enjoy.
Our moral compass is evolving. Like I said before in the past we believed in witches and all sorts of things we know are false today. As time progresses we evolve and become less ignorant and more enlightened.
Pat
I understand that this is an issue which creates deep divides amongst the M4C community and I don't expect folks with firmly held convictions are likely to shift their positions.
That said, I support the Supreme Court's decision.
I support the SCOTUS decision also.
I'm in the "who cares" camp here.
Lets stop allowing the media, government and a very small vocal minority to continue to keep us from addressing the issues that really matter.
brickboy240
06-27-13, 14:47
I agree.
This is a smokescreen issue tossed up by the left, because they know that nothing gets some folks more distracted and riled up than abortion or homos.
It is a distraction away from the fact that our economy is stagnant, our job market is stalled and our monetary system teeters on the edge of collapse. A distraction because many on the left have no idea how to fix these woes and others are cheering on it's demise.
-brickboy240
I agree.
This is a smokescreen issue tossed up by the left, because they know that nothing gets some folks more distracted and riled up than abortion or homos.
And some in the far right would prefer to spend their time and $$$ trying to prevent those two from happening, vs actually focus on issues that are far more important to this nation. Blaming "the left" for it, is nonsense. Both sides use it as their football to prevent people from actually taking a close look at them and what's really going on.
It is a distraction away from the fact that our economy is stagnant, our job market is stalled and our monetary system teeters on the edge of collapse. A distraction because many on the left have no idea how to fix these woes and others are cheering on it's demise.
-brickboy240
A distraction and smokescreen used and enjoyed equally, by both sides of the isle.
You forget, that moral compass is what got us to where we are today. Our Republic doesn't normally exist in nature as a political system; it's created and only exists when the proper care and attention is paid to it..It may well be that all this social engineering in the name of good could totally destroy the very system we enjoy.
Before debating anyone about moral compasses, you might want to first know if their "true north" is freedom and liberty, or police state tyranny.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=131149&page=6
Moose-Knuckle
06-27-13, 15:29
Kreeft has it right. No moral compass, expect chaos.
Yup, and when it all goes sideways those on the other side of the equation will reap the whirlwind.
Collectively our country is in a death spiral... and this is only going to exacerbate matters..
The gov has absolutely no business being involved in the institution of marriage.. At the very least this is a states rights issue to let them define it how they want. Scalia was spot on...
Couldn't agree more. All great civilizations putrefy from within, ours is just happening at an accelerated pace compared to the others.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/scalia-high-handed-kennedy-has-declared-us-enemies-of-the-human-race-20130626
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/limbaugh-scalia-dissent-breathtaking/2013/06/26/id/512157
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/26/12-of-the-most-cutting-highlights-from-justice-scalias-angry-defense-of-marriage-act-dissent/
Our moral compass is evolving. Like I said before in the past we believed in witches and all sorts of things we know are false today. As time progresses we evolve and become less ignorant and more enlightened.
Pat
Rome 'evolved' too, into moral decay and eventual self-destruction...
Rome 'evolved' too, into moral decay and eventual self-destruction...
But lasted (with dispute) somewhere between 500-800 years? Everything, including this planet, our sun, etc has its eventual destruction, self inflicted otherwise, so if we last as long as Rome did, we'd be ahead of the curve there. Will we last as long, or longer than the Roman Empire? I have no idea, but I tend to agree with Hawking who feels that unless humanity gets its sh&% together, we are probably done in 1000 years as a species regardless.
Rome 'evolved' too, into moral decay and eventual self-destruction...
Rome rather devolved I think.
Again from Peter Kreeft:
"Moral practice has always been difficult for fallen humanity, but at least there was always the lighthouse of moral principles, no matter how stormy the sea of moral practice got. But today, with the majority of our mind-molders, in formal education, or informal education—that is, media—the light is gone. Morality is a fog of feelings. That is why to them, as Chesterton said, "Morality is always dreadfully complicated to a man who has lost all his principles." Principles mean moral absolutes. Unchanging rocks beneath the changing waves of feelings and practices. Moral relativism is a philosophy that denies moral absolutes. That thought to me is the prime suspect—public enemy number one. The philosophy that has extinguished the light in the minds of our teachers, and then their students, and eventually, if not reversed, will extinguish our whole civilization. Therefore, I want not just to present a strong case against moral relativism, but to refute it, to unmask it, to strip it naked, to humiliate it, to shame it, to give it the wallop it deserves, as they say in Texas, America's good neighbor to the south.
How important is this issue? After all, it's just philosophy, and philosophy is just ideas. But ideas have consequences. Sometimes these consequences are as momentous as a holocaust, or a Hiroshima. Sometimes even more momentous. Philosophy is just thought, but sow a thought, reap an act; sow an act, reap a habit; sow a habit, reap a character; sow a character, reap a destiny. This is just as true for societies as it is for individuals.
How important is the issue? C.S. Lewis says, in The Poison of Subjectivism, that relativism "will certainly end our species and damn our souls." Please remember that Oxonians are not given to exaggeration."
http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism/relativism_transcription.htm
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.