Doma ruled unconstitutional for denying benefits to same-sex couples | World news | guardian.co.uk

Hooray! The good guys win again!

__________________
214 Days
9 Hours
56 Minutes Days till Christmas

Well then, it looks like we'll just have to amend the Constitution.

Since the absurdity of same sex marriage has failed in all the thirty-odd States where it has been put to the vote, I don't think that'll be terribly difficult.

__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

"Sometimes, the source of the beautiful dawning light that drives back the darkness, is your house burning"

Where in the constitution does it say gays can't be married?

__________________
214 Days
9 Hours
56 Minutes Days till Christmas

Right after you show us the part of the Constitution that allows a judge to determine the legitimate legislative interest.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made,...
...
...
—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Article Three of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________
214 Days
9 Hours
56 Minutes Days till Christmas

It doesn't, and I hope it never does. But obviously, since some people have trouble with simple concepts, we need to amend the Constitution to codify that marriage is between one man and one woman. In a sane world, this would not need to be explained to people capable of dressing themselves 4 days out of 5.

__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

"Sometimes, the source of the beautiful dawning light that drives back the darkness, is your house burning"

That is not the same thing as legislative interest -- at all.

__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

"Sometimes, the source of the beautiful dawning light that drives back the darkness, is your house burning"

I am still waiting to hear a good argument as to why gay individuals should not be allowed to marry.

Can we just call DOMA what it is; discrimination against homosexuals?

I loved Bill Clinton, but him signing this law angered me greatly.

__________________

Just another piece of blow job legislation designed to fool the right wing.

__________________
Never annoy a cat. We like our meals hot and bleeding.

Almost no social norms arise from logical thinking, but they are defended with great vigor. The alternative is chaos.
I suggest people wishing to grasp our culture's outlook on heterosexuality and homosexuality spend a few years reviewing the nature of Western culture, with it's mountains of art, poetry, theater, and music praising real marriage and romance, and its revulsion at the very idea of homosexuality, especially when practiced openly.

Rome, and Greece engaged in exceptions to this in certain classes and at certain times, and have thus become associated with perversion in the Western Cultural outlook.

Cultures have their own rationales and internal consistencies. There is for example, absolutely no compelling logical argument for banning slavery, or for allowing common people to have any input into the governing process, or for the emaciation of women, or the prohibitions on capital punishment for minor crimes. Those are cultural conventions, and ones that most of us would fight for.

In this, and as a matter of fact, just about all cultures, homosexual acts are held to be grotesque perversions, to be held in abhorrence, the practitioners shunned, and most especially isolated from the young. But then so is child prostitution, which again is an illogical prejudice, since children are very, very easy to replace. And yet, who would not take up arms to forbid the practice in our culture?


No.

Homosexuals are as free to marry as anyone else. They just have to abide by the laws which require them to marry members of the opposite sex, like everyone else.




That's because you are not applying rational thought and historical perspective to this particular issue. Before DADT, being a homosexual in the military was a crime, and discovered homosexuals were routinely dischared for bad behavior -- a "scarlet letter" type of discharge that would follow them in future careers.

DADT was a huge advance for gay rights, whatever that is.

But the thinking, such as it is, of the Gay Rights Movement is infantile. It tends to whine about not having their way absolutely, even when it is accommodated largely.

As an interesting aside, this undeveloped, and restricted mode of thought, tends to illustrate Freud's contention that homosexuality arose from retarded or arrested personal development.

__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

"Sometimes, the source of the beautiful dawning light that drives back the darkness, is your house burning"