http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/0 ... d=webmail1 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07/bill-clinton-doma_n_2833020.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ncid=webmail1)
Clinton : DOMA should be overturned by Supreme CourtQuoteWASHINGTON -- Former President Bill Clinton is calling on the Supreme Court to overturn a law he signed that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
Clinton says the Defense of Marriage Act is incompatible with the Constitution. He says he signed the law in 1996 to avoid legislation that would have been even worse for gays.
Clinton writes in a Washington Post op-ed that American society has changed. He says he now realizes the law discriminates against gays and provides an excuse for others to discriminate, too.
The Obama administration has stopped defending the law in court, and the Supreme Court is expected to take up a challenge to it later this month.
Separately, the high court is also considering whether California's gay marriage ban should stand.
This is going to make baby Jesus cry.
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"This is going to make baby Jesus cry.
Pssh...Jesus? The guy who never married and hung around a bunch of other dudes all the time? I think he'd have been
all for it.
How about instead of expanding marriage, we just get government out of it?
Jesus, the dude that had all those guys kneeling before him? I think he weepeth joyfully.
Quote from: "commonsense822"How about instead of expanding marriage, we just get government out of it?
There's your thread, right there.
1996 was the height of Clinton's triangulation habit. He had an election to win and needed the South.
Quote from: "commonsense822"How about instead of expanding marriage, we just get government out of it?
Who do you think protects the thousand plus rights and privileges that comes with legally recognized marriage?
Certainly isn't the Church.
By allowing a minority of US citizens simple equality, we are not "expanding" marriage anymore than
Loving vs Virginia did.
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"This is going to make baby Jesus cry.
Pssh...Jesus? The guy who never married and hung around a bunch of other dudes all the time? I think he'd have been all for it.
this ^
Quote from: "AxisMundi"Quote from: "commonsense822"How about instead of expanding marriage, we just get government out of it?
Who do you think protects the thousand plus rights and privileges that comes with legally recognized marriage?
Certainly isn't the Church.
By allowing a minority of US citizens simple equality, we are not "expanding" marriage anymore than Loving vs Virginia did.
I could explain myself, but Doug Stanhope does it so much better.
[youtube:388sxx9x]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmpf5-tuDEo[/youtube:388sxx9x]
All citizens would have the equal right to marriage if the government stays out of it. Who originally banned interracial marriage? The government. Who currently has bans on gay marriage? The government.
If the Supreme Court throws out the DOMA, we will surely have more hurricanes and earthquakes. Mark my words.
[quote="commonsense822"All citizens would have the equal right to marriage if the government stays out of it. Who originally banned interracial marriage? The government. Who currently has bans on gay marriage? The government.[/quote]
Again, who protects those thousand plus rights and privileges?Who provides most of them to begin with?
Yes, the g'ment did ban inter-racial marriages. The g'ment also overturned those laws as well.
Just as, eventually, g'ment will over turn anti-gay laws as well.
Quote from: "AxisMundi"Quote from: "commonsense822"All citizens would have the equal right to marriage if the government stays out of it. Who originally banned interracial marriage? The government. Who currently has bans on gay marriage? The government.
Again, who protects those thousand plus rights and privileges?Who provides most of them to begin with?
Yes, the g'ment did ban inter-racial marriages. The g'ment also overturned those laws as well.
Just as, eventually, g'ment will over turn anti-gay laws as well.
I am curious, but what rights and privileges are you talking about?
Quote from: "commonsense822"How about instead of expanding marriage, we just get government out of it?
Because it's unrealistic and not gonna happen anytime soon. Until all those things like taxes, inheritence, hospital visitation and decision making, child custody, spousal insurance, etc. can all be dealt with in a single simple step like filing for a marriage license the government will be involved because at the root of it marriage is a contractual legal status.
Quote from: "commonsense822"Quote from: "AxisMundi"Quote from: "commonsense822"All citizens would have the equal right to marriage if the government stays out of it. Who originally banned interracial marriage? The government. Who currently has bans on gay marriage? The government.
Again, who protects those thousand plus rights and privileges?Who provides most of them to begin with?
Yes, the g'ment did ban inter-racial marriages. The g'ment also overturned those laws as well.
Just as, eventually, g'ment will over turn anti-gay laws as well.
I am curious, but what rights and privileges are you talking about?
Are you serious? As BATM pointed out marriage is a legal contract. It affects things like taxes, inheritance, hospital visitation and decision making, child custody and spousal insurance to name a few. Right now there are gay and lesbian couples in the military who are legally married under state laws. The same sex spouses of these married couples are denied rights and privileges granted to their opposite sex peers. They don't get military ID cards or medical coverage. They are denied housing and relocation benefits to name a few of the ways they are treated differently.
[youtube:1ac0dbc5]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtJ_sDRRVVI[/youtube:1ac0dbc5]
Taxes - First off you shouldn't get tax breaks for being married, just putting that out there. If you are living together then you are sharing expenses, food costs, transportation costs, etc. If you are sharing the burden of the costs of living, then you don't need more help from the government. In fact, it is the single members of society that are funding those tax breaks, who you would think would need those tax breaks more than a married couple.
Inheritance - Make a will
Hospital visitation and decision making - When you talk to your primary care doctor, list whomever you want that should have access to you while under hospital care. Further, while visiting that doctor choose someone (partner, best friend, gym coach, etc) that will have the legal responsibility to make medical decisions for you.
Child custody - There are a lot of subtle nuances when it comes to child custody and child custody laws are something else that I have a small gripe with. But are you saying that the only way we can determine custody of a child is the legal marriage of two people? I feel like other factors such as biological parents and economic stability should be considered more important rather than simply marriage.
Spousal insurance - Recently actually a few companies have been getting rid of spousal insurance. None-the-less though, even if you receive the spousal insurance you are still paying for it, just at a slightly lower cost. Why can't we just allow people in the same household the option to bundle their insurance instead of having to be married to do so?
These are all things that can be done fairly easily. There is no need to make marriage a legal government contract.
Quote from: "commonsense822"Quote from: "AxisMundi"Quote from: "commonsense822"All citizens would have the equal right to marriage if the government stays out of it. Who originally banned interracial marriage? The government. Who currently has bans on gay marriage? The government.
Again, who protects those thousand plus rights and privileges?Who provides most of them to begin with?
Yes, the g'ment did ban inter-racial marriages. The g'ment also overturned those laws as well.
Just as, eventually, g'ment will over turn anti-gay laws as well.
I am curious, but what rights and privileges are you talking about?
You really have no idea about the legal rights and privileges connected with marriage?
Quote from: "commonsense822"Taxes - First off you shouldn't get tax breaks for being married, just putting that out there. If you are living together then you are sharing expenses, food costs, transportation costs, etc. If you are sharing the burden of the costs of living, then you don't need more help from the government. In fact, it is the single members of society that are funding those tax breaks, who you would think would need those tax breaks more than a married couple.
You jointly own your property, including your incomes, with your spouse.
Quote from: "commonsense822"Inheritance - Make a will
Many people die unexpectedly without a will.
Quote from: "commonsense822"Hospital visitation and decision making - When you talk to your primary care doctor, list whomever you want that should have access to you while under hospital care. Further, while visiting that doctor choose someone (partner, best friend, gym coach, etc) that will have the legal responsibility to make medical decisions for you.
You are admitted to the ER after a car accident. You are unconscious. Kind of hard to talk to anyone. Also, without the legal backing supplied by the g'ment, a hospital can refuse to admit anyone they choose. Case in point, most Catholic hospitals do not recognize the life long partner of a gay person, and will refuse them visitation and direction-of-care rights.
Quote from: "commonsense822"Child custody - There are a lot of subtle nuances when it comes to child custody and child custody laws are something else that I have a small gripe with. But are you saying that the only way we can determine custody of a child is the legal marriage of two people? I feel like other factors such as biological parents and economic stability should be considered more important rather than simply marriage.
I agree, child custody laws are indeed a maze. However, a spouse can direct the child's health care and schooling as well.
Quote from: "commonsense822"Spousal insurance - Recently actually a few companies have been getting rid of spousal insurance. None-the-less though, even if you receive the spousal insurance you are still paying for it, just at a slightly lower cost. Why can't we just allow people in the same household the option to bundle their insurance instead of having to be married to do so?
Talk to the "free" market.
Quote from: "commonsense822"These are all things that can be done fairly easily. There is no need to make marriage a legal government contract.
Done at the expense of a lawyer, help not everyone can afford.
Common, do you really believe currently married hetero couples will en mass willingly give up their special government-granted privillages for the sake of evening out the playing field, while having to reinstitute the non-law-dependent perks by hand? If not, how is "abolishing government sanction of marriage" a solution?
Quote from: "commonsense822"Taxes - First off you shouldn't get tax breaks for being married, just putting that out there.
From what I can tell, tax breaks for married couples is a common misconception. The last time I checked the tax tables, a person in my income bracket, paid less filing single than a married person filing jointly, and it was significantly less. Having kids is different, you get sizeable tax deductions for having kids, and aside from the tax thing, there are also other financial advantages to marriage. You've probably heard often enough politicians talking about getting rid the so called marriage penalty. They talk about it, but they don't change it. I assume it's based on the idea that married couples live in the same house, and pay the same amount to heat and maintain it as a single person would have to pay on his own. Two can live cheaper than one.
My cousin is the epitome of "Mr. Cheap". He is 76 years old, and been living with the same woman for 25 years. They refuse to get married to avoid the "marriage penalty."
Here's a partial list of some of the thousand plus rights and privileges supplied by, and protected by, the g'ment. These are at the federal level,
I would like to see how those advocating removing g'ment from marriage would handle and/or replace these rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and ... ted_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States)
Isn't marriage just the short-cut version of doing everything manually? "Make an will, set up hospital rights, get child custody and guardianship, set rules for what happens to shared goods when you leave each other, etc, etc, etc"
I got married precisely because I wanted to do all of the above with as little hassle and cost as possible, and that's exactly what my marriage means to me.