BREAKING: Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down DOMA In Opinion By Republican-Appointed Judge

[JohnR! 5,495]

There again, if marriage wasn't in government this would be a non-issue. You should be able to petition for your best friend to come here so long as he/she can pass a background check, you take responsibility for their financial needs in the first couple of years, etc. The system shouldn't be discriminatory at all.

In that we agree, but we live in a country where we all want our cake and eat it too.

Nobody wants the Feds to overstep the X Amendment but many welcome the notion of DOME which does just that...

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Agreed. Marriage was never on my to-do list. But unfortunately, there are benefits with marriage that are not otherwise available.

[Danno 1,228]

additionally - your two halves theory is bunk. sh*t happens.

http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency

Seriously, these are the cases you would base social policy on?

Because some people are born with two head and can vote twice.... we should extend that idea as a broad policy.

This is not serious debate on organizing society as a whole.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

In that we agree, but we live in a country where we all want our cake and eat it too.

Nobody wants the Feds to overstep the X Amendment but many welcome the notion of DOME which does just that...

Yeah, the hypocrisy behind DOMA is quite amusing. Should have been fought/struck down years ago by the SCOTUS under the full faith and credit clause. It's sad today we are trying to re-classify people and segregate society even more to try and get a law cancelled that was unconstitutional to begin with on a completely different reason.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The only reason they want it is because without that recognition, they're being denied basic rights. It's not about validation. It's about having access to the same things other loving, committed heterosexual couples have.

Not just rights. Originally, marriage was recognized as a legal contract because women and children were considered property. Thankfully, that has changed into division of property, continued financial support (alimony and child support) and custodial rights. Paul struggles to understand the legal ramifications of what happens when two people share their lives.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Yeah, the hypocrisy behind DOMA is quite amusing. Should have been fought/struck down years ago by the SCOTUS under the full faith and credit clause. It's sad today we are trying to re-classify people and segregate society even more to try and get a law cancelled that was unconstitutional to begin with on a completely different reason.

That is the main reason for the appeal as it was first drafted. The segregation argument is an added element to strengthen the case before the SCOTUS.

Scalia is so ready to strike down DOMA he is salivating...

[decocker 7,198]

Seriously, these are the cases you would base social policy on?

Because some people are born with two head and can vote twice.... we should extend that idea as a broad policy.

This is not serious debate on organizing society as a whole.

seriously?! YOU are the one basing the two halves ####### on marraige as 'social policy'...not me. i'm simply saying that exceptions to your two halves load exist. i expect you're also a supporter of eugenics as a form of 'organizing society'. after all, these intersexed people are silly..

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Not just rights. Originally, marriage was recognized as a legal contract because women and children were considered property. Thankfully, that has changed into division of property, continued financial support (alimony and child support) and custodial rights. Paul struggles to understand the legal ramifications of what happens when two people share their lives.

and apparently you cannot read worth a damn because I mentioned some of those remifications above.

That's a PERSONAL contract, a civil matter at the end of the day. The legal ramifications are there because of restrictions in the law that shouldn't be there in the first place.

I had a relationship prior to my current one and we were together for many years. She had to have surgery and wanted me listed as the contact, as the one to make decisions, etc.. The hospital wouldn't let us do it since we weren't 'married' and she was forced to put her parents down. It was ridiculous. It shouldn't matter. You should be able to say your want your neighbor who you trust more than anyone to make decisions for you in case of emergency. This is way too much government in our lives for this sort of thing.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

and apparently you cannot read worth a damn because I mentioned some of those remifications above.

That's a PERSONAL contract, a civil matter at the end of the day. The legal ramifications are there because of restrictions in the law that shouldn't be there in the first place.

I had a relationship prior to my current one and we were together for many years. She had to have surgery and wanted me listed as the contact, as the one to make decisions, etc.. The hospital wouldn't let us do it since we weren't 'married' and she was forced to put her parents down. It was ridiculous. It shouldn't matter. You should be able to say your want your neighbor who you trust more than anyone to make decisions for you in case of emergency. This is way too much government in our lives for this sort of thing.

Agreed, and so you must understand that what they're looking for isn't validation, but recognition so that situations like the one you mentioned above does not happen. It's not right that marriage should have such benefits for ANYONE, but as it stands, it does.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

and apparently you cannot read worth a damn because I mentioned some of those remifications above.

That's a PERSONAL contract, a civil matter at the end of the day. The legal ramifications are there because of restrictions in the law that shouldn't be there in the first place.

I had a relationship prior to my current one and we were together for many years. She had to have surgery and wanted me listed as the contact, as the one to make decisions, etc.. The hospital wouldn't let us do it since we weren't 'married' and she was forced to put her parents down. It was ridiculous. It shouldn't matter. You should be able to say your want your neighbor who you trust more than anyone to make decisions for you in case of emergency. This is way too much government in our lives for this sort of thing.

It's contractual and the legitimacy of contracts require legal recognition, but yes, it is a civil contract in the same regard as when you decide to sue the landscaping company you hired to landscape your land because they accidentally broke your main water line. You sue them in civil court.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Commie Appeaser

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Agreed, and so you must understand that what they're looking for isn't validation, but recognition so that situations like the one you mentioned above does not happen. It's not right that marriage should have such benefits for ANYONE, but as it stands, it does.

and really I think that's why at the end of the day the 'homosexual community' should get together with the common law community to force the hand of others laws to change. It shouldn't matter at all. All that should matter is two people, even if not in a so-called relationship want to rely on one another for whatever reason, then they have that option... I mean cmon, what about long-time room mates? They should have the same benefit as well when you really think about it if they choose to share many things like many room mates do. The entire system is biased.

Just because heterosexual individuals have the 'option' to have government recognize the contract, does not mean that heterosexual individuals are discriminated against as well in this situation.

It's contractual and the legitimacy of contracts require legal recognition, but yes, it is a civil contract in the same regard as when you decide to sue the landscaping company you hired to landscape your land because they accidentally broke your main water line. You sue them in civil court.

Exactly, you don't need government until a problem arises. Same thing with 5 year contracts for services, etc. All parties agree to be a part of it and if someone screws up, they either work it out on their own, or pay court fees to have the court work it out for them. They never needed the government to validate the contract in the first place.

[Danno 1,228]

seriously?! YOU are the one basing the two halves ####### on marraige as 'social policy'...not me. i'm simply saying that exceptions to your two halves load exist. i expect you're also a supporter of eugenics as a form of 'organizing society'. after all, these intersexed people are silly..

No these people (inter-sexed) are not silly at all, just the idea that because one can find some rare case of this or that which does not fit into a policy perfectly we should there for make no law or policy which does not fit every possible situation.... that is what is silly.

Look, I think it is fair to say, this is just a debate between flying in a plane which has worked quite well or trying out a new untested model.... and what is the pay-out? That these various arraignments can all have equal social standing.

As it is people can already live any way they choose, even areas where they claim they are being shut out of could mostly be addressed without going to such extremes.

-If a man wants two wives to collect SSI the bean counters can work it out.

-Hospital visits- already done

-Inheritance rights are easily remedied.

and so on.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

and really I think that's why at the end of the day the 'homosexual community' should get together with the common law community to force the hand of others laws to change. It shouldn't matter at all. All that should matter is two people, even if not in a so-called relationship want to rely on one another for whatever reason, then they have that option... I mean cmon, what about long-time room mates? They should have the same benefit as well when you really think about it if they choose to share many things like many room mates do. The entire system is biased.

Just because heterosexual individuals have the 'option' to have government recognize the contract, does not mean that heterosexual individuals are discriminated against as well in this situation.

Exactly, you don't need government until a problem arises. Same thing with 5 year contracts for services, etc. All parties agree to be a part of it and if someone screws up, they either work it out on their own, or pay court fees to have the court work it out for them. They never needed the government to validate the contract in the first place.

Contracts are binding documents that are legally recognized. You can't create legislation that deals with such contracts without including defining language in the law. The terms parent, child or dependent, legal custodian, etc. all are legal terms defined by law. I don't know why you think marriage or civil union or whatever term you want to use to define a contractual union between two people should not be used in legal terminology as it follows along those same lines of logic.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Commie Appeaser

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Contracts are binding documents that are legally recognized. You can't create legislation that deals with such contracts without including defining language in the law. The terms parent, child or dependent, legal custodian, etc. all are legal terms defined by law. I don't know why you think marriage or civil union or whatever term you want to use to define a contractual union between two people should not be used in legal terminology as it follows along those same lines of logic.

We're not talking terminology here. We're talking about the fact that for a relationship to be 'valid' as it stands today, you have to go down to a county clerk, fill out paperwork, get a license, get married/the license signed, etc. You cannot just simple sign a contract with an individual and keep it on file.

Two individuals who have a child together are still parents, they still have dependents, etc. We can call it whatever we want, but if these two people are not married than their relationship together is not treated as equally as two individuals who are by the current state of government because they didn't sign up for it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We're not talking terminology here. We're talking about the fact that for a relationship to be 'valid' as it stands today, you have to go down to a county clerk, fill out paperwork, get a license, get married/the license signed, etc. You cannot just simple sign a contract with an individual and keep it on file.

Two individuals who have a child together are still parents, they still have dependents, etc. We can call it whatever we want, but if these two people are not married than their relationship together is not treated as equally as two individuals who are by the current state of government because they didn't sign up for it.

Most states recognize common-law marriage where no paper contract exists. But you've brought this notion up before - that there should be no legal language that defines marriage, which is silly. Whatever you want our laws to label it, there must be language in those laws in order to define it. That's just how law works.