US govt. to stop defending DOMA in courts

I believe they try to justify this admittedly-paradoxical stance by pointing out that Section 3 only refers to federal benefits, while Section 2 technically allows each of the states to select their own definitions of marriage. Never mind that regulation of marriage has never been a federal issue and historically the federal government has treated it like eligibility to vote: if you get state benefits, you get federal benefits, too. Don't ask me how they justify proposing Constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage on a nationwide scale.

It still seems a little inconsistent. Could somebody please clarify this: do they support extending the right to define marriage to the states while simultaneously supporting federal legislation which will impose a definition of marriage that suits them?

Well, it is a pragmatic strategy, which I suppose is fair enough.

Awesome to hear!

I sometimes feel bad that, as a strong supporter of stable families, I have no interest in siding with any "protection of families" groups because on the surface I agree with them; a good married and family life is vital to everyone, from children to society. I also happen to support gay marriage, while I can't think of a single marriage defender group (or at least, one that overtly calls themselves that) that also does. Missed opportunity, in my opinion.

THIS ROCKS!

The 5 geek social fallacies. Know them well.

I just looked up the definition of "marriage".

All the definintions make no mention of the gender of the people to be married.

So where is this "Traditional marriage is Man/Woman only" bullshit come from?

The true definition of marriage is two people. Gender doesn't matter.

"Who wants to hear about good stuff when the bottom of the abyss of human failure that you know doesn't exist is so much greater?"-Wraith

^ According to these opponents, they believe that marriage is solely a union between man and woman.

Don't ask me why, I don't know.

You know, this is a debate which reminds me of the case Ghaidan v. Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30, in which the House of Lords judged that section 2 of the Rent Act 1977 could be interpreted (in line with the provisions of section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998) in such a way that the surviving partner in a same-sex relationship had an equal right to statutory tenancy in a home.

That was a pretty big step towards greater equality for gay people and it influenced the passage of the Civil Partnerships Act a few years later.

If something like that happened in America it would have a much greater impact, considering the power of the Supreme Court.

The idea that traditional marriage is only between two people is quite faulty, seeing as how in some societies traditional marriage allows for the union of more then two people.

There's no justice in the world and there never was~

@Beholderess:

Um, no?

The reason extramarital sex is bad is because bastards are more likely to end up bastards. Children do best when suckled and reared by their mother and they also have a dad. How does the community force the mother and the father to stay together, making the community's next generation the best it can be? Marriage, a Hobbesian social contract whereby fertile people cede their liberty to have sex with whomever they please, whenever they please to achieve greater goods.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard

Wow. That was rude. Thumped.

I dont know why they let me out, I guess they needed a spare bed

A low-conflict home with both their parents is the optimal environment. So society also has to teach men and women how to live together without fighting.

This is where Hobbes becomes too reductive and we need Confucius, or Maistre.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard

Because as we all know, men and women are ALIEN BEINGS to one another and can't POSSIBLY get along without being GUILTED into it.

So, how long should a couple be allowed to go childless before their marriage is forcibly annulled on the grounds of pointlessness? Or is the plan to have government agents sabotage their birth control?

edited 24th Feb '11 7:21:38 AM by Karalora

Stuff what I do.

@SS It worked for my parents!

There's no justice in the world and there never was~

Edit: Crap, I fell right into the derail. On-topic, Rott.

edited 24th Feb '11 7:23:05 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Incidentally, not all same sex couples are childless.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

@Karalora: So what mechanism do you propose to keep marriages permanent?

Indefinitely? It's weird how when I propose even the most subtle, Confucian-style social authority beyond the individual will, you immediately leap to quasi-totalitarian proposals. It's very modern of you.

@Fighteer: On-topic? "Obama administration will not enforce DOMA because it hasn't the slightest clue what marriage is for."

edited 24th Feb '11 8:00:22 AM by Rottweiler

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard

Rott, this thread is about the news article. If it's going to turn into another rehashing of the gay marriage debate, I might as well lock it, since it's extremely unlikely any arguments will be made that we haven't heard a hundred times before.

edited 24th Feb '11 8:00:35 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Wow. That was rude. Thumped.

What's precedent ever done for us?

At this point we can sum up these threads as "Interesting item regarding the gay marriage debate"... Rottweiler derail.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Is "The Obama administration is wrong" an off-topic reaction to the news and "The Obama administration is right" an on-topic one?

Sometimes I don't understand how "on-topic" is defined here.

edited 24th Feb '11 8:02:21 AM by Rottweiler

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard

Honestly, we should just completely redefine marriage to be a religious thing with no legal bearing, and just have everybody apply for civil unions if they want the legal benefits.

That way the religious right can keep their One Man; One Woman bullshit, and the rest of us can continue on our merry way and marry whoever we want.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Eh, whatever. I suppose we can turn this into the hundredth "let's debate Rottweiler about gay marriage" thread.

So... your so-called definition of "marriage" is wrong and counterfactual to history. You ignore the fact that gender and sexual preference have no demonstrable effect on the quality of childrearing. You ignore the fact that a couple can choose to spend a lifetime together for many reasons, not merely the narrow ones you've defined. You have a No True Scotsman definition of marriage that nobody else agrees with.

edited 24th Feb '11 8:09:02 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

If the only reason for marriage is children, then it is a logical conclusion.

Besides, slippery slope. Giving government more power is always dangerous, because there is no way it would willingly give it back.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

@Drunk G Finally, we agree on something.

I mean, if marriage is a religious institution, what is it doing in the hands of a secular government?

There's no justice in the world and there never was~

I can answer that: marriage is not a religious institution; it was merely coopted by priests so they could regulate morality. Marriage is a social institution.

In fact, I would argue that many, if not most things we treat as religious institutions are in fact social ones that got snatched by religion to consolidate its power.

edited 24th Feb '11 8:11:46 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"