http://www.nyclu.org/files/releases/Windsor_Cert_Petition_7.16.12.pdf What a travesty that things like this can still happen in this day and age. This is the case that broke the straw on the camel's back, and led the Obama Administration to suddenly shift gears to no longer defend DOMA. Because, really, who could? ("B"LAG jokes aside)
In my mind, it's just plain-old discrimination. Let people love; live and let live; mind your own damn business; eat, drink, be merry. We're getting there. Slowly but surely. What's a "B"LAG joke?
Federal govt trampling what should be a state right? Say it aint so. The Fifth amendment seems pretty clear here.
I call it the "bipartisan" legal advisory group because, well, you can guess which 3 voted for the defense of DOMA and which 2 didn't.
The states' rights and federalism issue is one aspect of this. But even from a state perspective, these kind of laws just simply do not advance any rational government interests.
Ahh... Good drink & cigar talk. There are interests at play here, just not rational. Good OP on your part.
The grownups are talking here. Go sit at the bigots' table. Before too long it will be gone and you won't have anywhere to sit at all.
Witness the tired leftist trope of labeling anyone that disagrees with them as heartless/evil/stupid. A need to constantly proclaim one's intellectual and moral superiority belies confidence in their own arguments. By all means, we bow to your righteousness in having a slightly more expansive definition of state sanctioned marriage. Anyone caught in public scandal should loudly proclaim their affirmation of gay marriage. It is the pinnacle of virtue.
is this contrary to the tired trope of trying of scold others for emotional arguments bereft of through logical argumentation through the use of emotional argumentation---bereft of any logical argumentation?
Yes. Equality for all absolutely is the pinnacle of virtue. I'm not holier than anyone. I'm not holy at all. I wouldn't know holy if it bit me on the ass. But it's a simple fact that if you're against equality for all, you're a bigot. That's what a bigot is. I didn't invent the word or its definition. But we have free speech in this country and it's cool if you want to use your free speech to be a bigot but then I'm going to go ahead and use mine to call you one. Rocket River can make light of the situation but I think civil rights are kind of important. In fact, I'm really kind of a single-issue voter that way. I will always vote for the party that favors civil rights and I will always proclaim my proud support of civil rights. And, further, people that oppose civil rights, that oppose equality... I don't just disagree with them; I fundamentally dislike them. I think they're bad people. If that makes me look "holier-than-thou," I don't care.
And with that concept, with people more and more being seduced by the libertarian concept of "everything is permissible as long as it doesn't directly hurt others" comes the destruction of the Nation, of the group, of the state, of history, and by extension the people as they are swept along by the great tides of the masses.
last time I checked sodomy and anti-miscegenation laws were struck down, I'm pretty sure the "Nation" is still around. How much do you want to bet that I can draw a straight correlation between more sexual permissiveness, and less violent crime, as well as greater cognitive intelligence in developed societies?
Irrelevant to my argument, which has nothing to do with gay marriage. I genuinely do not care about that issue one way or the other. I do care about the spreading idea of 'if it's okay, do it" which has grown a lot more in society these days.
