Conservatives expressing "hurt" on DOMA Ruling

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
What? I sincerely believe polygamy should be legal.

My bad.

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
I don't understand your point. My heterosexual marriage is more likely to fail now? My understanding is marriage only fails when there is separation and divorce.

Ya but there will be more and more gay marriages, and that has a direct impact on your heterosexual marriage.

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
What? I sincerely believe polygamy should be legal.

What is interesting is that most who make the slippery-slope argument would fight tooth-and-nail any effort to legalize polygamy.

Originally posted by moon1969
Ya but there will be more and more gay marriages, and that has a direct impact on your heterosexual marriage.

That isn't my position. I am for same-sex marriage and polygamy.

Originally posted by moon1969
What is interesting is that most who make the slippery-slope argument would fight tooth-and-nail any effort to legalize polygamy.

No, I am for polygamy.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
And to add to that, someone who is gay is only capable of being attracted to, and loving (in that way) the same sex.

There is no sexual orientation that only allows someone to love more than one person at once.

I'm sure you have scientific evidence to support your position? I'll wait.

Originally posted by dryhump
I'm sure you have scientific evidence to support your position? I'll wait.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6519#.UctXKjtwrcw
http://www.livescience.com/2623-gays-dont-extinct.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6612#.UctXzjtwrcw

There definitely is scientific evidence that being gay is affected by pure genetics and environmental factors. Over all, there is definitely scientific evidence that it is not merely a choice.

As to whether loving multiple people? I don't know what genetic or other sources that may have. I don't know if there has been any actual studies done on that.

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
The States cannot make interracial marriage illegal. See Loving v. Virginia. The Windsor decision, which was just released today by the US Supreme Court, was a States rights decision. The Supreme Court ruled that States can define what marriage is and the Federal government cannot preempt that decision. The Supreme Court did not addres decision was a "smokescreen." Again, the Supreme Court Justices are not political hacks...

In Hollingsworth, also decided today, the Court made an anti-States rights decision holding that State law as to who has legal standing to challenge a ruling is not binding on federal Courts on US Constitutional issues. The ruling in that case in essence says that a State government can refuse to enforce initiatives passed by popular vote pursuant to State Constitutions and not have those determinations reviewed by Federal Courts. This is a most striking doctrine.

We all too often so stereotype our opponents that we fail to recognize when they are actually agreeing with us. I might be wrong, but I don’t think that either Eladar or MMM are trying a “bait-and-switch” here. I read them as actually agreeing, in this case, with their more liberal (progressive: whatever term one wishes to use) brethren—and simply expanding the reasoning. Sometimes “right libertarians” and “left libertarians” do agree. [Note: I consider myself on the left side of that formulation.]

Originally posted by vistesd
We all too often so stereotype our opponents that we fail to recognize when they are actually agreeing with us. [b]I might be wrong, but I don’t think that either Eladar or MMM are trying a “bait-and-switch” here. I read them as actually agreeing, in this case, with their more liberal (progressive: whatever term one wishes to use) brethren—and simply ...[text shortened]... “left libertarians” do agree. [Note: I consider myself on the left side of that formulation.][/b]

You are surely wrong regarding Eladar. He is simply adopting the fall back right wing position i.e. it would be better for the government to recognize no marriages than it would be for it to recognize same sex as well as different sex ones.

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
The States cannot make interracial marriage illegal. See Loving v. Virginia. The Windsor decision, which was just released today by the US Supreme Court, was a States rights decision. The Supreme Court ruled that States can define what marriage is and the Federal government cannot preempt that decision. The Supreme Court did not addres ...[text shortened]... decision was a "smokescreen." Again, the Supreme Court Justices are not political hacks...

The Court expressly declined to rely on principles of federalism:

Despite these considerations, it is unnecessary to decide
whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation
of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance.
The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of
central relevance in this case quite apart from principles
of federalism.

at p. 18

It then found that DOMA was a violation of the "liberty" protected by the 5th Amendment:

What has been explained to this point should more than
suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the
necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons
who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires
the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against
denying to any person the equal protection of the laws.
See Bolling, 347 U. S., at 499–500; Adarand Constructors,
Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200, 217–218 (1995). While the
Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the
power to degrade or demean in the way this law does,
the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more
specific and all the better understood and preserved.

at p. 25

Asserting that this is simply a "States right" case is misleading at best.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are surely wrong regarding Eladar. He is simply adopting the fall back right wing position i.e. it would be better for the government to recognize [b]no marriages than it would be for it to recognize same sex as well as different sex ones.[/b]

Really? Nice to see that you are here to tell me what I believe.

If I thought the US should enforce my religious beliefs, then I'd say we should keep homosexuality in itself illegal. I don't think that the US government should make homosexuality illegal.

Yes, I believe marriage should not confer special perks. I think people should be judged as people, if they are married or not.

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
What? I sincerely believe polygamy should be legal.

I do too, although I don't think the rest of us should have to pay benefits to support it. The law should leave you alone, but in terms of public benefits, you get one spouse.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I didn't know there were different words for them. Is "polyandry" illegal on the books?