Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

1 - 20 of 46 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,976 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Supreme Court strikes down DOMA - CBS News

The gay rights movement saw a significant victory at the Supreme Court Wednesday, where the justices struck down part of a law that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court struck down Section 3 of the 17-year-old Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a provision of the law that denies federal benefits -- like Social Security benefits or the ability to file joint tax returns -- to same-sex couples legally married.

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.

The impact of the DOMA case, United States v. Windsor, is clear for the nation's approximately 130,000 legally married same-sex couples who were previously denied federal benefits under Section 3. That provision impacts around 1,100 federal laws, including veterans' benefits, family medical leave and tax laws.

DOMA, passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996, was challenged by Edith Windsor, who lived with her partner Thea Spyer in New York for more than four decades. They finally married in 2007, and when Spyer died in 2009, she left Windsor her estate. Because DOMA didn't recognize their marriage -- even though the state of New York did -- the IRS hit Windsor with $363,053 in estate taxes.
Another step in the right direction.
 

·
Grand Lord Munchkin
Joined
·
7,044 Posts
 

·
Closet Dictator
Joined
·
3,413 Posts
Excellent, soon gay people all over the U.S can embrace the lifelong soul grinding servitude that is marriage, only joking folks marriage is great I'm really happy after all my wife tells me I am so it must be true!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,270 Posts
marriage,
My only issue with this really. I'm happy they can receive the same benefits as other hard working people; it is a good step to equality. However at the same time I think they don't seem to care who they are trampling over; and the people they are offending by it. But then again Political Correctness seems to be the trend these days instead of Tradition and Country.
 

·
Jac "Baneblade" O'Bite
Joined
·
8,082 Posts
How is giving homosexual the same legal rights as straight people and calling it "marriage" "trampling over" a straight person marriage? Marriage is not and never has been the soul property of Religion, they have no more right to say what it is and what it isn't than anybody else.

As for people being offended by it? So what? I'm offended by the people who would stop this from happening and have been since the age of 10 when I became aware of what a fucking travesty it is that somebody's belief in a higher power and the contradictory and nonsensical rules that come with it and they apply to themselves is seen as a legitatimate and acceptable basis for the legal discrimination of people not of that faith who they (the religious people) disagree with in a non religious state.

Tradition and Country? Really? Some would say it used to be traditional to own slaves, or to beat your wife if she disobeyed you. Guess that's just "political correctness" as well. Just because something is traditional does not say it is the right thing to do. What you actually mean is you are afraid of change. Well change happens, thats how progress happens.

How exactly is allowing gay people the same rights as straight people going to destroy "tradition" and "country". How is it for the good of the country to deny people who want to spend their lives in a loving relationship with a member of the same gender the same legal protections as if they wanted to spend their lives with one of the opposite gender? Seriously I'd love to know, people keep saying it will and I'm yet to see a convincing argument.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,195 Posts
It won't Jac, hence the results of this and states allowing it that has been happening.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,270 Posts
Marriage is not and never has been the soul property of Religion, they have no more right to say what it is and what it isn't than anybody else.
What you actually mean is you are afraid of change. Well change happens, thats how progress happens.
And this is why I have little to no Faith in your Liberal views and idea's of Change. You claim to be moving forward, yet you spend non-existent money and shape a political system that is of your agenda; not "America's" agenda. You sit their and say Religion this and Religion that, but yet you ignore the most influential men in America's history; many of whom were Religious people. Your Hero Clinton was a Baptist, and your Savior LBJ was a Christian. So enough talk of "Religion is harmful to the ways of society and stops progress from growing. It is the lamest excuse I ever heard.

You cite "slavery" as being Tradition, and wife beating as a trend, and yet side-step LBJ "War on Poverty" and Civil Rights Bills instituted by Congress with the help of people like Martin Luther King (oh, wasn't he Southern Baptists; Christian right? He believed in a traditional America for every Black Man and Women right; Equality we call that?) and some of the more important Laws and Customs that have been in place since our Grandfathers time.

Before you ever start to wail on American Traditions you had better get your history strait. I honestly find it really ignorant when people make such statements without looking back on history. If anything it's the one thing that keeps us vigilant.

But moving on from that you ask how allowing gay people benefit packages and tax-deductions is offensive. It is not; period! If you read my earlier statement you'd see that, but just for you let me repost it....

I'm happy they can receive the same benefits as other hard working people; it is a good step to equality.
However what I was saying is that the gay crowd seems to forget why we invented the word marriage in the first place. As defined by Google...

mar·riage
/ˈmarij/
Noun
The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.
Also by Merriam Webster Dictionary...

the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
Now you ask how this can be offensive to someone like myself; a heterosexual, Red-Blooded American? It is simple, we claimed the term first. I understand that this does sound ridiculous at first but when you approach it from a standpoint of history we can see the picture more clearly. Long before "Gay" was ever a term for homosexuals, or even before being homosexual was officially recognized, "Marriage" was a term used by both secular government and Religion to define that union between a man and a women through both the Law and whatever religious rites and practices they adhered to. Therefore it has been a Tradition of Humanity, transcending any form of government or ruling of law, for much of our history as a species.

Suddenly traditional America, and I hate to break it to you Liberals but their are more Straight heterosexual people than Gay homosexual people in America so yes heterosexual-ism has defined much of America's Traditions and will continue to do so, find their usual method being put down by a group of people who, and lets be honest, are calling them discriminatory. Most of the people I have talked to, including a few Pastors of local Churches in my area, have told me to my face they would have no problem with the Gay Movement if they would give it another name. They find it an attack on their beliefs that "marriage" is being forced to coin homosexual unions. as silly as that may sound to us in modern society it is a solid fact that the Gay Movement agenda wants "marriage" to be for both heterosexual and homosexual. Yet the reason people fight it, beyond the extremists and evangelicals, is because they want the term "marriage" to be for them.

Zion, Union, Rashishka I've heard dozens of idea's. I honestly believe if the Gay Agenda took this into consideration even the Catholic Church, who has been by far the largest opponent of their movements, would even relax the issue.

TBH that's just one point of view. There are others that are more religious but I'm focusing on the reason I posted my answer above Jacobite. Call it what you want, label it as anti-progressive but if you insist on rushing things so quickly into being then be ready to deal with it when the time comes. There is a reason we need a balance between Progressives and Traditionalist.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,195 Posts
And before MLK, interracial marriage was a attack on religions view of marriage. So you are just going to have to adapt like they had to then. American tradition has already changed once in the last century. It is going to happen again.
 

·
Closet Dictator
Joined
·
3,413 Posts
However what I was saying is that the gay crowd seems to forget why we invented the word marriage in the first place. As defined by Google...

Quote:
mar·riage
/ˈmarij/
Noun
The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.

To join or unite intimately, to bring together agreeably, to join in wedlock, lots of dictionary terms that do not specifically mention man joined with woman, and guess what I used google too!!

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=...OUHTr0FVvKPLt9QQG4Qo-aw&bvm=bv.48572450,d.ZGU
 

·
Jac "Baneblade" O'Bite
Joined
·
8,082 Posts
And this is why I have little to no Faith in your Liberal views and idea's of Change. You claim to be moving forward, yet you spend non-existent money and shape a political system that is of your agenda; not "America's" agenda. You sit their and say Religion this and Religion that, but yet you ignore the most influential men in America's history; many of whom were Religious people. Your Hero Clinton was a Baptist, and your Savior LBJ was a Christian. So enough talk of "Religion is harmful to the ways of society and stops progress from growing. It is the lamest excuse I ever heard.

When have I ever said Clinton was my hero?
When have I ever said LBJ was my savior?
In my post did I ever mention America specifically? No I mentioned "country", there are other countries than America you know?


You cite "slavery" as being Tradition, and wife beating as a trend, and yet side-step LBJ "War on Poverty" and Civil Rights Bills instituted by Congress with the help of people like Martin Luther King (oh, wasn't he Southern Baptists; Christian right? He believed in a traditional America for every Black Man and Women right; Equality we call that?) and some of the more important Laws and Customs that have been in place since our Grandfathers time.

When did I ever say that was brought about by non Religious people? All I said was that that could be considered traditional. Hell if you check the Bible it's more than traditional, it's set out and shown under what circumstances it's allowed. So looking at it one way, MLK and LBJ were infact going against their own Holy Book.

Before you ever start to wail on American Traditions you had better get your history strait. I honestly find it really ignorant when people make such statements without looking back on history. If anything it's the one thing that keeps us vigilant.

Slavery and wife beating were never the sole traditions of America. I never said they were. Western History is full of it.

But moving on from that you ask how allowing gay people benefit packages and tax-deductions is offensive. It is not; period! If you read my earlier statement you'd see that, but just for you let me repost it....

or you could repost all of it:

My only issue with this really. I'm happy they can receive the same benefits as other hard working people; it is a good step to equality. However at the same time I think they don't seem to care who they are trampling over; and the people they are offending by it. But then again Political Correctness seems to be the trend these days instead of Tradition and Country.
People are offended by something. Big fucking deal. What makes them being offended by something a cause for concern?



However what I was saying is that the gay crowd seems to forget why we invented the word marriage in the first place. As defined by Google...

Who do you mean by "we"?

Hetro-sexuals?
Men?
Americans?
Westerners?



Now you ask how this can be offensive to someone like myself; a heterosexual, Red-Blooded American? It is simple, we claimed the term first.

Hetrosexual red-blooded American's claimed the word first? But you just said "we" "invented" the word?

I understand that this does sound ridiculous at first but when you approach it from a standpoint of history we can see the picture more clearly. Long before "Gay" was ever a term for homosexuals, or even before being homosexual was officially recognized

When was this then? More importantly when was hetrosexuality "offically recognised"?

, "Marriage" was a term used by both secular government and Religion to define that union between a man and a women through both the Law and whatever religious rites and practices they adhered to. Therefore it has been a Tradition of Humanity, transcending any form of government or ruling of law, for much of our history as a species.

No, its not. See I can use Google too!:

How marriage has changed over centuries - The Week



Suddenly traditional America, and I hate to break it to you Liberals but their are more Straight heterosexual people than Gay homosexual people in America so yes heterosexual-ism has defined much of America's Traditions and will continue to do so, find their usual method being put down by a group of people who, and lets be honest, are calling them discriminatory.

How does two men being a relationship that is recognised by the state as being equal to your relationship with a woman "put your relationship down" exactly?

Most of the people I have talked to, including a few Pastors of local Churches in my area, have told me to my face they would have no problem with the Gay Movement if they would give it another name. They find it an attack on their beliefs that "marriage" is being forced to coin homosexual unions. as silly as that may sound to us in modern society it is a solid fact that the Gay Movement agenda wants "marriage" to be for both heterosexual and homosexual. Yet the reason people fight it, beyond the extremists and evangelicals, is because they want the term "marriage" to be for them.

And it's a "solid fact" that the vast majority of Christian Organisations want it remain for hetro sexuals. Why is their view any more valid than those who want it for people of either sexual orientation? They didn't invent the word as Field says.

Again. If neither happen in a Church or by a Minister, how does a "marriage" between two men devalue a "marriage" to a man and woman?

So that's what it comes down to? You want something just for "you" and people like "you" and people who aren't like "you" aren't allowed to use that word or thing? That is discrimination. Pure and simple. Ownership of a word whose meaning has changed many times over history and is not exclusive to the English language? I'm not even going to ask if you understand how childish that sounds.

Zion, Union, Rashishka I've heard dozens of idea's. I honestly believe if the Gay Agenda took this into consideration even the Catholic Church, who has been by far the largest opponent of their movements, would even relax the issue.

If you seriously believe that then you are so out of touch with the issue it's not funny. The Catholic Church who view the act of homosexuality as a sin? And you think they will relax if gays simply call their union a different name?

TBH that's just one point of view. There are others that are more religious but I'm focusing on the reason I posted my answer above Jacobite. Call it what you want, label it as anti-progressive but if you insist on rushing things so quickly into being then be ready to deal with it when the time comes.

Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of human civilisations. So that's what? Over 7000 years? And we are "rushing" things now by allowing them the same social benefits as hetrosexual couples?

There is a reason we need a balance between Progressives and Traditionalist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,624 Posts
Nice to hear about this, but I'm still awaiting the day that a same sex couple sues a church because they won't "marry" (as in preform the actual religious rite) them. I can't wait for that shit storm to happen because it won't be about equality at that point, it will be purely about money and everyone will know it.

As to this:

There is a reason we need a balance between Progressives and Traditionalist.
What reason is that? To hold onto archaic laws/practices/traditions that are no longer relevant in the modern world? To stagnate our government by refusing to allow any change at all to happen?

Or do you simply subscribe to the idea that "if it ain't broke don't fix it?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,685 Posts
That's great, now can we get on with important issues like creating jobs and having more available funding for people who can't go to school.

I honestly don't get what the big fuss is about marriage. It's just a piece of paper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,270 Posts
And before MLK, interracial marriage was a attack on religions view of marriage.
This is true, but the Catholic Church changed just as it has for centuries since the Reformation. As I stated before I have nothing wrong with change nor the giving of benefits to Gays scscofield. It just seems Jacobite has an issue with the "marriage" terminology. But hey, whateva right :whistle:

Also is not defined by the bible
Really, I believe that in the Ten Commandements #9 states, "You shall not covet your neighbors wife." Perhaps Genesis, ""Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Genisis 2:24)." Now I will admit scscofield that what else the Bible says in the way of defining marriage is a repeat of the above, and actually goes on to some of the more gruesome aspects of marriage. Least to say no Religion is without it's ugly side.

In short yes it defines marriage as being a union consummated physically, signed legally, and joined through a religious rite between a man and a women. now, while this is my personal belief, I have no problem with Gay's getting a legal certificate of "marriage." What I have been stating this whole time is simply the fact that the word marriage could possibly be changed, and that it may bring more support for the Gay movement if they did.

In my post did I ever mention America specifically? No I mentioned "country", there are other countries than America you know?
Yes but lets be honest Jacobite you directed towards this country. But thats besides the point now.

eople are offended by something. Big fucking deal. What makes them being offended by something a cause for concern?
:shok::shok::shok: then if what you just said is true then why are we bloody arguing about a suggestion I made regarding the title of marriage. Holy crap dude, hypocrisy out it's #$$.

Who do you mean by "we"?
Us, the Human race, Homo-Sapiens, Humanity, us fleshy bipedal creatures.

When was this then? More importantly when was hetrosexuality "offically recognised"?
:shok: Ok, that was just dumb. Seriously if thats all you got go home, this just weakens your arguement.

No, its not. See I can use Google too!:
Wuptido, let me give you a cookie. Sheesh :read:

How does two men being a relationship that is recognised by the state as being equal to your relationship with a woman "put your relationship down" exactly?
It doesnt until they walk over and then call be stupid and "missing out" for being hetero. But honestly that not a big concern seeing as a couple of my freinds are gay and a good bud from the Army is also gay. It does get annoying after awhile.

If you seriously believe that then you are so out of touch with the issue it's not funny. The Catholic Church who view the act of homosexuality as a sin? And you think they will relax if gays simply call their union a different name?
Yes, I do. Being a practicing Catholic (who actually practices, get it :laugh: ) I see the inner workings of the Church weekly. I honestly feel they would relax because they are tired of fighting over it and have more pressing issues to deal with. Like the sick fuck priests giving us a bad name, or the poor choice of Popes by the European Cardinals (ancient dudes), or the lack of funds to keep Churches open. So yes, I do

Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of human civilisations. So that's what? Over 7000 years? And we are "rushing" things now by allowing them the same social benefits as heterosexual couples?
And your point? Once again let me repost for you what I stated earlier....

I'm happy they can receive the same benefits as other hard working people; it is a good step to equality.
.

Btw, corrected your really bad grammer there. :wink:

but I'm still awaiting the day that a same sex couple sues a church because they won't "marry" (as in preform the actual religious rite) them.
Probably never gonna happen as the Gay Community and their supporters view the Church as a bunch of ignorant relics. Sadly if they tried to work with them it might help their cause. Pope Francis though may change that, so keep an eye on it Wusword77

That's great, now can we get on with important issues like creating jobs and having more available funding for people who can't go to school.
Hell yeah, if only certain people here recognized that. :)

Jacobite you keep repeating the same arguments here and skipping over the main points to beat down the side wording. If your really going to make an argument that makes sense other than "It's impeding Progress and slowing down the Culture Wars," then I suggest you take them back to NZ with you. IDK how things are in NZ and honestly I don't give a flying donkeys #$$ about it. However in America we have two sides to each equation, and people here at least give a damn about keeping common sense while moving forward. So please states your point in a clear and concise manner; otherwise your just being hypocritical.
 
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
Top