OT doomed DOMA?

[nothermark]

It's been fun listening to the story and comments around the SCOTUS
taking on DOMA.

[Bruce S]

On 3/27/2013 7:11 AM, nothermark wrote:
> It's been fun listening to the story and comments around the SCOTUS
> taking on DOMA.

They will (and should) almost certainly overturn DOMA.

--
Bruce

Grammar - The difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit.

[Ralph E Lindberg]

In article <51531c7d$0$26945$c3e8da3$3388...@news.astraweb.com>,

Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/27/2013 7:11 AM, nothermark wrote:
> > It's been fun listening to the story and comments around the SCOTUS
> > taking on DOMA.
>
> They will (and should) almost certainly overturn DOMA.

Either that or dodge the issue on the "Standing Grounds"

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv

[Bruce S]

On 3/27/2013 9:56 AM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
> In article <51531c7d$0$26945$c3e8da3$3388...@news.astraweb.com>,
> Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/27/2013 7:11 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>> It's been fun listening to the story and comments around the SCOTUS
>>> taking on DOMA.
>>
>> They will (and should) almost certainly overturn DOMA.
>
> Either that or dodge the issue on the "Standing Grounds"

There is no chance that the Court will dodge DOMA - even the
conservatives will rule against DOMA on what amounts to 10th Amendment
grounds, and the libs will rule against it for social reasons.

On the other hand, yesterday's case (California Prop 8) may very well
get punted. I suspect, however, that they will rule that the gay
marriages already done in California are completely legal, but that
marriage is not a federal issue and states can decide for themselves how
to handle it. They will make a ruling so narrow that virtually nothing
changes, and it is still an issue for every state to decide
individually. (Of course I predicted they would overturn 0bamacare, so
my guess is no better than yours.)

I read an interesting opinion piece the other day (from a conservative)
in which he advocated the same thing I have for years - get the
government completely out of the marriage business and there is no
longer an issue. If states would decree that they would not recognize
ANY marriage, only contracts for purposes of Social Security, medical
care, inheritance, and the like, the whole issue of marriage would cease
to exist.

[nothermark]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:21:20 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/27/2013 7:11 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> It's been fun listening to the story and comments around the SCOTUS
>> taking on DOMA.
>
>They will (and should) almost certainly overturn DOMA.

Now I need to check my attitude - we agree on something... ;-)

[Bruce S]

I suspect our reasoning for opposing DOMA is different.

[MaxD]

On 3/27/2013 11:13 AM, Bruce S wrote:

> I read an interesting opinion piece the other day (from a conservative)
> in which he advocated the same thing I have for years - get the
> government completely out of the marriage business and there is no
> longer an issue. If states would decree that they would not recognize
> ANY marriage, only contracts for purposes of Social Security, medical
> care, inheritance, and the like, the whole issue of marriage would cease
> to exist.
>

You've got my vote; metaphorically speaking that is. ;-)

[nothermark]

The government has a real interest in recording marriages and some
limits like ability to consent. That is all.

[nothermark]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:42:00 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 3/27/2013 10:26 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:21:20 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/27/2013 7:11 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>>> It's been fun listening to the story and comments around the SCOTUS
>>>> taking on DOMA.
>>>
>>> They will (and should) almost certainly overturn DOMA.
>>
>> Now I need to check my attitude - we agree on something... ;-)
>
>I suspect our reasoning for opposing DOMA is different.

you think?? ;-))

[Hank]

On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 1:13:37 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:

> I read an interesting opinion piece the other day (from a conservative)
>
> in which he advocated the same thing I have for years - get the
>
> government completely out of the marriage business and there is no
>
> longer an issue. If states would decree that they would not recognize
>
> ANY marriage, only contracts for purposes of Social Security, medical
>
> care, inheritance, and the like, the whole issue of marriage would cease
>
> to exist.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce

Damn! I agree. marriages are usually a religeous ritual anyway. I could only wish that to right this wrong, the Fed, state, local governments would pass something to the effect " Marrriges after *insert date* will no longer be recognized for any reason by the *insert government entity*.

In todays economic woes, the last thing we need is more tax payers filing jointly to take advantage of the tax breaks, collecting on spouses SS, and health care benefits among other things.

The above is strickly my opinion.

Hank

[Bruce S]

I see no downside to this solution. It means that marriage and
government no longer have anything to do with each other, everybody wins.

[Bruce S]

And all those government interests could be served just as well with a
civil contract as a marriage license.

[Bruce S]

Were you attempting to be funny/ironic/sarcastic or did you not
understand the idea?

[nothermark]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:04:19 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

A simple requirement that one must be able to give consent covers most
of the issues that are worth worrying about. Consent is already
defined for a variety of reasons.

[Bruce S]

Not really the issue - the issues that are most worth worrying about
mostly involve money and access. The whole reason the DOMA case was
before the SCOTUS today had to do with inheritance - under DOMA the
marriage was not recognized by the Feds and it cost an 80 year old woman
something like $300,000 in taxes that she would not have owed if the
marriage was recognized. On top of that we have income tax issues,
social security (and other retirement) issues, hospital visitation
issues, and end of life decision issues. A contract solves all those
things if it is recognized by the government, consent does not.

[Frank Howell]

Why would more tax payers filing jointly, probably like you do, be harmful
to the economy? Why should you have access to tax breaks but not others?

--
Frank Howell

[nothermark]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:26:43 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

Consent was only mentioned as a possible reason not to record a
marriage. I look at needing a way to sort out 12 yr old brides.

[Bruce S]

I can't figure out even one reason that changing from marriage to a
civil contract would have anything whatsoever to do with age of consent
laws. Underage sex is a crime right now (and in my opinion, if age is
relevant to consenting to sex, then a parent should not be permitted to
consent for a child - any child, any time.)

--
Bruce

Thomas Jefferson - "The policy of the American government is to leave
their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.

No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of
another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."

[nothermark]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:56:44 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

We were talking past each other. My comment was that the government
has a need to record marriages so folks can find out who is married as
there are associated rights and responsibilities. The only reason
they should have to refuse a marriage license (recording) is inability
to give consent. I might also entertain blocking a sibling. After
that it up to the folks involved. Get the license and the couple is
legally married. Ceremony optional at their discretion.

As far as I know marriage has always fallen under contract law in this
country.

[Bruce S]

On 3/27/2013 7:18 PM, Dean wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:26:43 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

> All easily taken care of by a simple contract which your attorney
> could write up over a lunch break for very low fee. Same with the
> marriage contract which could have been written prior to the
> 'wedding".

The only drawback I see is that right now the government is stuck on
marriage. Eliminate government approved marriage from the equation and
replace it with a contract, and the whole gay marriage (or group
marriage or whatever) issue disappears.

[Hank]

On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:03:34 PM UTC-4, Frank Howell wrote:

>
> > In todays economic woes, the last thing we need is more tax payers
>
> > filing jointly to take advantage of the tax breaks, collecting on
>
> > spouses SS, and health care benefits among other things.
>
> >
>
> > The above is strickly my opinion.
>
> >
>
> > Hank
>
>
>
> Why would more tax payers filing jointly, probably like you do, be harmful
>
> to the economy? Why should you have access to tax breaks but not others?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Frank Howell

Most married people file jointly because it saves them tax dollars. if their marriage wasnt' recognized, they would more than likely have to pay more in tax. If the gov. refused to recognize any marriages after today (think grandfather clause), then eventually (after those who are already married are either dead or divorced)the government would mostly be out of the marriage business in regards to spousal rights.

Hank

[jerryosage]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:13:37 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> If states would decree that they would not recognize
>ANY marriage, only contracts for purposes of Social Security, medical
>care, inheritance, and the like, the whole issue of marriage would cease
>to exist.

As a young man I thought that various religious leaders married their
congregation and to make it Legal one paid a fee to get the act
registered. Mahoney and I were married traditionally and then we went
down to get it registered a couple of weeks later.

Paid the money, got the blood tests, waited a week and went back and
signed more papers. We still weren't married legally.

We didn't register our marriage - the county had just given us
permission to marry... All the hoops we had jumped through just gave
us permission. And our Elders were not "Legally" authorized to marry
us so we weren't Legally married - yet. We got a Judge to marry us
and he wouldn't just sign the license, we had to have a little
ceremony first. What an F'ing joke. A stranger could marry us but a
gathering of friends, family, and elders couldn't.

It was stupid then and it is even more stupid now. A couple should
walk in, sign the "We want to be legally bound in the eyes of the Law"
contract, pay the filing fee and walk out.

Marriage is a Religious and/or Cultural thing. Government should, as
you note, allow a couple to agree to be bound by their Civil Union
Contract and all the case law - if they wish. And most would for the
reasons you state above.

So much for separation of Church and State as things stand now, and in
the past.

If our marriage ceremony had just consisted of us throwing dirty
socks at each other it is none of the government's business. Let us
sign their Marriage Contract, pay the filing fee and walk out. Instead
our government has gotten into the religion business.

Even the Judge started out, "We are gathered here today to join Jerry
and Ann in Holy Matrimony."

"No, we are not. We are here trying to register our marriage that
took place weeks ago. Please confirm that we want to be legally
married - and sign the paper."

The Judge and the witnesses were offended, but he got to it and signed
the license. Then we went down and had it registered.

Jerry O.

[nothermark]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:56:44 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

Because I also said to remove all restrictions on marriage except
consent and possibly first degree relationships.

[nothermark]

Good story. I can see it happening. I also think you have it right.

[D-R]

That is the best statement of what should be done I have heard
yet... For my wife and I it was the second marriage and a civil "
ceremony" was all we had. A JP said the words that made it legal,
actually he was a school bus driver in real life. A civil contract
makes the most sense as there are already "prenuptials" that are civil
contracts and seem to satisfy everything but the registration thing..

--

AJ - deep in the Sonoran Desert

[Lone Haranguer]

*I* think the government should issue "Learner Permits".....good
for 3 months when they can beupgraded to a marriage permit. That
is if the couple is still speaking to each other.

Hell, there are learner permits as a stage to get a drivers
license.....why not for marriage?

LZ

[jerryosage]

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 07:32:16 -0400, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
wrote:

>
>Good story. I can see it happening. I also think you have it right.

That was my first real foray into dealing with government foolishness.
Before that it had been easy, record a deed, a contract, etc., pay the
fee and walk out - no bogus ceremony required.

We already thought that the blood test was a strange waste of time and
money, especially since it was after-the-fact. The same with the
waiting period. I highly doubt that the time was used for them to
check for consanguinity or other legitimate issues. If one of us had
failed the blood test the only thing that would have changed was that
we wouldn't have been "Legally Married" and would have wasted our
money.

[Note: Can the State still require a blood test in this day and age?]

The attempted ceremony was ludicrous and a little demeaning, but
living in the heart of Baptist Country it shouldn't have surprised us.

Our parents thought our anger was funny and used it to point out that
although we thought of ourselves as Grown we were still very naive
about dealing with the world at large, and especially with the White
Man's Government. They were right.

Jerry O.

[Bruce S]

On 3/27/2013 11:38 PM, Jerry Osage wrote:

Well said, marriage is a personal thing between the people involved, and
none of the government's business. The legal union is a civil law issue
and should be handled by a contract filed with the state. And the
beauty of a legal union by contract is that the state has no legal
interest in who enters into the contract - state and local laws about
age of consent to have sex, incest, bestiality, or whatever, would still
be in effect and enforceable regardless of contract status.

[Bruce S]

I understand that you see government involvement as the answer to every
question, but some of us don't. Eliminate government from the marriage
equation completely and then no one has any reason to care who else gets
married.

[jerryosage]

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:09:26 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Well said, marriage is a personal thing between the people involved, and
>none of the government's business. The legal union is a civil law issue
>and should be handled by a contract filed with the state. And the
>beauty of a legal union by contract is that the state has no legal
>interest in who enters into the contract - state and local laws about
>age of consent to have sex, incest, bestiality, or whatever, would still
>be in effect and enforceable regardless of contract status.

Thanks. It would be a breath of fresh air if the SCOTUS handed down
that opinion.

Jerry O.

[nothermark]

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:11:57 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

If you want a contract then you also support government involvement.
Who else would enforce it?

[RMcBane]

When does the government ever enforce a contract?

Most contracts are executed and completed between parties with no
government involvement. The only time the government gets involved is
when there is disagreement over the terms or failure to execute the
contract to the terms. Then, the courts might get involved. But that
isn't always the case as often the parties come to terms without the
courts, either through negotiation or use of a non-government arbitrator.

--
Richard McBane

[jerryosage]

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 11:35:31 -0700, Dean <roa...@k7no.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 01:38:52 -0500, Jerry Osage wrote:
>

>>On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:13:37 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>

>>As a young man I thought that various religious leaders married their
>>congregation and to make it Legal one paid a fee to get the act
>>registered. Mahoney and I were married traditionally and then we went

>>down to get it registered a couple of weeks.
>>
>>Jerry O.
>
>Jerry, aren't you the chap that hung the Mahoney (my Honey) moniker on
>your BW some years ago? I always thought that was a clever twist. But
>you were using a different name then.
>
>Jus ' wunnering.

No, same name.

And, actually it wasn't me that hung it on her it was my accent.
Remember back in the 50's and 60's before TV flattened out our accents
and killed the notion that every southerner had a double name?

We moved from the outback of Oklahoma to UC Davis and at a mixer, I
introduced Ann as, "And this is my honey, Ann" . To untrained ears I
guess it came out as, "This years Myhouney Ann." People were calling
her Mahoney and rather than correct them, I took it up too. She just
grinned. By the time our new acquaintances discovered their mistake,
she was Mahoney.

Jerry O.

[Bruce S]

Don't misunderstand me, I don't want SCOTUS to hand down ANY ruling on
marriage other than that (as long as it is a government issue) it is a
STATE issue, not one for the Feds to be involved in at all.

As things stand today, I support gay marriage and have voted for it twice.

On the other hand I support the right of the people of California to
vote as they did on Prop 8, making it illegal (it was the wrong
decision, but freedom means we let people make their own bad decisions).

The courts should not be involved in this issue at all - if the people
of California want to change that law, all they have to do is hold
another election and vote in favor of change. It is (and should remain)
up to the people of each state to decide for themselves how they want to
define marriage. It is NOT a constitutional issue.

Now, having said that, I would much prefer that the states (or even the
feds) would decree that they are no longer in the "marriage" business,
and will only accept civil union contracts as a basis for legal claims -
whether those claims are for social security, taxes, inheritance,
hospital visitation, or any other legal cause. Then the entire issue
becomes one of contract law, and marriage becomes an issue of personal
preference.

[Bruce S]

It comes down to the difference between marriage law and contract law.
As long as governments have a "legal" interest in marriage, they can
(and should) regulate it. Take that "legal" interest away and marriage
becomes what it should always have been - a personal commitment between
the people involved.

On the other hand, when it comes to contract law, the government's only
interest is to see that the contract is enforced. The government has no
"legal" interest in determining who may enter into a contract or what
the contract says - only in enforcing it as written.

[RMcBane]

The government doesn't enforce contracts. The government has no
knowledge of most contacts. The only involvement of the government is
in settling disputes if and when it winds up in court. And even then it
might not enforce the contract but only establish damages for failure to
execute the contact.

I've been involved in any number of contracts that were not completed
within the terms and conditions of the contract. No government agency
came to us and said both sides had to complete the contract as written.
Instead we worked out the difference without any government involvement.




--
Richard McBane

[nothermark]

Sounds like any other marriage to me. ;-)

[jerryosage]

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:28:37 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>

>Now, having said that, I would much prefer that the states (or even the
>feds) would decree that they are no longer in the "marriage" business,
>and will only accept civil union contracts as a basis for legal claims -
>whether those claims are for social security, taxes, inheritance,
>hospital visitation, or any other legal cause. Then the entire issue
>becomes one of contract law, and marriage becomes an issue of personal
>preference.

That is what I meant. The governments only interest and claim should
be to accept a Civil Union Contract. Whether a marriage is involved -
or not is not their business,

[Bruce S]

You are absolutely correct, but I suspect that a lot more civil union
contracts will end up in court that is normal for construction contracts
- the divorce rate ensures that much. But my opinion remains that
changing from marriage (wherein the government is the only means of
enforcement) to a civil contract would be better for everyone.

[Bruce S]

We appear to be in agreement. ;-)

[Frank Howell]

nothermark wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:26:43 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/27/2013 4:17 PM, nothermark wrote:

You want them graded?

--
Frank Howell

[RMcBane]

then it seems that we are in agreement on the issue.

--
Richard McBane

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:21:20 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/27/2013 7:11 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> It's been fun listening to the story and comments around the SCOTUS
>> taking on DOMA.
>
>They will (and should) almost certainly overturn DOMA.
-----------------------------
Bruce, I agree with you it should be overturned.

However, we ALL know that the SCOUS can do some squirrely things.

They approved slavery at one time---- slaves property not citizens.

The Supreme Court declared that a black man should have no business
suing a white man. Dread Scott comes to mind...

Then John Roberts and the Affordable Care Act to name just a few.

------
But, Bruce is treading on thin ice with is conservative friends for
they certainly do not agree with him. The Congressional Republicans
even have a lawyer representing them before the Supreme Court on this
issue.

I can just hear the rhetoric during the next congressional elections
and presidential election. The Republicans will be squealing about
gays and marriage and how they are going to "Bla, Bla, Bla".

It is funny how the usual crowd is being so quiet on this issue.....is
it possible that they have gotten so much wrong that they do not want
to wade in on the wrong side again???????

mike
--



Pensacola, FL
http://www.travellogs.us/

[Bruce S]

;-)

[Bruce S]

First things first - Congress (a coalition of both Republicans and
Democrats) hired the lawyers defending DOMA because the Justice
Department refused to do its job and defend the law. If the President
and Justice Dept thinks the law is unconstitutional, they should have
worked with congress to change it - they are required to defend it in
court even if they disagree with it. And the Justices chided Justice
for not doing their job.

Second, there are two cases here, and in my opinion, the Court should
rule in favor of States Rights in each of them. In the first case
(California Prop 8) they should rule that gay marriage is NOT a civil
right and that since states already regulate marriage, they should
continue to do so. On the DOMA case, they should rule that the Feds do
not get to pick and choose which state government documents they will
accept - if they (the Feds) accept marriage licenses from Massachusetts
then they must accept ALL marriage licenses from Mass. They can't say
we will take these, but not those.

And as to my conservative friends, I have expressed my views on gay
marriage here several times in the past (I am for it, and have voted for
it twice). I may find homosexual behavior personally disgusting, but
that is not the issue. I favor more freedom. (period) More freedom for
everyone. Freedom to run your own live without the government being
involved in any way. In this case, if that freedom means homosexuals
get to stand in front of family, friends, and the world and commit
themselves to each other, fine with me. I believe I have been
consistent with my position of more freedom and less government for
years, so this is nothing new.

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:10:50 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

-------------------------------
Bruce, you have been consistent as has the REPUBLICANS.

The Republicans do not think CITIZENS should be FREE. The Republicans
want to decide what a woman can do with her body, they want to decide
who folks can mary, they want to regulate what everyone does behind
closed doors, they want to regulate when a citizen can die..... a
citizen certainly shouldn't be able to end his life no matter how much
suffering.

Mercy, this Neo-Republican bunch certainly has hijacked the old
Republican Party.

[Bruce S]

I only wish you would judge the Democrats with the same narrow minded
standard you use for Republicans.

[dm_callier]

On Mar 29, 10:31 am, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/29/2013 10:21 AM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:10:50 -0700, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>

> > wrote:
>
> >> On 3/29/2013 7:01 AM, Mike Hendrix wrote:

> >>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:21:20 -0700, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>

LOL...Did I miss something? When did Mike give the Democratic party a
pass?

[Lone Haranguer]

Mike Hendrix wrote:

The Republicans do not think CITIZENS should be FREE. The
Republicans want to decide what a woman can do with her body,
they want to decide who folks can mary, they want to regulate

what everyone does behind closed doors........

While the Democrats want background checks on every relative I
gift a gun to and how many guns and how much ammo is in my gun safe.

LZ