The Defense Of Marriage Act and Pandora's Box

[Dave]

As many of you have probably seen on the news here the last few days, the Obama administration has opted to not defend the Defense Of Marriage Act, otherwise known as DOMA, any longer... basically because they believe that it is unconstitutional. Although President Obama himself said that he believed a marriage to be between a man and a woman, this new stance seems to go against that ideal. One of the things that supporters of gay marriage will often mention is that in their interpretation of things, the constitution offers equal protection under the law. With that, supporters of gay marriage believe that marriages of gays in states that allow them should be honored in all states. Here's where Pandora's Box comes into play.

By using that interpretation, things could open up.... a lot more then what some of the more liberal people expect. Should states that do not honor gay marriage licenses be made to honor those licenses, then perhaps a state that does not honor concealed weapon permits should be made to honor those licenses. Or how about states with medical marijuana laws? If you have a pot card in one state, then other states must honor those as well. Take it one more step, perhaps in these financially troubled times states stop honoring teaching certificates... so that if your a teacher and you want to move to another state, well then you'll have to be certified in the new state and will have to of course pay for this.

Myself I don't particularly care what people do in their bedrooms or where ever else... I just assume worry about myself and let others worry about themselves. All I'm saying here is that this whole thing could be one of those situations where that old saying comes into play "be careful of what you ask for because you might just get it".

[Lisa O'Brien]

In my opinion Gays should be allowed to marry, I also believe it is unconstitutional, and I applaud Obama for his actions - on a personal level he believes marriage is between man and woman (probably based in religion or upbringing) - but realizes banning it is unconstitutional. RELIGION has NO place in government neither does personal opinion. I'm also a supporter of medical marijuana and believe you should be able to go state to state with your medicine.  I don't believe teaching certificates are honored by all states currently.

[Dave]

You get the just of what I'm saying though right? In effect if you want one thing, be prepared to get something else along with it

[Lisa O'Brien]

Yes, I get the gist of it - but that is the case with ALL decisions.

[Willy]

No Lisa that is not the case with all decisions. You say that personal opinion has no place in Government. What do you think is Obama's motivation in not enforcing the law? His personal opinion is the motivation. Until the courts rule that a law is unconstitutional, The President must enforce it. Marriage was never intended for the union of person of the same sex just as it is not intended to couple closely related persons. Gay marriage is a perversion of the law just as it would be if a mother and son wanted to marry. In my opinion people of the same sex marrying should not be sanctioned by the Government.

[J.B]

So Lisa  you believe that the Latter Day Saints can several wives then. 

[Lisa O'Brien]

Yes I do - they are all consenting adults.

[J.B]

Ok Lisa then get Obama to pass that also.   A man can have 10 wives and 8 work outside 2 take care of kids and he sit on his rear until the next one is ready.   LOL

[Lisa O'Brien]

I'm confused to why there is so much opposition to what other people do in the home life and bedrooms. I'm all for consenting adults being able to do what their hearts desire - I don't need the morality police or the government telling me how to live my life, as long as I support myself and are kind and respectful of others what I do is my business.

[Lisa O'Brien]

Marriage has evolved over the centuries and our laws should adapt to it. I'm not saying that religions that are against homosexuality should be forced to marry people but civil marriages should be legalized.

[Willy]

I disagree Lisa.  The ceremony may have evolved but it has always been a union between a man and a woman. The only thing that has evolved is the progressive/liberal attitude that anything goes and that the rest of society must accept any type of perverted behavior or attitude and if we don't then we are homophobic or Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobic or any of  the other phobias that the left tries to brand people with who disagree with their liberal agenda.

[Lisa O'Brien]

Yes it always has been a ceremony between man and woman. In the beginning people married for economic reasons. In your opinion it is perverted behavior - in the opinion of the actual couple they are in love and want to build a future together. 2 men or 2 women marrying does not affect you in any way, it is not taking away any of your rights.

[AQUAMAN]

Recently, we've witnessed the fact that various male and female underage juveniles also are starting to say they recognize themselves as gay, some are just 12-16 years old. Do you whom condone gay marriage also feel that these "kids" should be able to "make love and get married" because that is "their feelings at this given age"? Just saying, what Dave said above may haunt us into the future by opening one door, so another door also opens.