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]

Aquaman,

I'm sure the ones that recognize themselves as gay, are in fact gay. They are born that way, it's not a choice. As for having sex and getting married, it's the same as with heterosexual teens - you may want them to wait, but the hormones will probably get the best of them and they are going to have sex as for getting married they should wait until 18 just like heterosexual couples.

RJE,

It was not that long ago that woman married their sons and brothers and sister married each other and fathers married their daughters. The practice was stopped because people recognized it wasn't good genetically. To this day cousins still marry cousins. As for the bestiality I don't think an animal is capable of consenting - maybe putting up a good fight but that argument is ridiculous, anyone prone to that predilection is going to do it behind closed doors.

[Willy]

Lisa

A woman loves her son, a brother loves his sister, a man loves his dog. Should they be denied the right to marry who/what they love? Before you answer remember your last sentence you posted to me. 

[AQUAMAN]

The institution of marriage in general was created based on the following: tradition, experience, and ethical conduct, that which our own forefathers and history has prescribed for us long ago, and all this, is "underwritten, insured, by our very foundation of morals". What are morals? As RJE eludes to, should a woman be able to marry her son? A man his sister? A man or woman their pet goat, horse, snake? Cousins to one another? Where do we then draw the line? This is exactly what Dave's "Pandora's box" case makes, and why now does Obama not speak, and sit on the fence on this important moral issue for our times, why, cause he's not a sincere Presidential leader, another shallow professional politician interested in polls and votes, over right and wrong for the nation.

[Lisa O'Brien]

Aquaman,

Marriage was originally intended for the perpetuation of the species, rules to handle property and the protection of bloodlines (originally family members married family members).

You mention ethical conduct of our of forefathers - would that be Thomas Jefferson who fathered children with slaves???

To this day cousins do marry cousins.

Time changes it was not that long ago that blacks and whites were not allowed to marry each other, thankfully more rational thought won out and we saw the errors of our ways.

I stand by my original point,allowing homosexuals in no way takes away any of your rights. Consenting adults should be able to marry whomever they want.

[Sweater Cows!]

IMO people shouldn't be marrying period with any gov't  approval or law, there should be a non religious based law that gives people the some abilities as in marriage but it should be called a 'permanant bonding of fininces and care' or something (civil union maybe).

 

All marriage should be done in the church, by those who follow the belief of that religion.

 

I won't get married because I am an atheist and I find it disgraceful to be married. but I would go for a gov't sanctioned alternative that was of the same legal bearing in law as marriage is in religion.

 

Basically, for religious people, get married in a church, and for people like me and the LGBT people get "legally contracted" by the gov't.

 

Therefore gov't stays out of religion, but provides an alternative to marriage for those who want nothing to do with the church or religion.

 

Gov't =civil union (anyone can do it)excluding those related (denied to scientific basis)

church = marriage (they can set their own prejudices)

 

People can pick whichever one they want even though the end result is the same I am not forced to follow a doctrine I don't believe in. I could still have the benefits of  that gross word marriage, but without the religious connotations and dogma.

[Dave]

So this means were not getting married now Lando? lol

Actually, I am getting to the point in my life that I don't know that I need to get married so to speak... I don't need a piece of paper to know that I love who ever the woman is I am with. Having civil unions for all people is really not that bad of an idea. If people still want to do a church wedding, by all means they can do that too assuming that is their faith.

[Max]

The bigger Pandora's box is letting the president become the Supreme Court in deciding which laws are Constitutional.

[AQUAMAN]

Lisa, I don't believe that old tired lie of "being born gay" anymore than I still believe in the "Fairy God Mother tooth under the pillow quarter". We all make decisions on our own, and are responsible for them ourselves. I can't stop others from believing "fairy tales", but I would appeal to their moral strengths and character before being peer pressured into a lifestyle that is unholy and abominable, at least according to ancient trusted scriptures. If certain individuals possess no character nor morals, why should the rest of us to suffer with their warped lifestyles being imposed on the rest of us? Have you lost all faith in this country's common values and precepts? Is it any wonder we have the crime and lack of values in the USA that we have today, because of "Pandora's box" of unleashed lies and spins by anyone that wants their way, over what law and decency prescribes? Sorry, not trying to get on a preachers sermon here, but what is right is right, and wrong is just wrong. Being in a closet is one thing, but the state prescribing marriage vows to these types, imho, is just insanely ridiculous and mocks the sanctity of marriage all around, Sir Elton included, even though I loved his music for decades. Sorry, I'm from the "old school", not the "Soup School", the way I was raised, and the way I will DIE! When I see two males or females together kissing and holding hands in public, it makes my stomach turn in disgust.

[Lisa O'Brien]

Aquaman,

This is one of those days where nothing I say will change your mind, and nothing you say will change mine. Have a Great Weekend.

[Willy]

Lisa

The beastiality argument may seem rediculous to you but not to many others. Men marrying men is a ridiculous notion to me. If a mother or her son are not capable of having children would that be an acceptible condition for marriage? In my opinion men marrying men is in direct opposition to the basic concept of being a human. I do believe that gays are born that way but that is no excuse for society to allow one of the most fundemental concepts of humans, a man and a woman joining in union [marriage] to be twisted and used for their situation.

[Lisa O'Brien]

RJE,

I am at a lost, I know of no animal that has the ability to give consent or sign the paperwork associated with getting married.  In the begining marriage wasn't even about love, still today in some society's love has nothing to do with it. I checked Webster's defination of human - marriage whether gay or straight is not mentioned.

[Willy]

Lisa

I was pointing out the ridiculousness of a man marrying an animal to the equally ridiculous idea of two men marrying. What you don't see is that society must draw a line as to what is considered an acceptable marriage arraingement . Your line stops at same sex marriage while others may draw the line at animals or even their favorite shovel. My line stops at men marrying women. You want to deny mom and son or Henry and Fido from joining in marriage while others want marriage to only apply to men marrying women. I would assume that you would find a mother/daughter or father/son marriage  as acceptable beause they are human, could not bear children on their own and of course you would not want to deny them their rights.