Skip to main content

View Diary: Elena Kagan proves that DOMA's original intent was bigotry, not tradition (129 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Kagan nailed it! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doraphasia, GreenMother, erush1345

    I think myself that the government (state) should recognize civil unions and let the churches decide who will marry who.  Some would allow gay marriage, some would not. The state recognized unions could be defined as marriages for the federal regs if necessary, but the state and feds should stay out of "marriage" because it is essentially a religious issue and always has been. This should fall under the establishment clause.

    •  If marriage in the spiritual sense is truly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Desert Scientist

      the call of a church, then who marries, will be all over the place. We are too diverse for it to be any other way. But that won't get government out of the hot seat.

      So long as they treat civil unions like second class, and give money to people "married" in a church, then the government is still favoring religion over nonreligion, and if they insist that marriage between a man and woman is the only way to be married, then they will be favoring certain religions over others.

      That puts the government at odds with it's own laws.

      •  I'm hetro man, married in a saloon by a JP (3+ / 0-)

        to a recovering Catholic woman. We have no problems after 30 years being considered "married', and we didn't  need no stinkin' church....The county gave us a license when asked, we paid the fee, end of story. If the country throws up a problem, it's not a Church thing. 'Course, it was Boulder, CO....and now that i think of it, we didn't get married in Boulder County, though we lived there, but the "service" was performed in a County we used to live in, in the mountains, in a rented saloon, in the middle of winter, but not where we lived....oh, it's all so complicated!!!. Maybe after 30 years, we're not really married after all!!!

        Without geometry, life is pointless. And blues harmonica players suck.

        by blindcynic on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 02:55:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Fine! I have no problem with that! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GreenMother

          I just think the way things are now set up the government should recognize ANY arrangement between consenting adults (and I mean truly consenting between equals) as marriage or civil union or whatever they want to call it and let the churches or atheist organizations recognize what they want to.  I fail to see why the government should be involved in religious issues (most marriages) and thus be mired in such idiocies as DOMA.  It really is not the government's business as long as nobody is really being physically hurt in the process and as long as minors are not involved and the arrangement is mutually acceptable with no coercion.  

          Marriage is too often involved with religion to be regulated in that way by government.  DOMA in my opinion violates the establishment clause because it in essence defines marriage in a religious context.

          •  I'll add that Roger Williams was correct. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GreenMother

            Religion corrupts the state and the state corrupts religion.  If you truly believe in such and such a religious view, live it your self - don't impose it on others! I'm sure, if yours is the one true view you will be vindicated without forcing others to follow your doctrine.  

            One reason Washington wrote that the United States was in no sense a Christian nation was, I think, that the disastrous result of government-religion commingling was so evident in Europe that we did not want to go down that road. I sometimes think at least some people have forgotten where that road leads.

          •  Agree (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Desert Scientist, GreenMother

            There are government legal issues (like taxes, survivorship, et al) and that's all that needs to be worried about. And even then, maybe the Gov't is unnecessarily fussing about who is married and who is not for tax purposes or survivorship. Designate someone you're close to "married in the church or not" and that's it. This whole thing has been orchestrated by the religions right and the GOP wedge people for way too long for political purposes.

            Like DADT, it was going on all along anyway, no need to stick legislation in the middle to muddy the waters, like DADT and DOMA...

            Without geometry, life is pointless. And blues harmonica players suck.

            by blindcynic on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 03:55:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Me too--I was also married by a J&P (0+ / 0-)

          But my civil union was recognized as a marriage by the state and the DoD, whereas Gay People who receive a civil union--are not given the same deference.

          It's going to bite the governments, state and federal, in the ass soon enough.

    •  You're just as married (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brown Thrasher, mmacdDE

      if you do it before a justice of the peace, as if you do in in a church.
      The problem is that people forget the church part is only the religious ceremony - the legal part is in the declaration at the end: 'by the power vested in me by the state'. That's the only part that counts to government.

      (Is it time for the pitchforks and torches yet?)

      by PJEvans on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 02:39:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (141)
  • Community (68)
  • Baltimore (64)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Freddie Gray (38)
  • Civil Rights (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (25)
  • Elections (25)
  • Racism (23)
  • Culture (22)
  • Education (20)
  • Labor (20)
  • Law (19)
  • Media (19)
  • Economy (17)
  • Rescued (17)
  • Science (15)
  • Politics (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Texas (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site