Breaking: Federal appeals court strikes down DOMA

posted at 10:41 am on May 31, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Can’t wait to see how this plays in November, along with Barack Obama’s flip-flop on gay marriage:

 An appeals court ruled Thursday that a law that denies a host of federal benefits to gay married couples is unconstitutional.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples.

The law was passed in 1996 at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004.

Here’s the court decision, via ThinkProgress.  The court points out that, contra some hysteria among activists, DOMA does not invalidate marriages, but it gives states leeway to disregard marriages performed in other states, and puts the federal government in the position of denying the validity of such marriages — which the court found:

Its adverse consequences for such a choice are considerable. Notably, it prevents same-sex married couples from filing joint federal tax returns, which can lessen tax burdens, see 26 U.S.C. § 1(a)-(c), and prevents the surviving spouse of a same-sex marriage from collecting Social Security survivor benefits, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 402(f), (i).  DOMA also leaves federal employees unable to share their health insurance and certain other medical benefits with same-sex spouses.

DOMA affects a thousand or more generic cross-references to marriage in myriad federal laws. In most cases, the changes operate to the disadvantage of same-sex married couples in the half dozen or so states that permit same-sex marriage. The number of couples thus affected is estimated at more than 100,000.3 Further, DOMA has potentially serious adverse consequences, hereafter described, for states that choose to legalize same-sex marriage.

The court also ruled that both precedent and equal-protection issues combine against DOMA:

Although our decision discusses equal protection and federalism concerns separately, it concludes that governing precedents under both heads combine–not to create some new category of “heightened scrutiny” for DOMA under a prescribed algorithm, but rather to require a closer than usual review based in part on discrepant impact among married couples and in part on the importance of state interests in regulating marriage.

The decision also includes a stay as the respondents plan an appeal to the Supreme Court.  On its face, it appears that the court supports the idea that states can define marriage any way they like, but that DOMA has so many implications for federal treatment of couples that would then discriminate between states that it can’t be constitutional.  Some libertarians and Tenth Amendment supporters disliked DOMA for federalist reasons anyway, so I’d expect a mixed reaction to this decision, tempered by knowledge that the Supreme Court will eventually decide this anyway.

Update: The Boston Globe clarifies an important point:

The court didn’t rule on the law’s other provision, which said states without same-sex marriage cannot be forced to recognize gay unions performed in other states.

This looks like a Solomon-like attempt at splitting the baby along federalist lines.  If I’m reading this correctly, the court is ruling that the federal government has to recognize marriages performed in states, including same-sex marriages, regardless of whether the couples’ marriage is recognized in the state in which they later reside.  However, the states don’t have to recognize the marriages, which may make for some confusion at tax time, but otherwise means that couples get non-discriminatory treatment within each level of government.  Perhaps that kind of compromise would carry the day at the Supreme Court as well.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6

Or, that a businessman who gives benefits to spouses cannot be forced to extend them to the partners of same-sex couples who have declared themselves to be married.

cavalier973 on May 31, 2012 at 3:48 PM

This never survives the day. :( Because the freedom to decide for yourself is gone. Again.

But I’m for the idea.

Axe on May 31, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Following his absurd excuse of “I’m okay with it if it doesn’t affect me”, I think we need to make a list of things that don’t affect us directly so we can determine which behavior society should endorse: e.g. meth labs, child abuse, wife-beating, jack-rolling drunks, etc ad infinitum.

whatcat on May 31, 2012 at 3:19 PM

You’re just embarrassing yourself even further. You have neither read the thread nor have any concept of libertarianism/freedom. If you had, you likely wouldn’t be proudly proclaiming yourself a fool.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 4:16 PM

“Heterosexual marraige” is redundant -there isn’t any other kind, and there isn’t the possibility of any other kind, since the concept, BY DEFINITION involves a heterosexual couple.

It really is just that simple.

GuitarMark on May 31, 2012 at 4:00 PM

True, but we are living in the era of the Big Lie. Is it absurd? Non-sensical? Then proclaim it loud and clear. Water is dry. Up is down. The world is flat. Babies have no rights. Homosexuality is normal. Freedom is Slavery.

The greatest freedom is to be able to seek, and find, Truth. And it is there waiting to be found. Lies are available in profusion at all times waiting to trip us up.

spiritof61 on May 31, 2012 at 4:17 PM

I don’t see F. Scott Fitzgerald or Mark Twain quoted even once by the Founding Fathers when discussing the basis of civil govt in this country, not even in the preambles to the state constitutions.

Not once.

Whaddya think of that?

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 4:05 PM

I think you’re struggling to make a point, especially since we weren’t discussing “the basics of civil govt in this country”

But I understand why you would want to try and change the subject.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 4:21 PM

You’re just embarrassing yourself even further. You have neither read the thread nor have any concept of libertarianism/freedom. If you had, you likely wouldn’t be proudly proclaiming yourself a fool.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Actually his/her argument is just an extension of what you’ve stated. You want things a certain way, but at some point someone in society demands to go beyond what you’ve argued for. This has happened throughout history. The more perverse our society becomes, the more extreme the demands will become.

You really have nothing more, do you?

AubieJon on May 31, 2012 at 4:25 PM

You have neither read the thread nor have any concept of libertarianism/freedom.
Dante on May 31, 2012 at 4:16 PM

No, just that your rather unique version of it is patently goofy; if someone molests a child halfway across the world and it doesn’t affect your children, you’d posit the quite insane notion that somehow confers some positive value on the act itself.

whatcat on May 31, 2012 at 4:27 PM

I think you’re struggling to make a point, especially since we weren’t discussing “the basics of civil govt in this country” But I understand why you would want to try and change the subject. Dante on May 31, 2012 at 4:21 PM

You scolded someone for mentioning the Bible as being relevant to civil law, saying it has as much to do with it as with the Great Gatsby etc.

Then I kicked your ass, and you play dumb.

Same as it ever was.

Akzed on May 31, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Actually his/her argument is just an extension of what you’ve stated.

You really have nothing more, do you?

AubieJon on May 31, 2012 at 4:25 PM

It’s “he” :D
And yes, the criteria of “well, it doesn’t affect me personally” is, as I’ve noted, patently goofy. It’s beyond anarchy.

whatcat on May 31, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Religioz –
Here’s the thing – you guys are the ones that bring up the Bible whenever these issues are discussed. And you’re pretty thin-skinned about it. I don’t direct any malice towards you guys…yet you seem oh so offended. I understand that you feel what is in the bible…or what you’ve been told is there…or what you took something there to mean is the word of G-d.
So why argue with me about it?
You don’t need any further convincing…right?
But here’s the deal – it does not matter what is in the bible.
The law does not and should not care. The Bible is not the sole source or reflection of morals and ethics.
I know that sounds blasphemous to you because you believe in blasphemy.
And many who are much more bible-literate than you guys disagree with you.
So why waste time with me? Or here? This site is run by atheists.
My Mom goes to a bible study group…loves it.
Gets a lot out of it.
Just a suggestion…
God bless.

verbaluce on May 31, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 3:48 PM

right, cause the foundation of our organized society and our laws comes from mark twain and not judeo-christian writings and beliefs. your too stupid to be discussing this. you just keep making irrelevant posts to muddy the water and disguise the fact you are clueless.

chasdal on May 31, 2012 at 4:30 PM

verbaluce on May 31, 2012 at 4:30 PM

actually the bible was brought first in this thread as a club against those in favor of traditional marriage.

chasdal on May 31, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Should we really be wasting our time trying to intellectually engage with men who feel themselves superior beings for having forsaken the vag*na in favor of each other’s asses?

splink on May 31, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Splink,
I don’t think you should be wasting your time trying to intellectually engage with anyone.
But I’ll give ya a shot…
As you seem quite obsessed with the nitty gritty of skin rubbing skin…curious…are you sexually active?

verbaluce on May 31, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Or the entire Hannibal Lecter series. That really put homosexuality in a true light. So, when you decide to use or not use any and all arbitrary sources upon which to base your premise, the more and more tenuous your grasp of the debate becomes. Your lack of boundaries isn’t freedom, but anarchy.

Interestingly enough, whenever anarchists have gotten their way, historically the first people to get the axe are the old intellectuals and politicians…and the homosexuals.

AubieJon on May 31, 2012 at 4:05 PM

So you don’t know anything about anarchy. That’s common.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 4:38 PM

verbaluce on May 31, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Being Bible literate does not make one an expert on moral, social, or spiritual issues contained in the Bible. To believe that would be like saying that verbaluce is an expert on flying because he/she has read books on the subject.

Your point was pointless.

AubieJon on May 31, 2012 at 4:39 PM

So you don’t know anything about anarchy. That’s common.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Aaannnd again you prove you’re clueless. At least you’re good at something.

AubieJon on May 31, 2012 at 4:41 PM

verbaluce on May 31, 2012 at 4:30 PM

actually the bible was brought first in this thread as a club against those in favor of traditional marriage.

chasdal on May 31, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Really?
Seems to have first shown up here:

Gladtobehere on May 31, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Not that I doubt what you’re suggesting is possible.
Always take two to tango!
(Folks…before you attack…I didn’t mean that line as a remark on gay marriage.)

verbaluce on May 31, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Well, I suppose now that it’s been breached, it’s a good time as any to put this up:

As Woods says: “Warning: unapproved, even radical ideas were promoted.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Always take two to tango! (Folks…before you attack…I didn’t mean that line as a remark on gay marriage.)

verbaluce on May 31, 2012 at 4:46 PM

I’ll have you know I’m listening to Bajofondo right now, so I didn’t assume you meant anything.

AubieJon on May 31, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Being Bible literate does not make one an expert on moral, social, or spiritual issues contained in the Bible.

AubieJon on May 31, 2012 at 4:39 PM

We agree!
(I might leave off the ‘contained in the Bible’ part.)

verbaluce on May 31, 2012 at 4:49 PM

As you seem quite obsessed with the nitty gritty of skin rubbing skin…
verbaluce on May 31, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Actually, it’s those who (literally) define their very being in terms referring to their sexual wont who would be the “obsessed” ones.

whatcat on May 31, 2012 at 4:49 PM

I’ll have you know I’m listening to Bajofondo right now, so I didn’t assume you meant anything.

AubieJon on May 31, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Might I suggest you follow that with Astor Piazzola’s ‘Zero Hour’.
Phenomenal.

verbaluce on May 31, 2012 at 4:53 PM

We agree!
(I might leave off the ‘contained in the Bible’ part.)

verbaluce on May 31, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Nice try, but no, we don’t.

AubieJon on May 31, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Might I suggest you follow that with Astor Piazzola’s ‘Zero Hour’.
Phenomenal.

verbaluce on May 31, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Not to take this discussion off course, but I’m a fan.

AubieJon on May 31, 2012 at 4:56 PM

right, cause the foundation of our organized society and our laws comes from mark twain and not judeo-christian writings and beliefs. your too stupid to be discussing this. you just keep making irrelevant posts to muddy the water and disguise the fact you are clueless.

chasdal on May 31, 2012 at 4:30 PM

The discussion wasn’t about “the foundation of our organized society”. The commenter tried to use the Bible for the argument “The only forms of human sex expressly or implicitly prohibited in the Bible,” which isn’t an argument at all, unless we were discussing theology. And we weren’t.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 4:57 PM

So you don’t know anything about anarchy.
Dante on May 31, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Everyone except for you knows that anarchy =/= conservationism.
For some strange reason, you’ve attempted to convince people that they are, or should be, the same thing.
blink on May 31, 2012 at 4:40 PM

His argument is based on neither anarchy nor conservatism – it’s based totally on solipsism. Of course, anarchy would be the end result if everyone else were also solipsists.

whatcat on May 31, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Actually his/her argument is just an extension of what you’ve stated. You want things a certain way, but at some point someone in society demands to go beyond what you’ve argued for. This has happened throughout history. The more perverse our society becomes, the more extreme the demands will become.

You really have nothing more, do you?

AubieJon on May 31, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Actually, it isn’t. A simple reading of the thread would show that.

“Freedom is the ability of the individual to make unprohibited choices and actions for his life so long as those choices and actions do not involve fraud or force nor infringe upon the rights of another (granted, as long as the State exists, no one is free – but that’s another discussion). For example, gay marriage – a choice between consenting adults – does not effect my marriage at all. Nor does it effect anyone else’s.”

Gay marriage does not infringe upon the rights of any other person.

Try to have some intellectual honesty.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 4:59 PM

splink on May 31, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Ok, so you are indeed a guy.
How do manage that your sexual activity is right with the Bible…or G-d?
Not trying to be a wise-ass…seriously.
You seem offended, if not disgusted, by the sex part of gay relationships. Do you draw a pretty firm line in the sand for what is and isn’t ok for you and your wife?
I mean there’s lots of things heterosexual couples can do sexually – much of it a no-no in the Bible.
An issue?

verbaluce on May 31, 2012 at 5:01 PM

the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples.


All current marriage statutes, which define marriage as a union between adults, discriminate against couples containing minors.

Find the flaw common to both of these statements. If you can’t, congratulations. Today you are a Democrat.

spiritof61 on May 31, 2012 at 5:02 PM

No, just that your rather unique version of it is patently goofy; if someone molests a child halfway across the world and it doesn’t affect your children, you’d posit the quite insane notion that somehow confers some positive value on the act itself.

whatcat on May 31, 2012 at 4:27 PM

No, it is the very core value of libertarianism. Force and fraud infringes upon another’s rights; gay marriage neither involves force nor fraud, and does not infringe upon another’s rights.

You really aren’t bright at all.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Not to take this discussion off course, but I’m a fan.

AubieJon on May 31, 2012 at 4:56 PM

We’ll have to await an Ed post relating to a circuit court ruling on
same sex ballroom dancing…

verbaluce on May 31, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Oh, and Dante? No one accepts your definition of freedom except possibly some Ron Paul supporters. If your foundation is faulty then don’t try to build on it–a lesson that gay activists avoid like the New Testament.

spiritof61 on May 31, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 4:57 PM

you acted as if the bible is irrelevant in this discussion about whether gay marriage should be legal or not. the bible helps form the foundation of our society’s laws and values. it is very relevant.

chasdal on May 31, 2012 at 5:18 PM

No, just that your rather unique version of it is patently goofy; if someone molests a child halfway across the world and it doesn’t affect your children, you’d posit the quite insane notion that somehow confers some positive value on the act itself.
whatcat on May 31, 2012 at 4:27 PM

No, it is the very core value of libertarianism.
Dante on May 31, 2012 at 5:04 PM

I’m making your own argument using your own solipsist criteria to confer positive attributes to any given act. As noted, you apply solipsism, not libertarianism.

Force and fraud infringes upon another’s rights

I didn’t mention force or fraud. Do you also endorse incest-marriage, since it does not “affect your marriage”? If not, why not?

whatcat on May 31, 2012 at 5:18 PM

splink on May 31, 2012 at 5:11 PM

actually its for hipsters and others trying to appear as if they are cool and on a higher plane intellectually than the rest of us commoners.

chasdal on May 31, 2012 at 5:19 PM

But here’s the deal – it does not matter what is in the bible.
The law does not and should not care. The Bible is not the sole source or reflection of morals and ethics.

verbaluce on May 31, 2012 at 4:30 PM

.
The God of the Bible IS the absolute “final-say” on all matters, period.

The Founding Fathers instituted a formal recognition of the preceding statement in the founding documents.

listens2glenn on May 31, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Around 1900 and for some time thereafter, solipsism was justifiably considered a grave mental illness.
splink on May 31, 2012 at 5:22 PM

With good reason – when a person’s basis of determining right from wrong is dependent on if s/he believes it may/may not yet have directly affected him-herself, they got a major malfunction.

whatcat on May 31, 2012 at 5:28 PM

You’ve seen with Dante a good example of the libertarian approach, the radical definition of freedom. It is of course unattainable in real society outside of anarchy but that will never stop them promoting it. In this issue of homosexual marriage, the gays and the Dems have found many libertarians to be willing dupes in a rotten cause.

Libertarianism is flawed because it ignores virtue and morality. Without an appreciation of vital role of morals in human society, and often with a visceral, arrogant contempt for religious beliefs in general, the libertarian finds himself aligned with those who are in fact the enemies of true freedom.

This is the essence of conservatism: the union of Freedom and Virtue. You can’t have one with out the other; it would be like marriage without a husband and wife.

spiritof61 on May 31, 2012 at 5:45 PM

you acted as if the bible is irrelevant in this discussion about whether gay marriage should be legal or not. the bible helps form the foundation of our society’s laws and values. it is very relevant.

chasdal on May 31, 2012 at 5:18 PM

It is entirely irrelevant.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Yep, they saw it for what it is: a form of psychopathy.
splink on May 31, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Of course, the fun part is if you’re around one and you get up to leave the room, you get to enjoy the puzzled look on his face as he tries to decide if you’ll still exist when you’re out of his sight!
:D

whatcat on May 31, 2012 at 5:47 PM

The Founding Fathers instituted a formal recognition of the preceding statement in the founding documents.

listens2glenn on May 31, 2012 at 5:27 PM

The founders had seen the wars between European Christians over religious authority during the preceding centuries and left direct appeal to the Bible out of the Declaration and Constitution.

dedalus on May 31, 2012 at 5:49 PM

It is of course unattainable in real society outside of anarchy but that will never stop them promoting it.

spiritof61 on May 31, 2012 at 5:45 PM

I would love anarchy.

It looks like total freedom. The problem is that it’s really just a theoretical state. It’s that half-second between the moment order breaks down and the moment the strong enslave the weak.

“Anarchy” is really only an ideal for kids, since only kids still think their strength is permanent. And the whole black/red thing is cool. And it has one of the cooler logos.

In the real world, it’s just a word painted on tyranny’s door.

So I would hate anarchy.

There. Hope I saved someone somewhere some time. :)

Axe on May 31, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Oh, and Dante? No one accepts your definition of freedom except possibly some Ron Paul supporters. If your foundation is faulty then don’t try to build on it–a lesson that gay activists avoid like the New Testament.

spiritof61 on May 31, 2012 at 5:05 PM

You’ve seen with Dante a good example of the libertarian approach, the radical definition of freedom. It is of course unattainable in real society outside of anarchy but that will never stop them promoting it. In this issue of homosexual marriage, the gays and the Dems have found many libertarians to be willing dupes in a rotten cause.

Libertarianism is flawed because it ignores virtue and morality. Without an appreciation of vital role of morals in human society, and often with a visceral, arrogant contempt for religious beliefs in general, the libertarian finds himself aligned with those who are in fact the enemies of true freedom.

This is the essence of conservatism: the union of Freedom and Virtue. You can’t have one with out the other; it would be like marriage without a husband and wife.

spiritof61 on May 31, 2012 at 5:45 PM

There is nothing radical about the definition of freedom – unless you are a statist. That you would say libertarianism ignores virtue and morality demonstrates just how deep your ignorance is.

You can’t have freedom and have a State. While libertarians and minarchists believe there should be a very limited State, and only for the existence of protecting the individual’s rights, the State still exists, and that existence is itself an infringement upon freedom.

It is impossible for conservatism to be a union of freedom and virtue since it doesn’t hold either of those things in value. What is virtuous of expecting a person to be born into subservience? To have decisions taken away from him at birth?

Nothing. Your claim that you embrace freedom and virtue is hollow.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 5:56 PM

I didn’t mention force or fraud. Do you also endorse incest-marriage, since it does not “affect your marriage”? If not, why not?

whatcat on May 31, 2012 at 5:18 PM

I know you didn’t. That’s why you keep getting it wrong. You have no idea what the argument is.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 5:59 PM

The founders had seen the wars between European Christians over religious authority during the preceding centuries and left direct appeal to the Bible out of the Declaration and Constitution.

dedalus on May 31, 2012 at 5:49 PM

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,

Pretty direct appeal. Even has the word “appeal” in it.

Axe on May 31, 2012 at 6:00 PM

You can’t have freedom and have a State. While libertarians and minarchists believe there should be a very limited State, and only for the existence of protecting the individual’s rights, the State still exists, and that existence is itself an infringement upon freedom.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Q.E.D.

spiritof61 on May 31, 2012 at 6:03 PM

The God of the Bible IS the absolute “final-say” on all matters, period.
The Founding Fathers instituted a formal recognition of the preceding statement in the founding documents.

listens2glenn on May 31, 2012 at 5:27 PM

.
The founders had seen the wars between European Christians over religious authority during the preceding centuries and left direct appeal to the Bible out of the Declaration and Constitution.

dedalus on May 31, 2012 at 5:49 PM

.
No dice, they made it clear that the Bible was to have influence over the government, but government was NOT to have or exercise influence over Churches.

listens2glenn on May 31, 2012 at 6:03 PM

You seem offended, if not disgusted, by the sex part of gay relationships.

I am not unique in that, as it’s a given for any reasonable man or woman REGARDLESS of their religious faith or lack of it.

splink on May 31, 2012 at 5:51 PM

The irony is that sex – sodomy, by definition, in specific – is what defines a “gay” relationship. Take out the sodomy and whaddya got – a Musical Appreciation Club?

whatcat on May 31, 2012 at 6:03 PM

The founders had seen the wars between European Christians over religious authority during the preceding centuries and left direct appeal to the Bible out of the Declaration and Constitution.

dedalus on May 31, 2012 at 5:49 PM

You’re not going to get anywhere with that one. He believes the Declaration of Independence rejects the concept of natural rights. His words.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 6:08 PM

I didn’t mention force or fraud. Do you also endorse incest-marriage, since it does not “affect your marriage”? If not, why not?
whatcat on May 31, 2012 at 5:18 PM

I know you didn’t.
Dante on May 31, 2012 at 5:59 PM

So now you’re moving your goalposts from “it doesn’t affect my — ” to “if it doesn’t involve force or fraud, I endorse it?” So what about incest couples then? Consenting people, e.g. Father-Daughter marriage? Fits both your original and goalpost-amended excuses.

whatcat on May 31, 2012 at 6:09 PM

You’re not going to get anywhere with that one. He believes the Declaration of Independence rejects the concept of natural rights. His words.

Dante on May 31, 2012 at 6:08 PM

.
Touche. : )

listens2glenn on May 31, 2012 at 6:17 PM

splink on May 31, 2012 at 6:07 PM

.
I believe you just tipped your hand, with that one.

You’re out of argument.

listens2glenn on May 31, 2012 at 6:20 PM

A little to the side, but since the thread cooled a bit:

The VDR is instructive because it sheds light on the structure of the Constitution. It was an important precursor. The language of 16 is kinda tell-tale:

Section 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.

Mo: The Virginia Declaration of Rights.

Axe on May 31, 2012 at 6:22 PM

And “what they do = who they are” is what THEY have proudly said about themselves, btw.
splink on May 31, 2012 at 6:12 PM

“Sad”, not “gay”, is the word that comes to mind for anyone whose only means of self identification are their sexual choices.

whatcat on May 31, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Mo: The Virginia Declaration of Rights.

Axe on May 31, 2012 at 6:22 PM

.
I have it on, well . . . not so good authority, but anyway the writers of the Virginia Declaration Of Rights were NOT specifically referring to the Judeo-Christian God. OF THAT WE’RE SURE.

So there.

listens2glenn on May 31, 2012 at 6:29 PM

We need to outlaw all acts of sodomy, whether they are committed between homosexuals or heterosexuals. And, homosexuals need to pray the gay away or seek reparative therapy from a Christian educated psychiatrist or psychologist.

SC.Charlie on May 31, 2012 at 6:29 PM

listens2glenn on May 31, 2012 at 6:20 PM

.
No, you’ve misunderstood something.

splink on May 31, 2012 at 6:29 PM

.
Nope. The Founding Fathers gave no recognition to any other deity besides the Judeo-Christian God, or any other source for the foundation of defining “right and wrong”. In other words, morality.

listens2glenn on May 31, 2012 at 6:37 PM

You still aren’t getting what I posted. I give up.

splink on May 31, 2012 at 6:39 PM

.
I just went back and re-reread your 6:07 PM post.

If you still think I’m misunderstanding it, AND you’re not going to attempt to clarify, then we’re at an impasse.

But I believe I tried my best. I really do.

listens2glenn on May 31, 2012 at 6:47 PM

So there.

listens2glenn on May 31, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Hmmm … lol

… that’s 0/2. Now I have to weigh “spamming” vs. “try again,” — but this could go on a while. :) So … I’ll take a break.

You know, the idea that atheism is a neutral common ground, and that it is possible to set aside all religious beliefs and meet there to do the work — the idea that this is the intended structure of the Republic and the meaning of “freedom of religion” — is so deeply banged into all of us from kindergarten that all your points (relevant to this) are invariably going to strike people as right-wing nuttiness. It’s not even their fault. I mean, who’s read the Virginia Declaration of Rights, anyway?

But morality (total world view) can’t be separated from the laws people write to govern themselves. An atheistic America develops a different canon of law from a Christian America. And the republic was founded by the latter. It just was. It’s everywhere.

As we get more atheistic as a republic, the tension is increasing. The morality is changing. I think we could all handle these things a little better if we … some of our arguments seem unnecessary.

Axe on May 31, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Nope. The Founding Fathers gave no recognition to any other deity besides the Judeo-Christian God, or any other source for the foundation of defining “right and wrong”. In other words, morality. – listens2glenn on May 31, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Good grief, it was also the Age of Reason at the time of founding of our nation. Were they still burning witches in 1776,no! People with same sex attraction have sadly been persecuted since the founding of our republic.

SC.Charlie on May 31, 2012 at 6:59 PM

As we get more atheistic as a republic, the tension is increasing. The morality is changing. I think we could all handle these things a little better if we … some of our arguments seem unnecessary.

Axe on May 31, 2012 at 6:47 PM

.
Tension is increasing, alright.

The only way (as I see it) to avoid another Civil War in this country, is for the Rapture to take place first.

BUT . . . I will be too happy for anybody to show me a way to avoid it without having to compromise Judeo-Christian standards of morality. Would I ever.

listens2glenn on May 31, 2012 at 7:00 PM

People with same sex attraction have sadly been persecuted since the founding of our republic.

SC.Charlie on May 31, 2012 at 6:59 PM

.
They were forced to “stay in the closet”, and if they would have remained that way, there would not be all of this trouble we’re experiencing now. Most everyone (except the most naive) knew homosexuality existed, and was being practiced.
There was no one conducting “witch-hunts” for gay people as long as they kept to themselves, and didn’t involve minors.

But when they demanded that we accept them practicing it openly in general public, that’s when the modern political hostilities began.

listens2glenn on May 31, 2012 at 7:13 PM

No dice, they made it clear that the Bible was to have influence over the government, but government was NOT to have or exercise influence over Churches.

listens2glenn on May 31, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Which founding document describes the mechanism for applying Biblical influence on the national laws?

dedalus on May 31, 2012 at 7:40 PM

What specifically do you find in the Bible that is prohibited between a man and wife as a “no-no”? Please cite chapter and verse.

splink on May 31, 2012 at 5:51 PM

How about playing coy?
Avoiding a direct answer to a direct question?
I’ll leave you be.
Seems you’ve even lost listens2glenn..
maybe it was you obsession with and fixation on anuses.

verbaluce on May 31, 2012 at 7:55 PM

They were forced to “stay in the closet”, and if they would have remained that way, there would not be all of this trouble we’re experiencing now. Most everyone (except the most naive) knew homosexuality existed, and was being practiced.
There was no one conducting “witch-hunts” for gay people as long as they kept to themselves, and didn’t involve minors.

But when they demanded that we accept them practicing it openly in general public, that’s when the modern political hostilities began.

listens2glenn on May 31, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Sadly you don’t know anything about history when it comes to gay history. Which it is not unusual.

SC.Charlie on May 31, 2012 at 8:51 PM

SC.Charlie on May 31, 2012 at 8:51 PM

To some here, ignorance about history is considered a virtue.

mythicknight on May 31, 2012 at 9:51 PM

I was being sarcastic by making a prediction of what I assumed one of our anarchist friends would come back with…something along the lines of, “Yeah, the founders made reference to divine intervention but they were deists so it couldn’t have been the God of the Bible, like you wingnut theocrat Christianist homophobes believe.”

Sorry I was so obscure with it.

splink on May 31, 2012 at 7:51 PM

.
Ok, I’m sheepish (blush).

I too can be over-the-top obscure, and get others fouled up by it.

It happens . . . . . . .

listens2glenn on May 31, 2012 at 9:54 PM

listens2glenn on May 31, 2012 at 7:13 PM

.
Sadly you don’t know anything about history when it comes to gay history. Which it is not unusual.

SC.Charlie on May 31, 2012 at 8:51 PM

.
Homosexuality has been around at least since Noah came out of the Ark. Perhaps even before that.
It has been esteemed as an abomination by any documented civilization we know of.

How “sad” was that?

listens2glenn on May 31, 2012 at 10:06 PM

No dice, they made it clear that the Bible was to have influence over the government, but government was NOT to have or exercise influence over Churches.

listens2glenn on May 31, 2012 at 6:03 PM

well then, they were wrong. Jefferson writes an amazing pre-amble to the Declaration, Madison and Franklin lead the way on writing a pretty damn good Constitution and so the founders can’t be wrong about anything?

not the best approach for the party that calls itself principled. Whatevs. I’m just thankful there’s a party out there that uses terms like freedom and limited gov’t. Gotta settle for that these days, I guess.

beselfish on May 31, 2012 at 10:50 PM

No dice, they made it clear that the Bible was to have influence over the government, but government was NOT to have or exercise influence over Churches.

listens2glenn on May 31, 2012 at 6:03 PM

oops. I should’ve clarified founders wrong about first part. Second part is spot on.

beselfish on May 31, 2012 at 10:52 PM

I’m just thankful there’s a party out there that uses terms like freedom and limited gov’t. Gotta settle for that these days, I guess.

beselfish on May 31, 2012 at 10:50 PM

.
If there is this much contradiction (the word ‘difference’ is too weak) between two sides as to the “defining of freedom”, then simply agreeing that we believe in ‘freedom’ and ‘limited government’ doesn’t mean much.

listens2glenn on June 1, 2012 at 12:23 AM

Once again, as many states have had to find out, a law isn’t sufficient. You have to amend the Constitution in order to make it stick.

Theophile on June 1, 2012 at 3:25 AM

Homosexuality has been around at least since Noah came out of the Ark. Perhaps even before that.
It has been esteemed as an abomination by any documented civilization we know of.

How “sad” was that? – listens2glenn on May 31, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Yep, and slavery and a host of other things were approved of in the Bible that we now consider abominations. All societies have always found minorities that it disapproves of persecute.

Historians love to claim how great and glorious Rome was at its zenith, yet it was a slave society founded on cruelty. Fighting to the death by gladiators in Roman football stadiums were all the rage for centuries.

SC.Charlie on June 1, 2012 at 5:18 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6