The Supreme Court and the Defense Of Marriage Act - they almost got one right!!

Will this be only a 'Symbolic' Historic moment for marriage equality for the gay community in this country?

U.S. supreme court judges
U.S. supreme court judges
Edith Windsor, second left, arrives at the supreme court in Washington on Wednesday morning as the court is to hear arguments in her case against on the constitutionality the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Photograph: Pete Marovich/ZUMA Press/Corbis
Edith Windsor, second left, arrives at the supreme court in Washington on Wednesday morning as the court is to hear arguments in her case against on the constitutionality the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Photograph: Pete Marovich/ZUMA Press/Corbis | Source
displaying gay pride flags in front of the supreme court.
displaying gay pride flags in front of the supreme court.

The Supreme Court and the Defense of Marriage Act - They finally got one right

In June 2013 the supreme court finally got one right - at least partially right.

They found the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional, in part, and left it up to Congress to "fix" the national problem of discrimination. We all know how that will work out. 20+ years from now they will still be walking around in circles, scratching their heads and wondering what they should do about it. The following was my take on the Supreme court in their deciding to make some kind of decision on the DOMA law. I was not too far off. They are always predictable, but sometimes they manage to fool us with logic to some degree.

Equal rights. Does everyone deserve them? Should any laws be passed based on sexual ""morality" as portrayed by religions? Ridding the world of hatred and discrimination seems to be far in our futures. We cannot have effective political campaigning without a minority to beat up in that process.

I just spent another hour and 55 minutes listening to the supreme court taking arguments for and against the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by President Clinton back in the 90's. Just as the hearings for arguments against Prop 8 in California, it was a lot of repetitious hot air by the sanctimonious bigots trying to justify their hatred, ignorance and discriminatory natures against their nemesis (the spawn of Satan) that they call the "homosexuals" who are leading the world astray en masse.

After listening to that fiasco, i could not decide whether i should run out and get married to escape the wrath of the right, or simply puke.

Those two hours of talking still ends up with the same knowledge: that hate is still hate; ignorance is still ignorance, and both beget discrimination. These judgmental-ists still want the same thing, and that is to shape everyone's lives in their own image.


The following is an excerpt from an article by Jim Newell of the guardian.co.uk:

"As Adam Gabbatt reports, today's round concerns the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, an election year exercise in hysterical gay-bashing that Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996 to help secure the reelection that he never came close to losing. Clinton now says that he felt bad about this, though, so that makes it okay. And he has since admitted that this major bill he signed into law is really unconstitutional.

The focus will be on the part of the law that denies married same-sex couples the federal benefits that married straight-sex couples receive, which some might suggest is a blatant violation of the equal protection clause."

This extract from an article in the Guardian from the United Kingdom, regarding the Supreme Court hearings on DOMA (the defense of Marriage Act) that concluded 3/27/2013 shows how the U.S., is viewed abroad. Most countries cannot believe how backward this one still is with its rigid pseudo-morality laws.

Below are links to the oral transcript as well as the written transcripts from those hearings. They are lengthy, running about 1 hour and 55 minutes (the oral arguments) so they cannot be printed here in total, if one cares to read or listen to those transcripts, they are available below. I also included a link to the official web site of the Supreme Court if one cares to verify anything i write here, or in the future, on such matters. So these are not merely my "opinions" and are verifiable from these links.

While the world watches and waits for the United States to make their decisions on whether same sex marriages are legal or not; the courts fumble, kick the can, and seem quite incapable of actually making an emphatic decision on these very important issues affecting millions of US citizens, that in turn, will also affect the gay population around the globe. They seem to be unwilling, or afraid, to slight the religious factors, and continue to be in favor of discrimination against a large number the world's populace in order to avoid that religious confrontation.

This court will undoubtedly not make any historic decisions at all on the matter of the DOMA issue.

They actually have 2 choices:.

  • 1. Strike down the DOMA as unconstitutional. That decision would mean the inclusion of every state, without exception.
  • 2. Or they can refer it back to the US Congress to pass new legislature reversing it or maintaining the status quo of discrimination, while the members of congress continue to debate it for the next 50 - 100 years.

Either way, the gay community will continue to suffer discrimination as their status remains as less than second class citizens for an unspecified period of time.

No, the Supreme Court will NOT take away the rights and responsibilities of the individual states to continue to "regulate" marriages and delegate special privileges to the heterosexual population.

Either way, this country will again, look like a bunch of incompetent idiots in the eyes of the rest of the world. We have certainly relinquished our standing of being a world leader by condescending to the religious factors, and because these decisions lack the full support of Corporate America.

After listening to the arguments pro and con for the overturning of DOMA, it is unclear as to which way this supreme court will turn. There is little doubt that they will not make any stance as a 'united' supreme court to influence the prevalence of the discriminatory practices of this particular group of people. It has been the common practice for hundreds of years, so it shall remain until it can be resolved on a state to state basis. So, DOMA itself will probably be deemed unconstitutional, but not on the basis of discrimination toward the gay community, but rather as it being an affront against the individual powers of each state.

Conclusion:

The ultimate decision as to whether there is ever the same level of equality afforded to every single U.S. citizen, not only in the U.S.A, but every other country around the globe, will be made by the people in each state, and each country, after they get sick and tired enough of hearing about the sinful ways of the gays, and the fanatical religious zealots spouting their hatred from their pulpits and their outdated, and untruthful, 'holy scriptures'. For there is rarely any changes made for the good of mankind in this country without mass rebelling against the establishment.

by d.william 03/29/2013

Government denial of equality for ALL military members. Is discrimination every justified?

Bill O'Reilly agrees with same sex marriages? Really? Only to a point

Supreme Court Hears DOMA Case (full audio)

Sam Cooke 1963 A change is gonna come

More by this Author


Comments 11 comments

ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 3 years ago from Southern California

D Williams

"Either way, the gay community will continue to suffer discrimination as their status remains as less than second class citizens for an unspecified period of time."

ib-----------------------------------------------

What discrimination

The gay community is more of a deviant inner society than it is a minority that is discriminated against.

Sexual preference is not a constitutional right?

If you don't agree that same sex is just a sexual preference, then you are left with a biological defect. You cannot compare marriage with its one man and one woman with two of the same gender. I have several hubs where I detail the reasons.

The LGBT is a very powerful political and wealthy organization who chose to militantly try to accomplish their goal of making their lifestyle acceptable to the general public

They won't accept civil unions, even if they have all the rights of marriage, except for the word marriage. Marriage shouldn't be contaminated because a deviant society wants validation.

Same sex also doesn't care about the couples th, either same sex or heterosexual that want to have a say about their partners but who don't want a government licensed marriage.

As far as the Supreme Court, I think that 5-4 decisions by the court don't settle the issue, that just end the legal part. This applies to any supreme court decisions on any issue.

There is also a third issue, take the same sex to the level of amending the constitution, this will involve all the voters, and all the states.

I also don't believe that marriage should be under the licensing of the government. Additionally, there shouldn't be a marriage tick box on your tax forms.

My statements have no foundation in religion, it is based on logic and biology.

You might read my hub on why there are two genders for humans. Something that same sex fails.

Letting same sex bully their way into a place designed solely for one man and one woman will open the gates for any other intrusions, such as; multiple spouses (any number), no minimum age limit (love cannot be measured by age), human to pet, and lose any blood tests.

Not every human preference or deviance from the norm is a constitutional right!


d.william profile image

d.william 3 years ago from Somewhere in the south Author

http://hubpages.com/@ibradmasters

thanks for being the first to leave a comment. Although your points of view are uniquely your own, they are at best faulty. Your arguments are innocuous to me, and other more advanced people, and you are such a bully. L.O.L. It is always a pleasure to hear the views from another planet, or another plane of existence.

I have also written many hubs on the subject of homosexuality, its causes, and its place in our evolutionary process as a species.

And like yours they are also based on logic, common sense, and biology.


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 3 years ago from Southern California

D Williams

You spent your entire comment dis ing me, rather than taking what I specifically wrote, and making a argument of why mine argument is faulty.

Progressive people are not more advanced, they are more primitive.

Thanks


d.william profile image

d.william 3 years ago from Somewhere in the south Author

http://hubpages.com/@ibradmasters

your and i have had this same conversation several times in the past so there is not much point in trying to make a point to someone who does not understand the problems from a logical point of view. And calling names does not help the situation.

I could easily refute your last comment by saying your have that backwards - the conservatives are the more primitive - stuck in the past - clinging to staid ideas that should have been left in the last century.


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 3 years ago from Southern California

D williams

There you go again, with nothing but dis ing.

You didn't reference anything I mentioned in my detailed comments.

If you have some compelling arguments, you certainly didn't present them here.

Bye


justmesuzanne profile image

justmesuzanne 3 years ago from Texas

Excellent reportage! Voted up and interesting! We do, indeed, look like childish, churlish fools to the rest of the world thanks to the inordinate amount of nonsense surrounding this issue, abortion and sensible use and monitoring of guns. Aldous Huxley's Brave New World is here!


Insanity Inc profile image

Insanity Inc 3 years ago from Vermont, USA

What our American society has completely lost sight of is the fact that our Constitution was NOT written to GIVE us ANY rights. Rather, it is a validation and protection of our GOD GIVEN rights, as well as a pronounced limitation of government's power over us. Marriage was a societal recognition of a religiously based commitment between one man and one woman. There was no relative morality clause in said commitment. One man and one woman. Not polygamy. Not polyandry. Not pedophilia. Not bestiality. And...sorry to upset a lot of bubbles out there...not homosexuality. To even have this discussion in the Supreme Court shows how off track we, as a society have become, both religiously and politically. If you really read our Constitution, you would understand that it protects our freedom OF, not FROM religion. The First Amendment to our Constitution is to keep the government out of our faith of choice, and all that that entails. I'm sure many reading my reply are rolling their eyes, proclaiming to the air how I have just raised my argument to the level of ridiculous by bringing up pedophilia, or better yet bestiality. Which tells me that many of you are unaware of the fact that this sanctioning of homosexuality has opened those exact doors. How many of you know that when the American military rescinded their rules re: homosexuality in the ranks, it also included bestiality? That's legal now, didn't you know? And, BTW, where do you think our STD's came from? That's right-sex-with animals! There are strong, heavily financed organizations leaning on the psychiatric community to modify the Diagnostic Statistical Manual V definition of pedophilia. No, silly, that's not aberrant behavior. It's just another form of love between two consenting parties! (children can consent?) And how about the polygamist groups who are partnering the (also) heavily financed gay community to learn how to lobby for THEIR cause.

We have become a society of spoiled demanding children who will stop at nothing until we get our way, despite the cost to others or our society. If it feels good do it. Love the one you're with. Relative morality at best. The fall of an Empire for sure.


Eiddwen profile image

Eiddwen 3 years ago from Wales

Very interesting and voted up.

Enjoy your day.

Eddy.


d.william profile image

d.william 3 years ago from Somewhere in the south Author

http://hubpages.com/@justmesuzanne

Thanks for reading and commenting. And it seems that we are looking more and more ridiculous every year. The radical tea party members certainly did not help our image any (Palin, Ryan, Santorum,etc.).


d.william profile image

d.william 3 years ago from Somewhere in the south Author

http://hubpages.com/@insanityinc

Thanks for reading and adding your comments. All opinions are welcomed unless they are extremely hate driven, threatening, or just plain nasty.

1. your opinions on marriage is backwards i am afraid. Marriage was simply a binding contract between two people (consenting adults) to insure legal rights, etc.. Religion took over marriage for a couple of reasons. They tried to assign the union of two people to a God given right (or rite), and to make a profit from it. People somehow felt (feel) that getting married in a church makes the marriage something more than it is - they are entitled to that belief. But it does not make it any thing more than what it is when marriage is performed by a justice of the Peace.

2. Your inclusive list (pedophilia, polygamy, bestiality) is a feeble attempt to demean a minority - not a justification for discrimination.

3. our constitution protects the government from religious influences, as well as allowing people to worship anything, and any way, they choose.

You need to understand the history of why this was even mentioned in the constitution. In the worlds the pilgrims were escaping from they were repressed, oppressed, controlled, etc..by their radical religions. They wanted to make sure that religions never had that power over people in the new world.

4. You are way off base in stating that bestiality is now legal. It never has been, nor will it ever be legal. The same goes for pedophilia, or polygamy. So your arguments against same sex marriages are beyond the ridiculous.

5. Our basic human rights also include the pursuit of happiness - and those born genetically different have the same right to happiness as does the majority of so called "normal" people. People who are born gay are as 'normal' as anyone else born different than the average. Average can never equate to normal.

You are obviously basing your hatred on the religious brainwashing you underwent as a child who was incapable of distinguishing what is fantasy and what is fairytale, and unfortunately most indoctrinated individuals never outgrow that brainwashing throughout their adult lives.

Anyone who basis their life, opinions, and belief systems on their religious indoctrination is of little relevance to anyone but themselves. If a person has not learned, or is afraid, to voice opinions based on logic or common sense, they are innately lacking in relevance when it comes to having a logical discussion about things that really matter in our society.

Bias, intolerance and judgmental-ism are concepts that are taught by religion. The only innate emotion we are born with is love. It is the basis for all there is.

No logical discussion can be had by quoting from the bible or any other 'holy' scriptures, as these quotes are only pertinent to other inductees into that particular sect, cult, or religion.


d.william profile image

d.william 3 years ago from Somewhere in the south Author

http://hubpages.com/@eiddwen

Thanks for reading and leaving your comments

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working