Gay Marriage, DOMA, Scotus et al - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

elchivito · #1 03-26-2013, 12:00 PM

I decided to take a news break for a few weeks. Turn it on this morning to see if they missed me and sure enough, it's the SOS. SCOTUS and DOMA and LGBT LS-MFT is all over the news. Hair on fire on both sides.

What puzzles me is the fact that among 18-25 year old voters, those who will for better or worse be running things in a few years, this is a NON ISSUE. The DOMA folks can pass all the legislation they want to and it will be overturned in only a few years. Try asking somebody in that age group about this issue. Even among my local cowboy-bubba raised young people, when asked, they look at me like a fish looking at a bicycle. Incredulous. They just don't get that this could possibly be a governmental issue. Maybe that's why the DOMA supporters are so whipped up. They know it's their last dance.
Too much time, energy and money being peed straight into the wind on this, you ask me.

SwampYankee · #2 03-26-2013, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchivito

I decided to take a news break for a few weeks. Turn it on this morning to see if they missed me and sure enough, it's the SOS. SCOTUS and DOMA and LGBT LS-MFT is all over the news. Hair on fire on both sides.

What puzzles me is the fact that among 18-25 year old voters, those who will for better or worse be running things in a few years, this is a NON ISSUE. The DOMA folks can pass all the legislation they want to and it will be overturned in only a few years. Try asking somebody in that age group about this issue. Even among my local cowboy-bubba raised young people, when asked, they look at me like a fish looking at a bicycle. Incredulous. They just don't get that this could possibly be a governmental issue. Maybe that's why the DOMA supporters are so whipped up. They know it's their last dance.
Too much time, energy and money being peed straight into the wind on this, you ask me.

I think that 18-25 range could be expanded a bit older. I'm 43 and find that it's a non-issue for the vast majority of folks my age (including business acquaintances from across the country), although it might just be that Gen X tipped the balance while Gen Y and the Millennials are more strongly in favor of same sex marriage (or believe it's non-issue).

raymr · #3 03-26-2013, 12:29 PM

The problem started about 400 years ago, when somebody decided that the religious institution of marriage should be regulated by the government.

Jim B. · #4 03-26-2013, 12:30 PM

Loosely quoting Carlton Hughes, (a long time, now infrequent poster on here,)

"Marriage is a funeral where you get to see and smell your own flowers".

I BET THE DIVORCE LAWYERS ARE GLEEFULLY LICKING THEIR CHOPS AT THE IDEA OF GAY MARRIAGE (IF THIS COMES TO PASS).

Jim B. · #5 03-26-2013, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchivito

I decided to take a news break for a few weeks. Turn it on this morning to see if they missed me and sure enough, it's the SOS. SCOTUS and DOMA and LGBT LS-MFT is all over the news. Hair on fire on both sides.

What puzzles me is the fact that among 18-25 year old voters, those who will for better or worse be running things in a few years, this is a NON ISSUE. The DOMA folks can pass all the legislation they want to and it will be overturned in only a few years. Try asking somebody in that age group about this issue. Even among my local cowboy-bubba raised young people, when asked, they look at me like a fish looking at a bicycle. Incredulous. They just don't get that this could possibly be a governmental issue. Maybe that's why the DOMA supporters are so whipped up. They know it's their last dance.
Too much time, energy and money being peed straight into the wind on this, you ask me.

From casual observation, in the USA, it seems to me almost ALL of those people, care about NOTHING other than their cell phones.

And the constant "texting" certainly dumbs down their ability to fully use the english language.

~~~

kthxbi

BobK · #6 03-26-2013, 12:44 PM

Actually, I suspect it was the churches demanding that the government enforce the churches' (marriage) rules.
My hope is that out of all of this we will eventually get two things: A government recognized fiscal union for anybody that wants it- call it whatever you like including "Marriage". A church only union; controlled, regulated and only available to whomever the particular church wishes to bestow it upon and completely hands off for the government.

davidmash · #7 03-26-2013, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobK

Actually, I suspect it was the churches demanding that the government enforce the churches' (marriage) rules.
My hope is that out of all of this we will eventually get two things: A government recognized fiscal union for anybody that wants it- call it whatever you like including "Marriage". A church only union; controlled, regulated and only available to whomever the particular church wishes to bestow it upon and completely hands off for the government.

I agree 100% that religion wanted the government protection never thinking that the belief system would change in regards to marriage.

I do not think there will be a creation of government only CU and religion only "marriage". I don't think therein a need. Churches will not be required to marry anyone they don't want to. If I have a CU I will still call it a marriage because itnis easier. Its a word and no one can prevent some from using a word that has been ingrained in society for as long as it has.

My hope is that the SCOTUS just over turns a of it and berries this issue. The country has been fighting over this BS long enough. There is no state interest in regulating who gets married. The restricting laws like DOMA and Prop 8 need to go and go now.

martureo · #8 03-26-2013, 01:19 PM

My biggest concern is not that homosexuals will do what they want, but that words will continue to lose their meanings.

It's already been demonstrated in this very thread the attitude that 'no matter what the word means, I'll use it anyway.'

“Unless followed by the world 'education', liberal has now lost this meaning [seeking knowledge or doing something for its own sake -- i.e. 'freely' with no exterior motive]. For that loss, so damanging to the whole of our cultural outlook, we must thank those who made it the name, first of a political, and then a religious, party. The same irresponsible rapacity, the desire to appropriate a word for its 'selling-power', has often done linguistic mischief. It is not easy now to say at all in English what the word conservative would have said if it had not been 'cornered' by politicians. Evangelical, intellectual, rationalist, and temperance have been destroyed in the same way. Sometimes the arrogation is so outrageous that it fails; the Quakers have not killed the word friends. And sometimes so many different people grab at the coveted word for so many different groups or factions that, while it is spoiled for its original purpose, none of the grabbers achieve secure possession. Humanist is an example; it will probably end by being a term of eulogy as vague as gentleman.” -C.S. Lewis, Studies in Words

gatorblue92 · #9 03-26-2013, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchivito

I decided to take a news break for a few weeks. Turn it on this morning to see if they missed me and sure enough, it's the SOS. SCOTUS and DOMA and LGBT LS-MFT is all over the news. Hair on fire on both sides.

What puzzles me is the fact that among 18-25 year old voters, those who will for better or worse be running things in a few years, this is a NON ISSUE. The DOMA folks can pass all the legislation they want to and it will be overturned in only a few years. Try asking somebody in that age group about this issue. Even among my local cowboy-bubba raised young people, when asked, they look at me like a fish looking at a bicycle. Incredulous. They just don't get that this could possibly be a governmental issue. Maybe that's why the DOMA supporters are so whipped up. They know it's their last dance.
Too much time, energy and money being peed straight into the wind on this, you ask me.

Count me in that group. I'm 32 and have zero issue with gay folks getting married. I would consider myself as a fairly conservative person and believe the government has no business in the marriage business.

elchivito · #10 03-26-2013, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gatorblue92

Count me in that group. I'm 32 and have zero issue with gay folks getting married. I would consider myself as a fairly conservative person and believe the government has no business in the marriage business.

Those who consider themselves the most conservative in the country are the ones screaming bloody murder about having their marriages somehow "protected" by governmental intervention, something they claim to abhor. Makes no sense at all.
It's less and less an age issue I agree. Cute how some Republicans are beginning to support GM, now that they see the tide turning. That's some courage right there.

C280 Sport · #11 03-26-2013, 02:37 PM

Why is the Government involved in marriage to begin with? I say get them out and let people make their own sexual choices. Freedom works!!!

P.C. · #12 03-26-2013, 03:19 PM

Think of all the new wedding dresses that could be sold!

Simpler=Better · #13 03-26-2013, 03:29 PM

I think it's odd that it's illegal (much like say...oh a black/white marriage was once upon a time) but people don't seem to make the connection.

SwampYankee · #14 03-26-2013, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martureo

My biggest concern is not that homosexuals will do what they want, but that words will continue to lose their meanings.

It's already been demonstrated in this very thread the attitude that 'no matter what the word means, I'll use it anyway.'

My minimally religious, heterosexual marriage was performed by a Justice of the Peace in my parent's backyard yet it's still considered 'marriage' by the state of CT. Just sayin'.

BTW-I have no issue with a church refusing to perform a marriage on religious grounds. In fact, that's why we had a J.O.P. I am/was an unbaptized agnostic and my wife is a baptized Catholic. Even the fairly "liberal" church that my wife and kids (and me on occasion) attend wouldn't marry us as-is.

LandYaghtLover · #15 03-26-2013, 03:50 PM

From what I have seen, its not a political issue per say. Sure, religious folk tend to be republicans. But its really not political, its religious.

If you read some stuff all they keep babbling on about is how the BIBLE says this and the BOOk says that. Well, good thing this is a human rights issue, NOT a religious one. We are NOT one nation under one religion as they seem to think.

I mean, if you really want to hold up the bible a lot of people need to die! Was your wife a virgin when you married her? I hope so, if she was not, she needs to be stoned to death. And the list goes on and on. Yet they pick the parts they want to press onto others and scream bloody marry! Hypocritical.