Open thread: How has the Defense of Marriage Act defended your marriage?

With the squishy Supreme Court decision today upholding one man, one woman marriage, we'll ask Dave Ross's (KIRO m-f, 9a-12p) question: did you decide to marry someone of the opposite sex because of DOMA?

Comments

[joanie]

Dave was masterful today in his responses to callers on the DOMA issue. If ever I've heard logic turned upside down and inside out, this morning was it.

Recognizing gay marriage will bring about disorder, recognize legally marriage between a person and a horse, cause teachers to advocate trying sex with everybody, encourage kids to become homosexual, thwart tradition, and adultery in heterosexual marriage is better than fidelity in homosexual marriage. And of course the kids will never be considered second-class citizens because we are suppposed to love them no matter what.

Unbelievable!

So Dave made a brilliant suggestion: gays in homosexual unions should adopt the nearly 400,000 embryos and raise snowflake children. Wouldn't that be interesting?

[sam]

This will eventually go away. Alls we have to do is THINK ABOUT IT, FOLKS! TWO MEN OR TWO WOMEN MARRIED TO EACH OTHER? After this courageous decision by a court that wouldn't bow down to the perverts, we can go back to the real problems of the state, like lowering taxes and illegal Mexican immigration.

[cowpotpi3]

I can't believe opponents of gay people getting married use idiotic comparisons to bestiality and pedophilia as examples why DOMA should stay. I don't know one single gay person who advocates either. However, every single person who is passionately against gays getting married parrots this ridiculous talking point.

They shouldn't be pissed at gays, they should be pissed at God. I mean, he MADE them gay in the first place!

[michael]

It is now time we elected a legislators with respect for people's rights.

[joanie]

Sam: "After this courageous decision by a court that wouldn't bow down to the perverts, . . ."

Another informed and respectful opinion from the religious right.

[lukobe]

Has anyone ever questioned why the state is in the marriage business in the first place? As long as the state sanctions ANY marriages I think it should sanction heterosexual AND homosexual unions, but just when and why did the state take marriage over from the churches?

[JDB]

I had the papers all ready to file to divorce my wife if the court had said it was all right for homos to marry.

[DOUG.]

Just the oppposite.

After 10 years of living in sin, I got married last year. Part of the reason it took so long for us to tie the knot was a protest against the discriminatory institution of state sanctioned marriage. If our gay friends and relatives couldn't wed, then why should we?

We finally cast aside our martyrdom because we saw the juicy benefits you get as a married couple.

Sorry gay friends and relatives. Maybe next year.

[michael]

Yeah, me too. I used to get married all the time---until I realized it was just another privilege I enjoy as a white, anglo-saxon breeder (WASB).

[sparky]

In this past weekend's NYTimes wedding section there is an announcement of two men who got married in Canada. They have been a couple for 50 years. Now they made this decades-long relationship a marriage. I didnt read anything in Monday's issue of the paper where dozens of marriages were subsequently ruined because of this. And none of you would have even known about it if I hadn't told you about it.

I like Al Franken's story about walking down the street with his wife and they are passed by two Lesbians holding hands. His wife stops, watches them and says, " Honey it's been nice, but that just looks too good. I'm divorcing you and marrying a woman!"

Cons wont admit that what destroys marriage is divorce. When divorce becomes illegal, then I will take their silly arugments about people wanting to marry their dogs seriously.

I wish right-wingers would keep their noses out of people's bedrooms. Republicans used to stand for taking government out of our lives. Now it feels like they look for every possible reason to tell people how to live.

[lukobe]

but sparky, you don't really want the government out of all parts of our lives, do you?

[chauncy]

Surprise, surprise, a ruling from this court that actually follows the constitution rather than whatever their view on the law is. That is, at least for 5 of the 9. SCOTUS has already held that sexual orientation is not a suspect class worthy of strict scutiny, and the majority treated this case that way. That is, they deferred to the legislature, which is exactly what the courts are supposed to do in such instances.

It is important to note that the court's role is limited to determining the constitutionality of DOMA and that our decision is not based on an independent determination of what we believe the law should be.

[sparky]

You're correct lukobe..I spoke in too general of terms. I am referring to specifically the idea of personal behavior. I think people should be able to own guns. I think people should be able to marry the person they love. I think women should be in charge of making their own decision of what happens to their bodies.

If marriage is meant for creating children, as I am hearing on TV right at this moment, what about couples who cannot have children? How about couples who choose NOT to have children?

It is going to be a long time before this passes, but I do believe it will pass eventually. Most of us cant imagine denying blacks their rightful place in society, ( civil rights--a governmental involvement that provided opportunity, not take it away) but there are still many who resent it. Someday we will look back on this time and wonder why we were so narrow minded. Not sure if that will be in my lifetime, though.

[sparky]

Also, lukobe, you had a great comment about the state vs. churches role in marriage...in many places in Europe, you must get married in a magistrate's office first, and if you choose to have a church wedding you can. But if you dont, you are still married. If we did that here, churches would be free to decide who they would allow to have a church wedding, but people could still get married in a courthouse. I know straight people who preferred not to be married in the church. It would simplify the argument since its on religious grounds that people object.

[joanie]

Isn't it the term "marriage" that they are after? Because that term signifies equality in the eyes of the law and culturally? I'm not sure about that. I haven't been keeping up because I think they should just have whatever they want that straights have so I'm showing my ignorance here. Or are they fine with legal civil unions?

[Jon]

Government should get out of the marriage business. The government should only issue a "Civil Union" licenses instead of a Marriage licenses. Then a church can decide to perform the marraige. This marriage would only be a religous ceremony that the government could care less if you did or not.
Wouldn't this make (almost) everyone happy? Heterosexual and Homosexual Civil Unioned couples would all have the same rights, and those that are religous can have the marraige that is controlled by the church?

[sparky]

I dunno Joanie..Im not gay..I think they are all over the board on that one..some say civil unions, some want the toal full deal. Jon, you described it better than I did..it is civil unions that some Europeans do and the marriage is in the church if they choose it. I think that is what we should have here...then if you want a church wedding you can have it but if the church refuses you, then you and your partner would still have all the legal rights that go with marriage.

[Rick]

I'm with you Jon,nice summation. Devout Christians have some weird sexual thoughts. I can't count the number of times i've heard evangelicals bring up the man-on-horse stuff.Or the man-on-boy stuff. Good grief...

[Fremont]

The benefits of marriage vs. those of civil unions are bestowed by government...inheritance, property succession, child custody, health, property and life insurance, etc. WA State requires only that two (opposite sex) people be married by anyone who claims to be a minister....no religion involved. I, an amoral anarchist atheist, have performed legal marriages. It would be far easier to grant same sex couples the full benefits of state sponsored marriage than to require that every couple be married in a state sponsored civil union, simply because marriage has precedence and inherent rights.

[joanie]

Lots of incorrect thinking out here, isn't there? Isn't it just easier to think of everybody as being equal? Then we don't have to keep up with all this legal stuff. . .

[joanie]

Rick, the man-on-horse stuff and man-on-boy-stuff might have been evangelicals . . . :)

[Fremont]

I agree, Joans, everyone is equal...personally, I don't see why marriage is essential UNLESS it involves property or children...then, even anarchists need guidelines, i.e. laws to protect the children and the equal partners when the union ends by death or separation. It's not the beginning, but the end that may require higher (state) powers.

[Andrew]

I think we settled this debate a while back and the concluding point was that reasoning with these quasi Christians is like talking an army of ants out of defending the queen, and it would certainly be easier be easier to just spray bug killer on them.

Justice Barbara Madsen in her majority opinion "The Legislature was entitled to believe [when it established the law] that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation is essential to the survival of the human race". Here I thought to be a Supreme Court Justice you had be like all smart and stuff. Rape furthers procreation, why come down so hard on our neighborly rapist allies?

But maybe they're on to something! The Supreme Court should rule that homosexual marriage is now mandatory in order to curb our growing population problem.

[joanie]

I finally agree with you, Andrew. I knew Madsen a little at one time (when I worked for the Court). I've always respected her. I think all this right-wing hysteria about "judicial activism" whenever they don't agree may be paying off. I mean, imagine hearing Monson berate you day after day because he disagrees with you. And of course, nobody knows the law better than the expert-on-everything-moral Monson. You know, like teaching your children to lie and then bragging about it . . .

[Fremont]

"Any feminist with more than a community college education knows...that Bill Clinton is gay!"
-----Ann Coulter

[sparky]

Just because he refused HER advances??? LOL

Ann has finally run out of things to say...

[sparky]

Coulter was interviewed by Tweety on Hardball today...raked her over the coals..he asked her if she had a soul. He accused her of being all brain and no heart....

repeat at 4 on MSNBC

[joanie]

Who is Tweety? I question her brain as well . . .

[sparky]

Chris Matthews is often referred to as Tweety, because he kinda looks like Tweety Bird...giant forhead, blond hair.....Hardball is often referred to as Whiffleball because sometimes he tosses soft questions...

[joanie]

Sometimes he sounds downright republican! I used to listen to him but don't anymore. I can't figure him out . . . do you ever have a problem with his politics?

[sparky]

i havent watched him for over a year..his yelling over his guests and constant interruptions got on my nerves. He used to be a speech writer for Carter, but he hates the Clintons with a passion and has a man-crush on Bush. Who knows......

[joanie]

Yeah, I've noticed that Bush thing. . . I don't get it. He's loopy! Good name - Tweety!

[Fremont]

Every time I see Tweety/Matthews, I'm reminded of Bla'M....amazing resemblance. BTW, &drew, your ant simile made me smile, as always...chime in more often!

[joanie]

Excellent Franken guest line-up today!

Fremont, did you try the click-and-drag method of robot decoding?

[Fremont]

Gay marriage would be a reality in this state if we'd elected Mary Kay Becker instead of that Bushbacker Jim Johnson! I'm STILL grieving...

[Fremont]

Yes, I did, Joans, but tell me again...click and drag over the robot box?

[joanie]

I just drag it away from it's box because the shadow number is easier to read . . . then I enter what I see. Hope that works for ya. :)

[joanie]

By shadow number, I mean the ghost left in the box . . . click on the number and drag it away, then look back in the box and a more legible ghost of the number is still there. At least on my Imac. . .

Fremont, are you xx or xy? I thought PeFi was xx and it turns she's xy! I don't like being fooled!

[Fremont]

Marianne, you know what I am...

Boys and macs can make their robots work.

[sparky]

Well this is depressing:

the Amazon can withstand 2 years of drought before it begins baking to desert. The tallest trees, which provide shade for all of the growth below, can withstand one year of drought. After that, their roots grow deeper to seek out more water. If they don't find any in the second year, they die.

When they die and topple, all of the undergrowth is suddenly exposed to the withering equatorial sun. These are "shade" plants and they quickly die. Finally, the soil bakes.

At every step of this process, some of the CO2 sequestered in the forest is released into the atmosphere. If we lost the carbon sink that is the Amazon, the rate of global warming would increase by 50%.

The Amazon is currently beginning its second year of drought.

The most respectable and responsible climatologists have been telling us that the rate of global warming will increase in an exponential, not linear manner.

Meanwhile all of the Republicans, and half of the Democrats (certainly the more powerful half) are cheering on an ecological catastrophe in Lebanon. But since it's war, it's okay.

All those right wing nuts who want to bring on the apocalypse might miss out on their expected last battle, but still manage to destroy the world through means which they don't believe even exist.
The joke's on them, eh?

[joanie]

Not only that, Sparky, but Franken had a Seattle scientist with NOAA on Thursday named Richard Feely. He said the carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphre are causing the oceans to become more acidic and coral reefs which are crucial to ocean ecosystems are dying. "Effect of climate change on oceans gaining attention Seattle scientists pushing for further studies"