Type to search

The Supreme Court Makes Huge Leaps For Marriage Equality

Memo Pad Politics

The Supreme Court Makes Huge Leaps For Marriage Equality


In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that prevents federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

“DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the court’s decision in the case of United States v. Windsor.

In 2007, Edith Windsor married her wife Thea Spyer in Toronto, Canada. Spyer passed away when the couple was living in New York, where same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions were recognized. Despite their marriage, she was denied the spousal exception on the estate tax and forced to pay $363,000 in taxes.

House Republicans spent millions in taxpayer funds defending the law after President Obama’s Department of Justice decided it was unconstitutional.

As a result of this ruling, Windsor will be eligible for the spousal exception on estate taxes along with Social Security benefits, the ability to file joint tax returns and hundreds of other benefits. DOMA was signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton, who said he hoped to avoid a Supreme Court decision banning same-sex marriage. Clinton has since called for the law to be repealed. Section 2 of DOMA that allows states not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states is still in place, though will likely face legal challenges in the near future.

In his scathing dissent, Antonin Scalia attacked the majority’s decision as confused and overly simplistic. “In the majority’s telling, this story is black and white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated,” he wrote.

He also said that the founders did not give the Court the power to dismiss legislation just because the Court disagrees with it. “Few public controversies will ever demonstrate so vividly the beauty of what our Framers gave us, a gift the Court pawns today to buy its stolen moment in the spotlight: a system of government that permits us to rule ourselves,” he wrote. This, however, was not a concern to him when he ruled to strike down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act in this same session.

The Court has also delivered what will likely be a death blow to California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage after the state’s Supreme Court found that it was legal. By a 5-4 vote in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Court decided that the activists who put the initiative on the ballot did not have the standing to defend the law after the state refused to do so.

“We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “We decline to do so for the first time here.”

Rulings by two lower courts and a federal court of appeals deciding that Prop 8 is unconstitutional will stand. The Justices did not touch on the central issue of the case, which argues that marriage is a right that should be ascribed to all citizens based on the 14th amendment. The Court clearly did not want to go that far.

Thus the battle for true marriage equality continues.

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite


  1. elw June 26, 2013

    Yea, good news

  2. ObozoMustGo June 26, 2013

    Let me remind everyone that DOMA was passed by Slick Willie and the DemonRATS. As well, defending DOMA no more implies discrimination than does defending the Constitution mean that one is discriminating or putting down other Constitutions. That being said, I don’t think the Federal government should be involved in the business of marriage at all. No where in the Constitution is the word or concept of marriage ever mentioned. The only related thing it does say is that anything not specifically provided for in the Constitution is left to the States or to the people. As the issue of marriage should be. I am not in support of so-called gay marriage and would vote against it in my state if given the chance. But another state may be free to do so if there are enough crazy voters in that state that want it. I have a choice. I don’t have to live there. And the Feds should recognize whatever a particular state decides.

    Have a nice day!

    “Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” ― John Locke, Second Treatise of Government

    1. Lynda Groom June 26, 2013

      I doubt that a reminder that Clinton signed and approved of BOMA is required. However, it would be nice to point out that the GOP controlled Congress when DOMA was passed. The Senate approved the bill 85-14 and the House approved the bill 342-67. In the Senate the Dem’s voted 32-14 for the bill and in the House it was 118-65. All GOP members of Congress, except one openly gay GOPer voted yes.

      It is disingenuous to suggest that Slick Willie and DemoRats passed the bill.

      1. ObozoMustGo June 26, 2013

        False Lynda. It is 100% genuinely correct to point out that the very party that decries DOMA is also a party that overwhelmingly supported it, and a president from that same party that made it law by signing it. A perfectly relevant reminder.

        Have a nice day!

        “Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.” ― Mark Twain

        1. Lynda Groom June 26, 2013

          NIce try. Indeed the majority of the Demo’s voted for the bill. But to claim as you did that Slick Willie and DemoRATS passed the bill is disingenuous at best…if not just plain dishonest. Facts to matter. The salient fact is that only One (1) republican voted NO on DOMA back in 96. The overwhelming majority of the YES votes in each house came from the GOP. Lets not forget that Slick Willie is one of those stating that repeal is necessary.

        2. Michael Kollmorgen June 27, 2013

          He said years later the only reason he supported DOMA was because he considered it a stop-gap measure to prevent further harm to the gay population.

          1. ObozoMustGo June 27, 2013

            Mike, you’re being disingenous… or naive at best… if you actually believe that Slick Willie signed DOMA in September of 1996 because he wanted to prevent further harm. Come on, Mike. Fess up. What was happening at the time? Oh….. that’s right… something called a presidential election with just under 2 months to go. I’ve read his quotes saying he was worried there would be a Constitutional Amendment banning so-called “gay marriage.” Yeah, right. Sure, sure. What a joke. The bar for getting a Constitutional Amendment is so high, and takes so long, it’s implausible that such a consideration was on his mind with an election less than 2 months away. He did it BECAUSE of the election, not in spite of it. We all know that. But as he always does, Slick Willie as a liar is only exceeded by Obozo. And that’s saying something.

            Have a nice day!

            “If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner.” – H.L. Mencken

          2. Michael Kollmorgen June 28, 2013

            I’m just saying that’s what he said.

            Personally, I don’t believe anything these creeps say anymore.

            None of these politicians can be trusted.

          3. ObozoMustGo July 1, 2013

            Mike, just got back in from 3 days of travel. Sorry for late reply.

            “None of these politicians can be trusted.” —– Mike, welcome to being a libertarian! It’s precisely the reason that we must have small and Constitutionally limited government. The smaller it is, the less important the politicians are in our lives.

            Have a great day, Mike!

            “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H.L. Mencken

          4. Michael Kollmorgen July 1, 2013

            Sure, I do believe that. I’d love to have a smaller government too, including less military spending.

            However, if we didn’t have a large federal government, we wouldn’t have all the rights, freedoms and liberties we have now. Yea, I know, some would say we now don’t have much freedom which would be true. Yes, we have freedom and liberty, but these so-called rights including the pursuit of happiness (to a degree) comes at a huge price.

            If would be much worse if we didn’t have a powerful federal government.

            The State would become answerable to themselves alone without NO government oversight. In short, they’d become Fiefdoms and probably tyrannical in nature – as if some of them aren’t already.

            The Structure of our government all the way down to the local level almost dictates a large federal government whether we like it or not.

            It’s in the nature of the beast.

      2. ObozoMustGo June 26, 2013

        Oh… and thanks for the info on the roll call.

      3. kanawah June 26, 2013

        At the time, Clinton was trying to make a bad situation a little less bad. He unfortunately had to work with the republicans that screwed things up. The supremes have greatly improved things, but they stopped short of making gay marriage the law of the land.

    2. smilee June 26, 2013

      In the fourteenth amendment it also says the following: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, orproperty, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. and this specifically denies the states the right to deny equal protection to any person and all marriage laws in every state is a civil law and therefore the tenth amendment does not apply as you infer.and as the fourteenth requires any person to have that right to marriage. DOMA was a law that interfered with state laws and now the court has thrown the federal law out so the feds are out of the marriage laws which then should make you happy as you say they should not be involved in marriage laws.

      1. ObozoMustGo June 26, 2013

        Correct Smilee… the Fed has no business in marriage. The states issue marrriage licenses, not the Feds. By the way, I think co-called “gay marriage” does not exist, as that’s between one man and one woman, and I would vote against it in my state if given the chance to do so. But again, it’s not a Fed matter. They should stay the hell out of it.

        By the way… if you like the 14th Amendment, and it says “no state shall deprive any person LIFE, liberty, or property without due process of law”, my suspicion is that you support the denial of LIFE to unborn Americans. So maybe you just like the 14th Amendment when it serves YOUR purpose, and not another?

        Have a nice day!

        “Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” ― John Locke, Second Treatise of

        1. smilee June 26, 2013

          Interesting you define the fetus as an unborn american not an unborn person because without the mother the unborn cannot sustain its life on their own as all others persons can. The rights of the mother have to be considered, In unborn Americans this is not a question of just the fetus but also the mother and therefore not as simple as you want us to believe and many circumstance can arise for the mother and fetus that just do not apply to born persons and therefore the courts have interpreted a balance of power in pregnant women considering also their right to privacy none of these things apply to all other persons and raises the question of which takes preference in a pregnancy when one is dependent for life on the other. Should the government be the decider or the mother and her God. You do not seem to see the difference between unborn and born and view them in the same light when they are not the same. The court did not apply the 14th amendment to this and I believe the court needs to be respected as should the Mothers. It is not for anyone other than the mother and her God to make that decision and has this has nothing to do with my personal beliefs as they do not apply any more than yours do.

          1. ObozoMustGo June 26, 2013

            The unborn baby IS a person. Have you ever witnessed an abortion? No question, the baby is a person. But, not here to argue abortion. I won’t change your mind, you won’t change mine. I just figured I’d take the opportunity to point out the hypocrisy of the left. Before you attempt to try the same, yes I support the death penalty for murder, but you won’t get away with equating an innocent and defenseless unborn baby to a murderous criminal that has been convicted. They are not equivalent. I realize this is presumptuous of me to say this before you bring it up, but I’ve been in this play before and know how it ends. Figured I’d writh the script now before the dog and pony show rolls through again.

            Have a nice day, Smilee!

            “Fathom the hypocrisy of a political party that has a convention focused on abortion, contraception, and so-called women’s rights, AND has as their big speaker and hero an admitted sexual harasser and accused rapist who was impeached for lying in a court of law about it.” – ObozoMustGo

          2. smilee June 26, 2013

            No you will not change my mind and I agree I will not change yours. I do not believe in the death penalty I see it as cruel and unusual punishment and I do not believe in abortion either nor see it as the equivalent of the death penalty but because of the complexity of pregnancy and the intertwining of the two lives and the many circumstances that can arise in pregnancy it should not be a compelling reason for the government to interfere as laws cannot be made to address the many differing circumstances that can arise and I am also confident that the woman and her God can deal with the matter
            without our input, yours or mine and certainly not the governments. I am pro choice but that is not the same as pro abortion and i am also pro life but recognize the complexities of it and respect that.

          3. BillP June 26, 2013

            Bozo so when does an unborn become a person – at conception or some later date? As to abortion it’s ultimately the woman’s “choice” to choose to continue the pregancy or abort it. Not you or I have any say in this decision. As for DOMA it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court so nnow it’s up to the states to decide, this should make you happy as a true conservative who professes state’s rights.

          4. kanawah June 26, 2013

            The bible says life begins with the first breath.

            Get over it.

          5. BillP June 27, 2013

            So then you agree that a fetus is not a person. What am I to get over?

          6. kanawah June 26, 2013

            The unborn is a fetus. It cannot survive on its own until about 30 weeks. At 24 to 26 weeks, with ‘extraordinary means’ until 30 or so weeks it can “survive”.

            If it is not your body, it is none of your business.

          7. Well Done June 27, 2013

            if it’s not your body, it’s none of your business, would be ok if the person who “owns” the body was paying for the abortion. btw, the unborn baby is NOT the mother’s body.

        2. kanawah June 26, 2013

          Obozo (your name says it all about you)

          Gay marriage is now legal under the federal law.

          The “unborn” according to the bible are not alive. Life begins withe the first breath, not the first squirt.

          1. Well Done June 27, 2013

            gay marriage and abortion are both wrong. each and every person squawking in favor of them is wrong. you can tell because their each and every argument is nonsense. so many forced-birth babies are alive and breathing when they are killed.

          2. ObozoMustGo June 27, 2013

            Well Done… well done!

          3. charleo1 June 27, 2013

            Your assertion that both gay marriage, and abortion is wrong,
            is your opinion. Now, show me the nonsense in pointing out
            your opinion, in the grand scheme of things, is worth less than
            a warm bucket of cow manure. Obozo likes it. So that ought
            to tell you something, right there. But, here’s the deal for you
            and Obozo, and the lot of you long nosed, sanctimonious,
            control freaks. The only thing gay marriage, and abortion have
            in common is that, unless you are personally involved with either. Both then, are none of your business. None. Zero.

          4. Lynda Groom June 27, 2013

            Really, would you like to provide something in the way of proof of such a comment? Please proceed.

          5. ObozoMustGo June 27, 2013

            There is no such thing as so-called “gay marriage”. Marriage has been between a man and a women for thousands of years. Just because 5 knuckleheads on the court can’t reason very well does not make it so. A large majority of Americans still oppose such nonsense. But it should be left to the states, not the Feds.

            And the only way you can make such a stupid statement about babies not being alive until they are born is if you personally have had your uterus scraped and your child sucked from your womb. it’s the only way you can justify in your own mind the murder you have committed.

            BTW… even your leftist freak buddies at that sewer called Salon agree with me. Here’s the link:

            Have a nice day!

            “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with
            social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

            — Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America . New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

    3. charleo1 June 26, 2013

      Need I remind you, SCOTUS found DOMA to be unConstitutional? And, not
      because it implies discrimination. But because it mandates discrimination.
      As you say, the Federal Government has no business, or reason to be in
      the marriage business. It seems to me, for the same reasons, the States
      themselves, have no business, or overriding interest, to be in the business
      of recognizing the Rights of one group of law abiding, tax paying citizens.
      While denying the Rights, and refusing to recognize, or to respect the same personal decisions of another like group of law abiding, tax paying citizens. That would be to say, that certain behaviors at the Federal level are discriminatory. But those same behaviors when applied at the State level
      are somehow not. And, while we’re at it, The Bill of Rights is not a document who’s application, may be determined by the popular vote. My Rights, and
      your Rights, and indeed all Rights are granted, and guaranteed not at the pleasure of the majority. But by the principals spelled out in the Constitution, demanding equal treatment under the law. Just as the Constitution grants
      no special exceptions, or Rights for the majority. Neither does it allow the
      majority to deny those Rights to any subset, simply by their vote.

      1. ObozoMustGo June 26, 2013

        Chuckie, we are not that far apart in reality. I could go so far as to agree that the states, or any government for that matter, stick their nose in marriage. I’m fine with that. But it should be equally true that a church should not be forced to marry gays. If your church is OK with it, then it’s that church’s and your decision. If a church is against it, let that church maintain its rights to determine what is good for them. However, because the State issues the marriage license in today’s world, it is 100% correct that the State should have say over who qualifies and who does not qualify for that license. In that sense, it is state business.

        Agreed on the Bill of Rights. It’s not a Bill of NEEDS, its a Bill of RIGHTS.

        Personally, I am against so-called “gay marriage” because it undermines thousands of years of human history and what we know 100% for sure is good for a civil society…. that is a family with a mom and a dad. it’s the building block of civilization that is undermined, and therefore civilization itself that is undermined. Yes, you leftist freaks will condemn history because there is bad it in. But there is also good. There is also good societal learning that is passed on through the generations over the millenia. Marriage of man and woman, and the intact family unit is an example of that good. For some reason, to be a leftist means you have to have disdain for history and human tradition.

        I would be in support of 2 gays having a civil contract that binds them legally, but not the institution of marriage. Just my 2 cents. You will not change my mind on this. I’ve considered both sides with both straight and gay friends. Interestingly, the gay one’s agree with me while a few of the straight ones don’t. But that’s not a representative sample, of course because I only know 3 gay guys and one lesbo. The lesbo does not. She’s a butch.

        Good discussion. Thanks.

        Have a nice day, Chuck!

        “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ― Mark Twain

        1. charleo1 June 26, 2013

          The State must be gender neutral to comply with the
          Constitution’s demand for equal treatment. The Constitution
          does not consider the opinion of the general pubic, as being
          relevant to it’s application of the law. The fact that Gay
          couples might be of the opinion since 50% of all hetro
          sexual marriages end in divorce, that for the children’s
          sake, perhaps the State should not grant these licenses
          so easily to straight couples. Which constitute the vast
          majorities of these broken relationships where children are
          often left in poverty. So maybe a partial permission? So, what would you think about that? The word marriage is not owned
          by anybody. So, that’s totally ridiculous. And arrogant. To
          think anything you said about traditional marriage holds any
          water. Since marriage has been a prearranged affair,
          a lot longer than it’s been associated with any kind of
          emotional element, or love. The family of the female paid
          the family of the male a dowery, for taking the daughter off
          her family’s hands. Isn’t that sweet? Maybe straight couples
          that marry for love, shouldn’t be using the word, “marriage,”

        2. kanawah June 26, 2013


          There is no mandate that churches must preform gay marriages.

          Get your facts straight.

          1. ObozoMustGo June 27, 2013

            YET! Not YET! But it’s coming. They’re already trying to force religious organizations to finance abortion. Why would they stop there? The government will not stop the march to control people. This is what tyranny looks like.

          2. Michael Kollmorgen June 27, 2013

            I don’t believe the gay community would push for mandating that a church would have to perform the marriage.

            If that was the case, I would even be against it, and I’m a gay man. The church should have that right not to perform any marriage of any kind if they don’t want to.

            They’re just cutting their own throats if they don’t. Fine with me.

          3. ObozoMustGo June 27, 2013

            Mike, one of the more reasonable things I’ve seen from you. This is getting wierd… we’ve agreed a few times….

            Keep watch on what’s happening, however. There are more ways to coerce behavior than meets the eye, and the goal of the utopian statist is NEVER satisfied.

            Have a nice day!

            “The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.” – H.L. Mencken

          4. Michael Kollmorgen June 27, 2013

            You can’t really believe that IF the church had the perfect situation in this country, they wouldn’t institute their own version of the Utopian State.

            If our country’s government fell, you can bet your bottom dollar, every freakin church would have their own literal fiefdoms, just as they did in midevil Europe during the Dark Ages. And, this is what held back Europe for 500 or so years after Rome fell.

            They would enforce every single law or rule they had back then today if given the perfect opportunity.

            That is just as bad as a total totalitarian state. I thank my lucky stars we are neither, at least at this point.

          5. ObozoMustGo July 1, 2013

            Actually, Mike, your assertion that churces would set up fiefdoms is complete baloney. You have to recognize WHY America was even populated in the first place: by those seeking religious liberty. And over time, the USA was founded based upon those same principles of religious liberty. And so it is today that American’s who are religious are still fighting for religious liberty while the current Obozo regime violates the 1st Amendment and the freedom of religion as a matter of enforced policy. My point is that you’re assertion that churches that are seeking, and even exist because of, religious liberty would somehow become something they are not is just a leftist fantasy and scare tactic. Sort of goes back to that classic American liberalism brand of thinking I’ve discussed in prior threads with you. It is the left that is seeking to curtail religious liberty, freedom of speech, and freedom of association, not the right.

            BTW…. Unfortunately, Mike, I think we are more close to dire geopolitical and economic turmoil than maybe most Americans even have a clue about. That discussion for another day.

            Have a nice day!

            “America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.” – Joseph Stalin

          6. Michael Kollmorgen July 2, 2013

            Just as any large Entity, the Church is no different. They ALL seek to dominate “their” populations, “their” civilizations.

            If our government fell and a power vacuum developed, the Church will attempt to fill that vacuum with its own version of law and order.

            This was exactly what happened when Rome fell and left a power vacuum in Europe which the “church” filled that lasted around 500 years. We call that time in history today The Dark Ages.

            You are right, I am a liberal who seeks to curtail the power of religion as a whole. I’d abolish them all of I had my way.

            Even IF the “church” didn’t do it, each state would form their own fiefdoms, answerable only to themselves and themselves alone.

            The ONLY reason that isn’t the case now is due to the federal government exerting its power over the states.

          7. smilee July 1, 2013

            Obozo the Profit!! What a joke!!

        3. charleo1 June 27, 2013

          The State, as far as I’m concerned, should register marriages.
          What sense does it make that a free people needs to obtain
          the State’s blessing, all else being equal. Adults, if married in
          the past, have the paperwork in order. The State has no more
          business, “granting,” me a license to marry. Than I should get
          their blessing in buying myself a hot red Corvette! Do the
          paperwork, and leave the moral question of should a man my age be buying a red hot, sports car, up to me! BTW. I checked
          at the bureau of copyrights, and patients. And hetro-sexual
          couples have no more of an exclusive Right to call their
          unions marriage, than I have an exclusive Right to call my
          wife, sweetie. Let freedom ring! by whoever said that.

          1. ObozoMustGo June 27, 2013

            I agree with you. I want as little government as possible to maintain order and provide for defense. Nothing else but a few things that would be needed like FDA for drug approvals and such. No DoAg, no DOE, no DoEd, no HUD, and the other alphabet soup wastes of taxpayer money there are. I do think the marriage license concept was instituted to prevent incest and to track familial records, but that’s not really an issue anymore. Maybe in WV, but not anywhere else.

            Now, the one area the Feds do have a right to define marriage is when it comes to benefits and comp for spouses of government employees. For their own internal purposes, they can define it however they want. But it cannot apply to everyone or any states. That’s all. I can see that, but even that makes me a bit squeemish.

            Have a nice day!

            “All government, of course, is against liberty.” – H.L. Mencken

    4. Marc Stager June 26, 2013

      Not if you bite.

    5. ThomasBonsell June 26, 2013

      So you think you should have a vote on what sort on contracts other people shall be allowed to make. Yes marriage involves a contract and under the Constitution states may not deny equal protection of the law; in this case contract law.

      You are correct; there is no power of the federal government to intrude into marriage; thus marriage qualifies as an “immunity” and the Fourteenth Amendment says no state can abridge privileges and immunities. That means, states also lack power to intrude into our decisions we make for marriage partners.


    6. Michael Kollmorgen June 27, 2013

      That is one of the BIGGEST problems with this country.

      We live in a country that each state claims we are a “United” States of America. Yet in the same breath, they all have their own individual little kingdoms called states and states rights.

      There used to be what was called: Local Conditions. No longer though. There is no longer any local conditions. With the advent of fast internet connections, massive telephone systems, everything is the same no matter where you go. Yet these individual state laws don’t reflect this one simple fact.

      This is what is causing all of our problems. Go to one state, there is one set of laws. Go to another state and you have a separate set of laws for that state. And each of these states are extremely jealous over their version of power over their state’s population.

      The ONLY thing missing between our state borders is Border Guards and Border Gates.

      IF I had my way, I’d abolish ALL state borders, ALL state police forces, ALL state national guard units and ALL state laws all the way down to the local level. I’d be governed only by federal law, policed by federal police and protected by the federal military. There would be no longer, hopefully, anymore Kangaroo Courts, little city mayors courts, one-cop towns with a axe to grind, etc., etc., etc.

      1. ObozoMustGo June 27, 2013

        Uhhhh… Mike… You are aware of the fact that we would NOT have the United States if it were not for the principle of Federalism and the primary purpose of the Constitution to set up a Federal government that would NOT be too powerful and would NOT encroach upon a state’s rights. You are aware of this, aren’t you?

        Have you ever read Thomas More’s Utopia? It essentially describes what you have written above. The fantasy of a utopia that can be achieved by an overpowering central government run by either a benevolent dictator or democratically elected or appointed king, ruler, or whatever. To accomplish that utopia, mankind MUST be controlled and compelled to do what the state desires, and not what the individual desires.

        It’s shocking to me to see that someone could actually write that they would prefer to be ruled by a centralized authoritative government. You are a hardcore socialist. Odd, despite the body of evidence that completely disproves it as a worthy idea for a civil society that prospers. If you have not read Utopia, you should. I am certain you are well versed in Marx and his Communist Manifesto.

        Have a nice day!

        “Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” ― Alexis de Tocqueville

        1. Michael Kollmorgen June 28, 2013

          Actually, I don’t believe mankind can live in peace with each other unless there is an overpowering force, be it a central government, benevolent dictator, whatever form it might be in.

          I’m simply stating that I don’t believe that IF man (or state) is left to his own devices, I don’t believe he (it) will behave and act as a good citizen (whatever is meant by good). He or the state would turn into a Monster literally overnight. And, in this country, the only solution is a strong central government that keeps everything from totally flying apart.

          I don’t know if you’ve noticed it or not. Seems to me, since the federal government is becoming weaker due to lack of funding of many of its departments, more and more chaos is starting to break out between the states, sometimes even in the states themselves.

          No, I’ve never read the Communist Manifesto. There is NO such thing as a Perfect Political System. Never has been, never will be because Humans run it. And, you can’t base it on religious belief either because it too can become totally corrupted as it nearly is now.

          I’m not advocating any government form as being good. In my humble opinion, they’re all bad and they all seek to control their populations, including all of these state governments.

          In fact, there are NO solutions to any of these delimas, not as long as humans or gods have any control over it.

          Maybe, in the end, the only perfect form of government is totally run by computer, the ALL Mind and have robots act as police, judge and jury.

          Yea, I know, a human would be needed to program the dam thing. We’d be getting into another rat’s nest with that idea.

          1. ObozoMustGo July 1, 2013

            Mike, you should read More’s ‘Utopia’ as well as Thomas Hobbes’ ‘Leviathan’ as I think you will find your political hunches to be well explained. The concept that you do not think man can govern himself and needs an overpowering central authority originated with Plato (in Plato’s Republic) and was further developed by More, Hobbes, and then Marx. They were the really influential thinkers behind all leftist ideology. The rest have been just copycats or pretenders. All of them, like you, believed man to be inherently bad or evil and they could not trusted. Hence the development of each of their fantasies that each resulted in the requirement of authoritarian control and the diminishment of the individual. Even each of them knew that to implement their “ideal civilization” required the punishment of the individual and the attempt to eliminate individual behavior and thinking through “education” and control of children by the state from early on. In the end, all of their experiments result in citizens living in an almost prison like controlled environment. And the authors, especially Plato, but not at all Marx, admit such control and misery are necessary to control the evil self interest of man.

            Do you recognize any of those qualities mentioned above in today’s beliefs and policies that are coming from from the left? Are you able to recognize such concepts in Obozo’s rhetoric? You should be able to see this, Mike. And you should begin to question such ideas. Based upon your complete response above, my hunch that you are questioning those things based upon your recognition that imperfect people would be given power to control the imperftections of other people. It seems to me your in the beginning phases of an enlightenment. You really should read those books. I think you’d be stunned by what you read and the correlations you draw to the politics of today in America. Then read John Locke’s ‘Two Treatises on Government’ and the picture of socialist tyranny versus individual liberty will become very clear to you.

            I hope my suggestions are helpful to you, Mike. It’s a similar intellectual journey that I have been on since being a liberal 30 years ago. I am no longer driven by feelings as I have been aware since I went throuh and then left college. I had a history professor in 1984 that got me interested in the classical political works of the great philosophers that shape our time. And once I started to think on my own and not listen to the demogoguery of demonization and class warfare, it was quite enlightening.

            Thanks for the great discussion, Mike.

            Have a nice day!

            “Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.” – H.L. Mencken

  3. Jonathan Hughes June 26, 2013

    Government allowing same sex marriage will not be allowing it according to the constitution. It will be the law of God in them allowing it.

    1. smilee June 26, 2013

      God gives man free will and it is up to man if he wants follow God’s law and if man does not God will do nothing to allow or disallow what man does.

      1. Michael Kollmorgen June 30, 2013

        If you were a god, would you create a being with a will that could potentially destroy you? IF you believe that, that’s exactly what man did to Jesus.

        So, I got it figured that your god is either or both, has a very perverted sense of humor, or a complete nitwit.

        In any case, I’m glad your god is not in any way, shape or form in my life.

        1. smilee July 1, 2013

          I;m not a God!!! If I was I would make you kneel and confess your stupidity as that is all your post is!!

          1. Michael Kollmorgen July 1, 2013

            Never said you were a god. I said IF you were, would you do such and such …………………

            Read my previous post again.

            I said YOUR god, not you personally. But, your comment is what happens when someone become self-righteous, which I thought was a SIN, in which case, you took the place of a god speaking for him/she/it. I knew you would.

            You can attempt to be God Like. But, you like every human on earth, will never take the place of a god.

            Evidently, you can’t even follow your own religious beliefs.

          2. smilee July 1, 2013

            I never said you said I was a God and then you go off on a tangent with a bunch of bull that does not come close to addressing my post just pure BS and assumptions that appear to be your imagination working overtime and further proves your stupidity

  4. ridemybroom June 26, 2013

    Wendy Williams….is she transsexual…? somebody please answer this …

  5. ThomasBonsell June 26, 2013

    What is troubling about the same-sex marriage ruling was the double standard by the four conservatives in the minority.

    In the Pledge of Allegiance case a few years ago they had no trouble dismissing the case brought by a California father because the state “forced” his daughter to make a statement affirming a religious belief. He was atheist and divorced. The conservatives said he didn’t have standing to sue because he didn’t have primary custody of his daughter, therefore he wasn’t damaged.

    But now, they are willing to allow people who suffered absolutely no harm from same-sex marriage to sue.

  6. John Pigg June 26, 2013

    I don’t mind liberal states allowing gay marriage and conservative states not allowing it. But for the Federal Government to not grant you the same rights when you have been legally married is unconscionable.

    1. kanawah June 26, 2013

      Fo any state to deny marriage to any couple is unconscionable.

      The court should have made the right for gays to marry the “law of the land”.

      1. John Pigg June 27, 2013

        I disagree. But when it comes to social issues I really don’t have strong opinions.

      2. Well Done June 27, 2013

        gays never had the right to marry so it can’t be taken away.

  7. kanawah June 26, 2013

    It was a partial conditional win.
    They threw it back to the states. There are only 12 states that have said yes to gay marriage.
    The other 38 can still make one he!! of a mess.

  8. Well Done June 27, 2013

    The day a man gives birth from his rectum will be the day gay marriage is equal to normal marriage, you bum blasting carpet munching idiots.

    1. charleo1 June 27, 2013

      That statement would take the blue ribbon, if it’s awarded on the basis
      of the stupidest remark, since the high court ruled DOMA unConstitutional.
      Confirming what everybody already knew. Well, except for morons like you.

    2. BillP June 27, 2013

      So since a woman in a two women gay marriage can give birth, is that marriage normal according to your illogical statement? I always like you right wing trolls and name calling. It shows your class and intelligence (really the lack of).

    3. Lynda Groom June 28, 2013

      You’ve all by yourself have raised the bar of stupidity. What a guy. Have you spoken to a health care pro about your repressed sexual feelings? It is clear you should. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

    4. smilee July 1, 2013

      Marriage is not required to give birth. If it was then there would be no births out of wedlock!! This is about adult relationships not parent/child. Gays can and do raise children and this is a blessing for these children as they now no longer have to feel second class. It looks like you may only care about children in two sex marriages and nothing about children in single parent homes or gay homes.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.