The Supremes came down on DOMA exactly as I thought they would, conforming to TMR's brand new (I thought of it yesterday) Theory Of Religious Participation:
As long as the topic is someone vs. what the religious think, the religious will lose (even if they're right) because they're not proceeding from a logical position when approaching the issues or the courts.
In other words, "Garbage in/Garbage out" results in shit lying everywhere,...
I consider it to be a case of the eventual slavery of too much freedom. One of the key things to maintaining a somewhat free society is the acknowledgement that nobody is completely free -- you're only as free as your wants don't infringe upon the social contract, and your responsibility is to maintain and discern the balance between your individual freedom and the strength of that social contract, the reality of other people's wants and the infringements upon their freedoms by your wants and vice versa. Of course, this is not popular with the dingbats on either side of the aisle -- because they are both of the same nature (some pigs are more special than others).
ReplyDeleteSo in that regard, and from a constitutional angle, I've always thought DOMA was a poorly conceived and written legal ruling (it was created, I'd almost say, to be struck down) -- but the nitty of the gritty is: the state should put up some roadblocks to the excercise of individual freedom if it could endanger the social contract -- you don't get to just do what you will 24/7/365.
The only religious group that even mentioned that in passing that was noticeable, was the Catholics -- and they got sidetracked/didn't stick with it because it isn't a popular notion. We've become so brainwashed with this notion of liberty/freedom, I can do anything i want that we've forgotten that actually, no, you don't get to do everything you want -- there are responsiblities and restrictions.
The only people who are "completely free" are the dead, who also know total peace as well! (and if you subscribe to a religion that believes in an immortal soul, and most of them do, even death isn't a guarantee that you'll be left alone). And that is also not very popular with people (and of course everything and everyone must remain popular and nice -- to the point of not being up front), so there we have it, and it will likely end badly.
PW
Besides, I would truly question why any gay person would want to be married (it isn't really all about romance and the biggie: sex; in fact, those have little to do with actual day to day working marriages) -- kind of seems a bit foolish imhao. But of course, I'm sure the next round will be redefining "marriage" even more...to make it more "free" and subjected to the whims of the individual...to the point that there is nothing there (just like total freedom means in reality "nothing much there"). Oh well.