Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Editorial

Journal frankie's Journal: Weasels of Marital Destruction 16

Journal by frankie
I guess this is a couple months late, since the whole DoM Amendment thing appears to have faded away (much to the relief of Congress, who really didn't want to go there). But here it is anyways.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Clinton, allows states to reject certain marriage licences issued by other states. In other words, an exception to the "Full Faith and Credit" clause. While this is a fine symbol of support for state's rights, it doesn't go nearly far enough. Hence, I present DOM2:

The Wholesome Marriage Defense Act

Each state has the right to reject all (or none at all) marriages performed in any state, territory, or foreign nation where any of the following conditions apply:

  1. couples may marry while drunk, high, or otherwise impaired
  2. laws so lax that Michael Jackson was allowed to marry
  3. the remote state does not require premarital medical tests, but the home state does
  4. the remote state does not require premarital counseling, but the home state does
  5. the remote state does not require a premarital waiting period, but the home state does

etc...

The "Pro-Marriage" campaign was just plain absurd. Their arguments often referred to horrible examples of moral decay among heterosexuals as reasons to ban gay marriage. Huh? If you say you want to defend the sanctity of marriage, then you should damn well defend the sanctity of marriage.

That's about it. More timely discussions will be coming real soon now.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Weasels of Marital Destruction More

Weasels of Marital Destruction

Comments Filter:
  • Why are we talking about the feds or the states marrying anyone in the first place? This doesn't seem to be a necessary function of the state. I'd say no state or government should even recognize any marriage for the purposes of the law, residency, inheretance or otherwise.
    • Most interesting. A topic on which Mr Kawk fails to lick Bush's ass, but instead agrees with me. Indeed, I like the Libertarian position on marriage [google.com]. Government should either end the marriage racket [nolo.com], or allow any committed couple to play by the same rules.

      However, Mikey, a question for you. Let's say you're brought to the hospital unconscious, probably dying, and with no advance directives. The doctors tell your grandparent, your least-favorite sibling, and your spouse these options:

      1. agressive surgery
      • Well, since the government shouldn't recognize me as having a spouse I would say the correct answer is....

        Ding ding ding! That's right kids whomsoever I name as having power of attorney! This could be almost anyone in the world and really should be part of everyone's larger plan for their lives if they are married or not. Your qualifier that I would have no advance directives is silly because EVERYONE should have advance directives. It should be required when you register for selective service and a
        • So, from you I've seen this one Libertarian position, a bunch of hating on welfare recipients & college kids, and a "neocon" foreign policy. But what's your angle on social issues -- gay rights, school prayer, tobacco, marijuana, etc?
          • It took you four days to write that? Congrats, you defintely have it going on upstairs. It took you so long to write that reply I had actually stopped checking to see if you had.

            Care to quote my foreign policy? Or did you just decide what it is because I made fun of some college kids. There is no such thing as neocon anyway. Its a made-up word like homophobe to assign a devil quality to certain beliefs. Of course if one doesnt recognize them as actual words, they have no meaning and no effect.

            Am
            • is no such thing as neocon anyway. Its a made-up word

              Apparently you missed the "quotation marks". New words are made-up by definition (e.g. "slashdotted"), but they still have accepted meanings [google.com].

              Am I socially conservative? Damn right. The feds needs to stay out of social issues.

              That policy is a good one, but it's called Libertarian. "Socially conservative" is a well-defined term for the 1950s morality crowd, and you claiming otherwise doesn't make it so. If your social policy is more Libertarian [self-gov.org] than

              • Wow, you know how to use quotations, good for you. I don't really see the point to your need to label everything, especially me. I don't fit into a little box as well as you do. Im not a libertarian or conservative. I look at each issue individually and figure out my stance. I don't need to lean on one blanket way of thinking to help me get through this world.

                I still refuse to acknowledge anything called "gay rights". Are these special rights for gay people earned by being gay? Clearly that is stu
                • I don't fit into a little box as well as you do.

                  And if you were the kind of person who were at all interested in other people's points of view, you'd know that my political [geocities.com] preferences [geocities.com] don't fit whatever box you think I'm in.

                  Im not a libertarian or conservative.

                  Which matches oh so nicely with your quote "Am I socially conservative? Damn right" from exactly one message ago. It's the Ari Fleischer Fan Club.

                  I look at each issue individually and figure out my stance.

                  Yeah, you and Bill O'Reilly, fre [itscwrestling.com]

                  • When did I bash "liberals"? Still havent pointed it out. I bashed specific liberals for their individual points of view and more specifically their method of disseminating that view. Its really fun. You should try it some time. My current journal is making fun of some out and out hypocrites. Stop the war! Violence solves nothing! Shoot the VP! Idiots.

                    As for me not being conservative...see you still can't get your square little head around it. I said Im socially conservative, but I have plenty o
                    • I'm going away for the weekend, don't have time to write a full rebuttal. Replying to two of your cop-outs:

                      1: that the Wiki is outdated and false. Fine, whatever. Here's a reference, dated 2004, from Nolo.com, with content provided by licensed lawyers [nolo.com]. If you are unwilling to accept their statements, I guess we have nothing to talk about. Bye.

                      2: "government should have no involvement". Cop-out. Given that government DOES have involvement in marriage, should they include gays? Why are you unwilling to a

                    • 1. Wow, could that website be more slanted? It sure looks like they have quite a few books to sell. Lawyers are very clever. Notice how the keep using the term spouses. This is because one can provide all of those benefits to anyone, but certain groups want you to believe they are only available to spouses. Picking those apart one by one, its easy to see that website is just about creating fear and selling books. You are still being lied to. Its just political posturing. Don't believe the hype. Mor
                    • The weirdest thing is ... we roughly agree about this topic. Marriage should be religious rather than secular, and government should stay out of religion, therefore government should stay out of marriage.

                      However, the facts are that 90+% of USians (and 99+% of elected officials) want the government involved in marriage. I respond to reality by considering what gradual improvements might move us in the right direction. You respond by saying only total abolition of marriage laws is good; any other option is

                    • Sorry, didn't have time for you over the weekend, son. Your reintroduction to reality continues now.

                      I respond to reality by considering what gradual improvements might move us in the right direction. You respond by saying only total abolition of marriage laws is good; any other option is not even worth thinking about.

                      Geez kid, thats the best you can do even after resorting to paraphrasing? How does making MORE kinds of marriage legal move us in the right direction? That would seem to move in exact
                    • move in exactly the WRONG direction. God youre a true idiot.

                      Excellent, you finally admit that you *do* have a position on gay unions, and established that you were lying when you weaseled out the first four times I asked [slashdot.org] for your view:

                      Thats the totality of my position. I would prefer the government stay out of religion. I will accept no less. Its not a cop-out, I am just not willing to sacrifice my beliefs for the less of two evils.

                      Meanwhile, you failed to answer my other question: given that he supp

Slashdot Top Deals

Surprise due today. Also the rent.

Close