# Another Reason Why DOMA is the Bullshittiest Piece of Bullshit
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [July 24, 2012, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253 "2012-07-24T16:25:53Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 3
### Author:  [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)
#### Post date: [July 26, 2012, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/41 "2012-07-26T17:23:06Z")
> [@JSexton](#):
>
> Bricker’s not wrong here. We don’t know for a fact that Ride wanted to be married.
I’m surprised they stayed together as long as they did. Can you imagine how annoying it would be if someone preceded everything they said with “In space…”?
---
### Author:  [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)
#### Post date: [July 26, 2012, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/42 "2012-07-26T18:07:04Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#):
>
> I’m surprised they stayed together as long as they did. Can you imagine how annoying it would be if someone preceded everything they said with “In space…”?
Can you imagine going on vacation with Ride…
At the Grand Canyon… “Meh. not impressed.”
The Taj Mahal… “S’ok…I guess.”
Eiffel Tower.. “It’s lovely, I mean…sure, whatever.”
---
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [July 26, 2012, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/43 "2012-07-26T18:15:02Z")
I don’t know. She probably appreciates having a proper toilet more than most.
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [July 26, 2012, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/44 "2012-07-26T18:16:09Z")
If a woman is determined to be a lesbian, couldn’t she at least have the courtesy not to be smart and good looking? I mean, that’s just rubbing it in!
---
### Author:  [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)
#### Post date: [July 26, 2012, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/45 "2012-07-26T20:21:44Z")
> [@BlinkingDuck](#):
>
> Is this the old “I fired a pistol out the window just as a suicide jumper fell by the window and I hit him and killed him…am I guilty of murder/manslaughter” question?
Who cares, we can still get you on “discharging a firearm within city limits”, buster. Also littering if you don’t go and pick up the jumper’s corpse.
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [July 26, 2012, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/46 "2012-07-26T22:00:45Z")
> [@Alice\_The\_Goon](#):
>
> I’ve heard more than one bigot say that the only reason gays want to marry is so that they can “manipulate the system” and get benefits through their partner. For some reason, when straights get benefits through their partners, they’re not manipulating the system.
SAHM: bastion of America
SAHLM: parasite
(I am not criticizing SAHM, ~ SAHM, ~ SAHLM, SAHGD, etc. etc. Just to be clear.)
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [July 26, 2012, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/47 "2012-07-26T22:45:04Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#):
>
> The fact that both spouses happen to be men (or women) doesn’t seem to be addressed at all in the UDHR.
>
> Even your own statement “only protects the rights of men and women to marry” One of the spouses is a man, he has the right to marry. The other spouse is a man, HE has the right to marry. I’m not sure where the disconnect is coming from, they both have the right to marry, they both are consenting adults, they both want to form a family.
This argument was considered and rejected in [Case of Schalk and Kopf v. Austria](http://www.menschenrechte.ac.at/uploads/media/Schalk_und_Kopf_gg_OEsterreich_Urteil_01.pdf) (PDF warning). I quoted from the ruling above.
---
### Author:  [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2012, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/48 "2012-07-27T10:38:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> This argument was considered and rejected
Of course it was. In 30 years, someone will go back to the court, make the same argument, and it’ll be considered and accepted, without anyone changing a single letter of the UDHR.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2012, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/49 "2012-07-27T13:20:20Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#):
>
> Of course it was. In 30 years, someone will go back to the court, make the same argument, and it’ll be considered and accepted, without anyone changing a single letter of the UDHR.
You may well be right.
And while that particular end result is highly desirable, I believe it should also raise the question in your mind: if judges can change the meaning of the UDHR, in such a fundamental way, without the text of the UDHR changing so much as a single letter – then who is really in charge?
---
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2012, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/50 "2012-07-27T14:25:12Z")
Judges changed the meaning of the Second Amendment in an equally fundamental way. The framers could no more have meant for it to apply to a plastic Glock than the drafters of the UDHR meant for Article 12 to apply to a same-sex couple. So, are we back to using flintlock weapons for home defense, or shall we have gay marriage?
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2012, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/51 "2012-07-27T17:43:17Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#):
>
> Judges changed the meaning of the Second Amendment in an equally fundamental way. The framers could no more have meant for it to apply to a plastic Glock than the drafters of the UDHR meant for Article 12 to apply to a same-sex couple. So, are we back to using flintlock weapons for home defense, or shall we have gay marriage?
I’m all for gay marriage.
But I’m not all for changing the meaning of the law by judicial decision.
“Arms” means arms. The language does not limit itself to flintlocks. Changes in technology that make it uncomfortable to extend protection to all arms need to be dealt with by changing the words.
---
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2012, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/52 "2012-07-27T18:42:36Z")
I know you’re not opposed to SSM. The term “marriage” doesn’t limit itself to opposite sex couples, either.
---
### Author:  [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2012, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/53 "2012-07-27T19:42:23Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#):
>
> American Pioneer Sally Ride died yesterday, which totally sucks. You know what else sucks? Sally Rides partner of 27 years cannot receive federal benefits because of the Fucking Defense of Marriage Act, otherwise known as the “Ewww, Gay People!” Act.
You know, I’m for gay rights and all, but if you call it the “Fucking Defense of Marriage Act” then even _I’d_ have to vote for it …
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2012, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/54 "2012-07-27T20:06:22Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#):
>
> I know you’re not opposed to SSM. The term “marriage” doesn’t limit itself to opposite sex couples, either.
True. But the UDHR language says “man and woman.”
---
### Author:  [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2012, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/55 "2012-07-27T20:23:54Z")
> [@Sampiro](#):
>
> In pretty much every thread about gay celebrities on SDMB and other sites, you’re invariably going to get several “I don’t care/who cares if celebrities are gay or straight or other?/I don’t care/know who doesn’t care about a celebrity’s orientation”/I don’t care" comments, and I even understand and to some degree appreciate that many people don’t mean it offensively and are saying it just shouldn’t matter. However, this is why it matters A WHOLE FUCKING LOT to many of us- each openly gay celebrity/famous person, is that much more visibility, and especially when it’s somebody like Sally Ride who has lived a much accoladed life and whose private life seems just as normal save for pronoun as anybody else’s that person just might make the difference in changing the opinion of somebody somewhere out there, and believe you me _every changed mind counts_.
I understand that visibility of public figures who are openly gay matters. If Ride had chosen to make herself such a symbol, it would have been admirable; I’d have joined you in celebrating her for it, as I presume you already joined me in celebrating her as a pioneer for women in space.
But I object to the idea (not in evidence in your post) that a gay person who chooses, without hypocrisy, to live their sexual-romantic life in privacy–to not be a public symbol–has somehow betrayed other gay people. Ride didn’t owe anybody anything.
---
### Author:  [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2012, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/56 "2012-07-27T20:24:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> True. But the UDHR language says “man and woman.”
I read that language as being descriptive of who holds the right and not prescriptive of how the right can be practiced. Can you elaborate on how you see the language of “Men and women have the right to x” can be read as “Men can only do X with women and vice versa”? Otherwise I think that **RNATB** ’s point stands.
---
### Author:  [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2012, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/57 "2012-07-27T20:31:37Z")
> [@Alice\_The\_Goon](#):
>
> I’ve heard more than one bigot say that the only reason gays want to marry is so that they can “manipulate the system” and get benefits through their partner. For some reason, when straights get benefits through their partners, they’re not manipulating the system.
> [@Inigo\_Montoya](#):
>
> This made me giggle. My first marriage was entered into precisely because The Army provided several hundred extra bucks/month (like $500 or so if I recall correctly) as Basic Allowance for Quarters to married soldiers.
> [@Cheesesteak](#):
>
> When it comes to gaming the system, I’m pretty sure a gay man can manage a long distance sham marriage with a gal pal.
Theoretically _anyone_ could manage a sham marriage, DOMA or not. The effective discrimination is against single people who are too honest or too friendless to conspire so.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2012, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/58 "2012-07-27T20:57:05Z")
> [@Cyros](#):
>
> I read that language as being descriptive of who holds the right and not prescriptive of how the right can be practiced. Can you elaborate on how you see the language of “Men and women have the right to x” can be read as “Men can only do X with women and vice versa”? Otherwise I think that **RNATB** ’s point stands.
No, because I have no real idea about what statutory construction rules apply and what caselaw exists in interpreting the UDHR. The reviewing Court’s language is unhelpful; they simply say that they “… examined whether the right to marry granted to “men and women” under the Convention could be applied to the applicants’ situation,” and found that , “…the Court’s case-law according to which the Convention had to be interpreted in present-day conditions did not allow the conclusion, drawn by the applicants, that Article 12 should be read as obliging member States to provide for access to marriage for same-sex couples.”
It does seem odd to mention men and women, rather than simply saying all people, if your intent is extend to anyone the right to marry anyone. But again, I don’t know how the rules work; presumably the European Court of Human Rights does.
---
### Author:  [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)
#### Post date: [July 28, 2012, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/59 "2012-07-28T00:44:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> No, because I have no real idea about what statutory construction rules apply and what caselaw exists in interpreting the UDHR. The reviewing Court’s language is unhelpful; they simply say that they “… examined whether the right to marry granted to “men and women” under the Convention could be applied to the applicants’ situation,” and found that , “…the Court’s case-law according to which the Convention had to be interpreted in present-day conditions did not allow the conclusion, drawn by the applicants, that Article 12 should be read as obliging member States to provide for access to marriage for same-sex couples.”
>
> It does seem odd to mention men and women, rather than simply saying all people, if your intent is extend to anyone the right to marry anyone. But again, I don’t know how the rules work; presumably the European Court of Human Rights does.
I do take exception to the intimation that because the document makes separate mention of men and women that it in any way implies that men can only marry women and vice versa. Certainly the only protected classes in Article 16 are race, nationality and religion so that does seem to leave it up to the individual state whether to allow same sex marriage and is a strong argument that the UDHR does not treat same sex marriage as a universal right. It also allows countries to limit marriage based on height, hair colour, salary, etc.
I would read it to indicate that if a country does offer same sex marriage to one sex it must offer it to the other as well and cannot view any rationale to indicate that because men and women are mentioned separately it is indicative that they can only marry each other.
With all that said, **RNATB** ’s point remains. Just as “arms” is not a static description, locked in time, neither is “marriage”. Understandings of the concept represented change. If the change is heading someplace undesirable, then just as it would be necessary to rewrite the 2nd amendment to replace “arms” with a more limited concept would it not be necessary to rewrite marriage law to replace the expanding concept of marriage with the more limited concept that anti SSM advocates prefer?
---
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [July 28, 2012, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/60 "2012-07-28T02:14:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> True. But the UDHR language says “man and woman.”
It says “men and women”. Given the history of repression of women in many states, it seems obvious to me that this has less to do with the identity of the partners and more to do with acknowledging that women get to marry freely too.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253.md?page=2)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253.md?page=4)