# 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:** 10
**Page:** 4
### Author:  [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2012, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/61 "2012-07-29T00:29:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> 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?
There is a reason these issues go to a high court. The text is ambiguous. High courts don’t take cases that can be ruled by a 10 second reading of the Article.
The text of the UDHR does not say anything about “one man one woman” or same sex marriage, or bigamy, or polygamy. If a question comes up regarding this type of behavior, someone is going to have to interpret. Take the actual text, and decide how it applies to a situation that is not specifically called out in the text.
Are they changing the meaning, or are they simply offering a different interpretation of an ambiguous text?
There’s no reason to think a court that narrowly interprets the law is more correct than a court that broadly interprets it. When the UDHR says “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind” one might think a broad interpretation is more in keeping with the original intent, than the narrowest one possible.
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2012, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/62 "2012-07-29T01:03:09Z")
Well, they wouldn’t get too restrictive, certainly not one man one woman because there are still such Muslims who believe that Mohammed laid down the law, and the law is up to four.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2012, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/63 "2012-07-29T09:09:14Z")
> [@Cyros](#):
>
> 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?
That’s a fair point. Except that presumably there is no question that “arms” are now more powerful than flintlocks and muskets, but the question of “marriage” being expanded is still hotly denied by those who oppose these changes.
Still, I find it very persuasive.
---
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2012, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/64 "2012-07-29T21:52:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> That’s a fair point. Except that presumably there is no question that “arms” are now more powerful than flintlocks and muskets, but the question of “marriage” being expanded is still hotly denied by those who oppose these changes.
>
> Still, I find it very persuasive.
Whether or not any given person supports SSM, there is no question that it _exists_ now.
---
### Author:  [@BigAppleBucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigAppleBucky)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2012, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/65 "2012-07-29T23:09:37Z")
> [@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.
>
> Now [Tam O’shaugnessy](http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/365992/20120723/tam-shaughnessy-oshaughnessy-sally-ride-lesbian-partner.htm), Ride’s partner for over two and a half decades is a very accomplished in her own right and is not in need or anything like that. But of course that’s not the point, she was by Ride’s partner in life and the only difference between her and someone else is stupid DOMA, which completely sucks. Ride was a hero and a role model for this country and yet she isnot afforded the same benefits any other American would have, provided they are straight.
>
> Disgusting.
+1
Totally agree. “ewww” indeed.
---
### Author:  [@BigAppleBucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigAppleBucky)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2012, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/66 "2012-07-29T23:12:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> 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.
So if I can get someone to sell be an atom bomb, it’s OK for me to own it under the second amendment? Just in case the Brits re-invade?
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [July 30, 2012, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/67 "2012-07-30T22:22:07Z")
> [@BigAppleBucky](#):
>
> So if I can get someone to sell be an atom bomb, it’s OK for me to own it under the second amendment? Just in case the Brits re-invade?
No. Because “arms,” means “firearms,” not “armaments,” when used in the Second Amendment.
---
### Author:  [@BigAppleBucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigAppleBucky)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2012, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/68 "2012-07-31T00:11:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> No. Because “arms,” means “firearms,” not “armaments,” when used in the Second Amendment.
Not even a bazooka?
---
### Author:  [@BigAppleBucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigAppleBucky)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2012, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/69 "2012-07-31T16:26:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> No. Because “arms,” means “firearms,” not “armaments,” when used in the Second Amendment.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/p2tQjaK0HfU?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque
Says (in effect) that Stinger missiles may be protected under the 2nd amendment. If you can “bear” them, they’re OK. Cannons are definitely out, however.
---
### Author:  [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2012, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253/70 "2012-07-31T17:36:57Z")
> [@BigAppleBucky](#):
>
> So if I can get someone to sell be an atom bomb, it’s OK for me to own it under the second amendment? Just in case the Brits re-invade?
> [@BigAppleBucky](#):
>
> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player\_embedded&v=p2tQjaK0HfU](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=p2tQjaK0HfU)
>
> Says (in effect) that Stinger missiles may be protected under the 2nd amendment. If you can “bear” them, they’re OK. Cannons are definitely out, however.
If that’s the case, you can [alllllmost](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)) get away with a nuke.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-why-doma-is-the-bullshittiest-piece-of-bullshit/629253.md?page=3)