 |
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Mar 27, 2013, 11:04 AM
|
|
The left I'm sure loves federalism today. Kennedy also asked the admin lawyers how they decided which laws to defend.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Mar 27, 2013, 11:28 AM
|
|
Yes ,I hear Roberts too was particularly peeved over how the administration decides which laws it chooses to defend and enforce.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Mar 27, 2013, 11:31 AM
|
|
This from SCOTUS blog
There did not appear to be a majority of Justices willing to strike down the 1996 law based on the argument that the Obama administration and gay rights advocates have been pressing: that is, the law violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee of legal equality in general.
If the House GOP leaders' lawyer had trouble on Wednesday, so did the federal government's lawyer, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. who was pushing for a wide-ranging ruling that might have the potential to outlaw any ban on same-sex marriage. It was not apparent that Verrilli was making much headway with his argument that any law that treats gays and lesbians less favorably, because of their sexual identity, should have to satisfy a stricter constitutional test.
The Court, although it has been dealing with gay rights cases for years, has never spelled out a specific constitutional standard for judging laws that allegedly discriminate based on sexual orientation. The indications on Wednesday were that the DOMA case might be decided without supplying such a standard, since a decision based on interference with states' prerogatives would not require the creation of a test based on equality principles.
Argument recap: DOMA is in trouble (FINAL UPDATE) : SCOTUSblog
|
|
 |
Uber Member
|
|
Mar 28, 2013, 05:35 AM
|
|
Hello again,
Whatever they base their decision that DOMA is unconstitutional, what becomes clear is that homosexuals HAVE constitutional rights and they CAN'T be voted away. The CONGRESS can't vote them away, and neither can the states.
I've been saying that for decades..
excon
PS> What I want to know is this.. After prop 8 is struck down, and gay marriage WILL be legal in California, what happens to a legally married California couple who moves to Texas?
|
|
 |
Uber Member
|
|
Mar 28, 2013, 05:37 AM
|
|
 Originally Posted by excon
Hello again,
Whatever they base their decision that DOMA is unconstitutional, what becomes clear is that homosexuals HAVE constitutional rights and they CAN'T be voted away. The CONGRESS can't vote them away, and neither can the states.
I've been saying that for decades..
excon
PS> What I wanna know is this.. After prop 8 is struck down, and gay marriage WILL be legal in California, what happens to a legally married California couple who moves to Texas?
Then Polygamists have the Constitutional right to marry as many women as they want too... because if you can't define WHO can marry who... you can't define how many can marry each other... or that a mother can't marry her son either...
Then the Cat women marry their cats... etc... etc... after all if you make is a RIGHT... you can't deny ANYONE their right...
Even for a 61 year old man to marry an 8 year old girl... Oh wait... they do that in the Muslim world don't they.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Mar 28, 2013, 05:39 AM
|
|
 Originally Posted by excon
Hello again,
Whatever they base their decision that DOMA is unconstitutional, what becomes clear is that homosexuals HAVE constitutional rights and they CAN'T be voted away. The CONGRESS can't vote them away, and neither can the states.
I've been saying that for decades..
excon
PS> What I wanna know is this.. After prop 8 is struck down, and gay marriage WILL be legal in California, what happens to a legally married California couple who moves to Texas?
That was always why a national law like DOMA was needed . Now the next challenge is based on the 'full faith and credit' clause.
|
|
 |
Uber Member
|
|
Mar 28, 2013, 05:47 AM
|
|
Hello smoothy:
I'll address the expected right wing claptrap. You DID leave off the sicko who wants to screw little children. HE has rights too, doesn't he?
IF the polygamists, as a GROUP, can show where their Constitutional rights have been trampled on, then I'll SUPPORT them too, just like I support ANY group who's Constitutional rights have been withheld.
Uhhh, I'm not going to address the stupidity that a person now has a right to marry his horse, or people can start screwing children...
excon
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Mar 28, 2013, 05:51 AM
|
|
Uhhh, I'm not going to address the stupidity that a person now has a right to marry his horse, or people can start screwing children...
Because it is not a logical argument to this debate . But polygamy ,and other issues between consenting adults are wide open . If you have the "right " to "marry " anyone you want to then why the number restrictions ? Why the age of consent issues ? Why is incest off the table ? Clearly the state does have the power to define restrictions that impinge on "rights " or all these issues would be on the table.
|
|
 |
Uber Member
|
|
Mar 28, 2013, 05:52 AM
|
|
 Originally Posted by excon
Hello smoothy:
I'll address the expected right wing claptrap. You DID leave off the sicko who wants to screw little children. HE has rights too, doesn't he??
IF the polygamists, as a GROUP, can show where their Constitutional rights have been trampled on, then I'll SUPPORT them too, just like I support ANY group who's Constitutional rights have been withheld.
Uhhh, I'm not gonna address the stupidity that a person now has a right to marry his horse, or people can start screwing children...
excon
Hey.. if it's a Constitutional riught... you can't Deny it to anyone... Mothers HAVE to be allowed to Marry Sons... And Fathers their daughters, and you Can't deny the right of Polygamists... or even the right for cat women to marry their cats... because marriage would nop longer be defines as between a man and a woman as it has since before recorded History began.
|
|
 |
Internet Research Expert
|
|
Mar 28, 2013, 05:57 AM
|
|
 Originally Posted by excon
IF the polygamists, as a GROUP, can show where their Constitutional rights have been trampled on, then I'll SUPPORT them too, just like I support ANY group who's Constitutional rights have been withheld.
excon
Ok, lets just look at this point for a sec. We have a right to religious freedom in this country. So followng that line of thinking if you're a muslim or morman of the sect that practices polygamy then you are being denied your right to religiouse freedoms if your not allowed to marry more then one person.
That shows both harm and intent with the law if it were to change. When states and governments set up laws they set them up so there are definitions and boundries as to what can go on. The State has a vested interest in a married couple (being man and woman) because of procreation aspect. Its not about making mandatory that children must be born. Its about the institution of marriage.
|
|
 |
Uber Member
|
|
Mar 28, 2013, 06:00 AM
|
|
Hello again, tom:
If you have the "right " to "marry " anyone you want to then why the number restrictions ?
IF the polygamists, as a GROUP, can show where their Constitutional rights have been trampled on, then I'll SUPPORT them too, just like I support ANY group who's Constitutional rights have been withheld.
Excon
|
|
 |
Uber Member
|
|
Mar 28, 2013, 06:12 AM
|
|
Rights are rights... if they are a RIGHT... then every group has them and you can't discriminate between anyone wanting to exercise them.
Why not toss out Incest laws and Pedophilia laws too... hell why not legalize Heroin and Meth... just because some people think they should have the RIGHT to do it.
|
|
 |
Expert
|
|
Mar 28, 2013, 06:26 AM
|
|
You are not against a right of the citizens having reasonable common sense boundaries of good behavior are you? When common sense catches up to what's reasonable you may see change but I wouldn't run out and buy your horse an engagement ring just yet, or score a bag of heroin from an unlicensed dealer through a key hole.
I am not against you beasty boys petitioning the courts for the right to marry your beloved pet or farm friend. GO FOR IT!
|
|
 |
Uber Member
|
|
Mar 28, 2013, 06:56 AM
|
|
 Originally Posted by talaniman
You are not against a right of the citizens having reasonable common sense boundaries of good behavior are you? When common sense catches up to whats reasonable you may see change but I wouldn't run out and buy your horse an engagement ring just yet, or score a bag of heroin from an unlicensed dealer thru a key hole.
I am not against you beasty boys petitioning the courts for the right to marry your beloved pet or farm friend. GO FOR IT!
We HAD common sense and boundries... its the left that's trying to take them down... they have been up for thousands of years...
Now don't try and pretend if its not fair to keep it the way its ALWAYS and literally ALWAYS been... then whine that you can allow same sex marriage and discriminate against heterosexual marriage... where polygamy actually has existed throughout time... and still does in parts of the world.
|
|
 |
Uber Member
|
|
Mar 28, 2013, 07:35 AM
|
|
Hello again, wingers:
Tell me, how does all this liberalism happen in a center right country?
Exocn
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Mar 28, 2013, 07:38 AM
|
|
How often has gay marriage been passed in a ballot ?
|
|
 |
Expert
|
|
Mar 28, 2013, 12:35 PM
|
|
The rights of a minority should never be left to the vote of a majority.
|
|
 |
Uber Member
|
|
Mar 28, 2013, 12:42 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by talaniman
The rights of a minority should never be left to the vote of a majority.
Marraage isn't a "RIGHT" and it never has been.
|
|
 |
Expert
|
|
Mar 28, 2013, 12:48 PM
|
|
Then not allowing them to marry makes no sense and is a blatant form of discrimination, and open bigotry.
They do have a right to the pursuit of happiness, and is within reason under law.
|
|
 |
Uber Member
|
|
Mar 28, 2013, 12:55 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by talaniman
Then not allowing them to marry makes no sense and is a blatant form of discrimination, and open bigotry.
They do have a right to the pursuit of happiness, and is within reason under law.
Oh get real... they have NO right to getting married... any more than a serial wife beater has a RIGHT to get married... or an incestuous parent to marry one of their children... or for Polygamists to marry as many as they want or can afford.
Nobodies denying them a right to happiness... exactly where does getting married guarantee anyone happiness, and not being married prevent it... I guarantee you every married person here is laughing hysterically over that one...
|
|
Question Tools |
Search this Question |
|
|
Add your answer here.
View more questions
Search
|