Page 30 of 112 FirstFirst ... 2028293031324080 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 1111

Thread: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

  1. #291
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    They can run with it all they want. In fact, marriage being opposite sex only never stopped them from trying to challenge the number of spouses a person could legally have. The cases will still come down to what the legitimate state interest the state can show it has for that particularly restriction in marriage. For same sex marriage it was a restriction on sex/gender and the Court ruled that maintaining this restriction was not, in itself, a legitimate state interest essentially. However, the restriction involved in polygamy is on number of spouses any person can have and the state arguments have centered on much more than simply "this is how its always been" or something of this nature. Instead, the state has said that there are much more legitimate reasons to restrict how many people can be legally defined as another's spouse. Since other contracts allow for such a restriction on how many people are involved, there is no reason to believe that this will not hold up for marriage, where that restriction is instrumental in how the current laws of marriage operate. No other contracts are limited based on gender/sex.
    The argument can be made that Polygamy is closer to real marriage than Gay Marriage. Both are sham marriages however. In a Polygamist marriage, the union is still man + woman, you're just adding a (s). Children can still be conceived and born naturally without some Frankenstein science experiment. I see a lot of people cheering this decision, but Gay Marriage was not made Constitutional today. The defense of marriage act merely made the Federal definition of recognized marriage man + woman, as the definition has been known since the beginning of mankind. The oligarchy of black robes merely said marriage can mean anything because there is now no US Federal Definition of what marriage means. Has nothing to do with gays specifically.

    I'm laughing my a** off watching liberals call people bigots while making the case that we should restrict marriage equality from people who want to marry more than one person. "Marriage Equality" apparently only applies to liberal approved sexual interest groups. Anyone else who wants in on marriage equality to justify who/what they want to marry are still second class citizens. What legitimate reason would a state have to ban polygamy? This DOMA case was brought to the court because of a tax issue. Why should polygamy and group marriage be illegal? Why can't fathers marry adult sons? Sisters marry sisters?

  2. #292
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    Um, I want no rewards for anyone.
    Do you want spouses to automatically inherit their dead spouses' property upon death, in such instances as there is no written will?
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  3. #293
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Wishful thinking, I know.

    Best feasible scenario, this strike ends the marriage talk on the federal level. If a state votes to adopt SSM, I'm good with it. I am just tired of hearing Washington get involved, for weal or woe.

  4. #294
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Gays are recognized as a class of people by the court. Polygamists not so much. Name calling from ignorance is going to fail.
    Based upon their sexual behavior. Same as polygamists. "Marriage Equality" only applies to your pre approved list of sexual interest groups? Bigot


    You are making **** up now.
    You're the one insinuating they don't deserve "marriage equality". Bigot.

    Wrong again. You can be gay and celibate. You can be gay and have sex with people of the opposite sex.
    Homosexuals are identified by their sexual behavior and sexual preferences. Now you're basically claiming there is no such thing as gay people.

  5. #295
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Do you want spouses to automatically inherit their dead spouses' property upon death, in such instances as there is no written will?
    Absolutely not. Intestate law, as a whole, has huge gaping holes in it.

  6. #296
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    The argument can be made that Polygamy is closer to real marriage than Gay Marriage. Both are sham marriages however. In a Polygamist marriage, the union is still man + woman, you're just adding a (s). Children can still be conceived and born naturally without some Frankenstein science experiment. I see a lot of people cheering this decision, but Gay Marriage was not made Constitutional today. The defense of marriage act merely made the Federal definition of recognized marriage man + woman, as the definition has been known since the beginning of mankind. The oligarchy of black robes merely said marriage can mean anything because there is now no US Federal Definition of what marriage means. Has nothing to do with gays specifically.

    I'm laughing my a** off watching liberals call people bigots while making the case that we should restrict marriage equality from people who want to marry more than one person. "Marriage Equality" apparently only applies to liberal approved sexual interest groups. Anyone else who wants in on marriage equality to justify who/what they want to marry are still second class citizens. What legitimate reason would a state have to ban polygamy? This DOMA case was brought to the court because of a tax issue. Why should polygamy and group marriage be illegal? Why can't fathers marry adult sons? Sisters marry sisters?
    So then your original premise is very wrong, since you are now trying to say that polygamy was already close to opposite sex marriage. They would have already had standing.

    Procreation is not a requirement of marriage in the US. (You wouldn't happen to be arguing on Yahoo too, would you? Because I have only seen it twice, but it has happened twice today, someone making a horrible comparison between Frankenstein and IVF/surrogacy.)

    No, same sex marriage was not made legal today. It happened years ago, for the US back when Massachusetts became the first state to allow same sex couples to marry.

    But no, the SCOTUS did not say that marriage could mean anything. You are trying to misrepresent what was actually said in their ruling.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  7. #297
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,316
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Based upon their sexual behavior. Same as polygamists. "Marriage Equality" only applies to your pre approved list of sexual interest groups? Bigot
    Wrong. You can deny court rulings all you want and call names to those less ignorant than yourself, but it won't change the fact that gays are a recognized class, polygamists are not.

    You're the one insinuating they don't deserve "marriage equality". Bigot.
    I do not use the term marriage equality.

    Homosexuals are identified by their sexual behavior and sexual preferences. Now you're basically claiming there is no such thing as gay people.
    Wrong: Sexual orientation, homosexuality and bisexuality
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  8. #298
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Based upon their sexual behavior. Same as polygamists. "Marriage Equality" only applies to your pre approved list of sexual interest groups? Bigot

    You're the one insinuating they don't deserve "marriage equality". Bigot.

    Homosexuals are identified by their sexual behavior and sexual preferences. Now you're basically claiming there is no such thing as gay people.
    You are completely wrong. Marriage is not about sexual behavior. It is about two people wanting to become legal recognized spouses for their relationships and the agreements they are making to each other.

    Marriage restrictions that have been struck down did not limit homosexuals from getting married. It limited anyone from marrying a person of their same gender. This is an arbitrary restriction that can in no way be shown to further a legitimate state interest. Restrictions on numbers of spouses have so far held up as furthering a legitimate state interest. Prior to this, same sex restrictions had not been ruled on by the SCOTUS, number of spouse restrictions have.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  9. #299
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    Loving only shot down the prohibition of interracial marriage.
    No, not only, again the court stated that marriage is a basic, fundamental right.

    Okay, let me come at this another way - I'll be happy when marriage is, in no way, federally recognized or encouraged through financial benefits.
    That is changing the topic, from marriage being a right....to federal tax policy and survivor benefits, to say nothing of contract law whether at the state or federal level.

    Everyone should have a "right" to get married. Not everyone should be rewarded to do so.
    Well, that flies in the face of our society.....which is reflected in our laws.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  10. #300
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    So a ruling which says that the federal government has to respect what a state does in terms of marriage is somehow trampling on states rights?
    By his suggestion that this isn't the end point, it seems he's basing his statement and view of the ruling off the same one as Your Star...assuming that all this does is set up the next court case to come in and tell all states that they must acknowledge and treat equally the marriage that occurs in another state that wouldn't have occured in their own...which he seems to be suggesting is a trampling of state rights by essentially forcing every state to adhere to whatever standard any particular state wishes to set.

    Based on that sort of logic, I can kind of get the point...it's kind of a "two steps forward, one step back" type of thing or losing a battle to win the war. That the ruling itself doesn't directly trample states rights, but lays the clear and present pathway that will likely be used shortly to trampled said state rights.

    Not sure I really agree, but can at least see the logic behind it.

Page 30 of 112 FirstFirst ... 2028293031324080 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •