Page 33 of 112 FirstFirst ... 2331323334354383 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 1111

Thread: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

  1. #321
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,299
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Have gays always been a recognized class? What's the matter? Don't like being called a bigot?
    No they have not. That is irrelevant to whether they are now or not. Until you get a ruling which defines polygamists as a legal class, there is no precedent here that helps recognize polygamy. The opposite in fact. Your calling me a bigot is not going to change the legal realities. You are however entitled to your ignorant opinions.

    SCOTUS did
    Odd. A search of the two rulings on that terms comes back negative...

    Homosexuality was labeled as a mental illness by that same organization until it was only removed for political reasons. Homosexuals are identified by their sexual preferences. There is no gene. Being gay is not a race.
    Your knowledge of history is flawed, unsurprisingly. It was changed due to the results of research. Repeating the same failed definition is not going to make it right. I have not claimed a gay gene nor that being gay was a race, those are just random straw men.
    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.

  2. #322
    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 Deuce View Post
    They didn't say it doesn't mean anything.
    SCOTUS said there is no Federal definition of what marriage is. They sent the issue back to the states.

  3. #323
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    06-05-17 @ 10:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    16,968

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    I don't think so at all. Kennedy clearly said in the opinion that there is no legitimate state interest in limiting marriages to straight only. That is a pretty solid 5 votes for a nationwide ban on laws discriminating against gays. Unless something dramatically occurs on the Supreme Court changing the balance the writing on the wall is clear. Thank God and Obama for saving our Supreme Court.
    What gives me pause on this is they could have voted for a nationwide decision today, so I don't know why the same judges would do so down the road. Just need that pig Scalia off the bench.

  4. #324
    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
    I never said that polygamy was close to same sex marriage. You're making things up.

    Never said it was.

    I didn't say legal. I said Constitutional.

    SCOTUS says there is no Federal definition of marriage. If marriage doesn't mean anything, what does it mean?
    In order for this ruling to apply to polygamy, it has to be close to same sex marriage. You admit it isn't. So your previous assertion is wrong.

    Then procreation has nothing to do with government recognition of marriage. Legally you cannot claim that a law is for a specific purpose, such as procreation, yet the function of that law in no way requires that condition to exist. In fact, some other couples who cannot procreate are allowed to legally marry. And in certain cases, only those who cannot procreate are allowed to marry. This proves that procreation is not legally tied to marriage at all and is not a valid argument for restrictions in marriage, unless the restriction was specifically saying that only those couples who can procreate can legally marry. This is not likely to get approved. Very few people would support such intrusion into a couple's life.

    Which means the state definitions are valid so long as they do not violate the US Constitution.

    Marriage is a legal contract that makes two people legally recognized as "spouse" to each other.
    "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.

  5. #325
    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

    I'm kind of wondering how Utah will react and respond to this.

  6. #326
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    In order for this ruling to apply to polygamy, it has to be close to same sex marriage. You admit it isn't. So your previous assertion is wrong.

    Then procreation has nothing to do with government recognition of marriage. Legally you cannot claim that a law is for a specific purpose, such as procreation, yet the function of that law in no way requires that condition to exist. In fact, some other couples who cannot procreate are allowed to legally marry. And in certain cases, only those who cannot procreate are allowed to marry. This proves that procreation is not legally tied to marriage at all and is not a valid argument for restrictions in marriage, unless the restriction was specifically saying that only those couples who can procreate can legally marry. This is not likely to get approved. Very few people would support such intrusion into a couple's life.

    Which means the state definitions are valid so long as they do not violate the US Constitution.

    Marriage is a legal contract that makes two people legally recognized as "spouse" to each other.
    If the nature of a decision on marriage is one that states marriage as a right that any person in love with another should not be prohibited by the state from marrying, then you have, in fact, opened the door to polygamous marriage. If you're in love, you should be able to marry. That's the argument of the homosexual marriage advocates. That puts plural marriage on equal footing and the fact that it's three people who love each other rather than two shouldn't matter. If you change the definition of marriage to "people who love each other", polygamy is in. If you change it to "any two people" from "one man and one woman", you establish that the definition of marriage must be changed to accommodate people that have deviant love relationships, then polygamy is in.

    If homosexual marriage is mandated by equal rights, polygamy is the next logical step and there's no decision that would force gay marriage that wouldn't also force polygamy. Only by letting states legislate their own marriage laws can we keep things reasonable. Eventually homosexuals will be able to marry in all 50 states, but it will take state legislatures to make it legitimate and to preclude even more perverse changes to the definition of marriage.

  7. #327
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,775

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    There is no gay gene
    1) The genetic aspects of homosexuality, or lack thereof, are not proven. You cannot make an absolute statement like this.
    2) The premise of the statement implies a lack of understanding of genetics. Genes aren't magic on/off switches. It's probable that homosexuality has both genetic and environmental factors.
    3) Why would this even be relevant?


    I'm not the one that labeled it a mental illness until it was removed from the DSM criteria for political reasons.
    You don't know why it was removed, and you dodged the question.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  8. #328
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,775

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    Haven't I made this perfectly clear by now?

    In case it STILL isn't, the purpose of me saying "not everyone" is to say "nobody". I like to think I've made this crystal clear by now, but I guess we have to wait for some people to come around.
    Then say nobody. "Not everybody" implies "some people."
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  9. #329
    Assassin
    Verax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    9,477

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    “At every cross way on the road that leads to the future, each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand men appointed to guard the past.”

  10. #330
    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 Papa bull View Post
    If the nature of a decision on marriage is one that states marriage as a right that any person in love with another should not be prohibited by the state from marrying, then you have, in fact, opened the door to polygamous marriage. If you're in love, you should be able to marry. That's the argument of the homosexual marriage advocates. That puts plural marriage on equal footing and the fact that it's three people who love each other rather than two shouldn't matter. If you change the definition of marriage to "people who love each other", polygamy is in. If you change it to "any two people" from "one man and one woman", you establish that the definition of marriage must be changed to accommodate people that have deviant love relationships, then polygamy is in.

    If homosexual marriage is mandated by equal rights, polygamy is the next logical step and there's no decision that would force gay marriage that wouldn't also force polygamy. Only by letting states legislate their own marriage laws can we keep things reasonable. Eventually homosexuals will be able to marry in all 50 states, but it will take state legislatures to make it legitimate and to preclude even more perverse changes to the definition of marriage.
    The nature of the decision is that the state has no legitimate state interest being furthered by a restriction on marriage based on sex/gender. This is the basis of the decision, which in this case the "state" being the federal government.
    "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.

Page 33 of 112 FirstFirst ... 2331323334354383 ... 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
  •