Page 34 of 112 FirstFirst ... 2432333435364484 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 1111

Thread: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

  1. #331
    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 Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    When the court decides to rule on the unconstitutionality of bans on SSM, and finds such bans unconstitutional, it will not be a blow to states rights since a state never had a right to deny a fundamental right of an individual.
    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.

  2. #332
    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
    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.
    WRONG. The nature of the decision is that the state (federal government) has no legitimate state interest being furthered by overruling the state (as in actual state) definition of marriage.

  3. #333
    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 Deuce View Post
    1) The genetic aspects of homosexuality, or lack thereof, are not proven. You cannot make an absolute statement like this.
    This is true. We don't know if it's genetic or not. The good news is that if it does turn out to be genetic, then we will probably be able to cure it.

  4. #334
    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
    WRONG. The nature of the decision is that the state (federal government) has no legitimate state interest being furthered by overruling the state (as in actual state) definition of marriage.
    They included that they had no legitimate state interest being furthered in overruling those states' definitions where the states were trying to protect their citizens by allowing them to enter into same sex marriages. They didn't address the other states in their ruling, from what I read.
    "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. #335
    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
    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.
    Right. Precedent. Thank you for conceding my point. Bigot.

    Odd. A search of the two rulings on that terms comes back negative...
    Read Kennedy's majority opinion

    DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution
    Didn't say gay. Said person.

    The Constitution's guarantee of equality 'must at the very least mean that a bare con- gressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot' justify disparate treatment of that group
    Didn't specify gays. Specifically a "politically unpopular group" like Polygamists and other multiple marriage group advocates.

    DOMA singles out class of persons deemed by State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty'...
    By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
    Like Polygamists

    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.
    No it wasn't. It was changed for political reasons. When it was removed from the DSM criteria it was not done so because of a scientific breakthrough

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    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?
    There is no gay gene

  6. #336
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    SCOTUS said there is no Federal definition of what marriage is. They sent the issue back to the states.
    Redress parroting the good Cap'n would have you believe your "knowledge of history is flawed", however, as I beat down the good Cap'n with the facts a year or so ago, it appears that Redress' knowledge of history is the one that is flawed.

    Not Sick: The 1973 Removal of Homosexuality from the DSM | Mind of Modernity

    The above link gives you a first-hand, contemporaneous folding of events. I suggest listening to the audio parts I, II.

    A snippet or two..

    … this version of events was discarded anyway. Discarded after the family went on vacation to the Bahamas to celebrate my grandfather’s 70th birthday. I remember it well. I also remember my grandfather stepping out from his beach front bungalow on that first day followed by a small well-built man, a man that later during dinner my grandfather introduced to a shocked family as his lover, David. David was the first of a long line of very young men that my grandfather took up with after my grandmother’s death. It turned out that my grandfather had had gay lovers throughout his life, had even told his wife-to-be that he was homosexual, two weeks before their wedding. And so in 1981 the story that my family told about the definition in the DSM changed dramatically.

    According to Alix Spiegel, from the 40’s through the early 60’s, the APA was a very conservative organization, largely uninterested in “weighing in on the issues of the day.” In her interviews with psychiatrists who were members of the APA in 1970, when the forces behind the definition change began to take shape, she was told that the overwhelming majority of the APA believed that homosexuality was indeed a mental illness – “even the ones of us who were gay,” added Dr. John Fryer.

    While developments in medicine and advances in genetic study and different brain imaging technologies have no doubt increased the importance of being aligned with “science” when it comes to psychiatric debate, this is not a new phenomenon, nor was it new in the ‘70’s. At the same time, stories like this one makes it plain that the progress of certain disciplines may be driven just as much by personal and political factors as it is by actual scientific progress. I wonder if the removal of the homosexuality diagnosis in 1973 wasn’t the beginning of the end for psychoanalysis, as well as the first move towards the more standardized, symptom-based diagnoses of the 1980 DSM-III. This seems reasonable, considering that Robert Spitzer was chairman of the task force responsible for creating the new edition and directed the development of the revised edition published in 1987 (DSM-III-R).

    As the APA prepares for the publication of the DSM-V in 2013, I believe it’s worthwhile to keep this story in mind. Some of the proposed changes seem to have more to do with a desire to remove a stigmatizing label than real “scientific” evidence. And like homosexuality, the pathology of which was for a many years assumed but never proven, the scientific understanding of some of the older DSM diagnoses is not particularly strong. Studying the history of psychiatry can’t necessarily prove or disprove the validity of a diagnosis, but it may help us to remain cautious as we go forward.
    Well, written, and factual. Make of it what you will.


    The truth in summation is that the science used to justify removing homosexuality from the DSM II consisted of ink blot tests, and a sample of 30 individuals that had no internalized homophobia. THAT, is a fact that no one can dispute!


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  7. #337
    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
    They included that they had no legitimate state interest being furthered in overruling those states' definitions where the states were trying to protect their citizens by allowing them to enter into same sex marriages. They didn't address the other states in their ruling, from what I read.
    Exactly. The state was doing what it thought was right for it's citizens and the supreme court saw no reason to overrule them from doing what they thought was right for their citizens. Other states have made other decisions and the supreme court's position as a precedent on this would be not to overturn those decisions, either.

  8. #338
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,267

    Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    yes it did,
    it told me your assumption makes no sense
    and theres no logic to support it

    the final step is equal rights
    It was intended as a commentary on our times.

    Don't you have equal rights now?

  9. #339
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:44 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,293
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Right. Precedent. Thank you for conceding my point. Bigot.
    Well, if refuting is the same as conceding in your world, I can see where you are having all these problems.


    Read Kennedy's majority opinion





    Didn't say gay. Said person.



    Didn't specify gays. Specifically a "politically unpopular group" like Polygamists and other multiple marriage group advocates.





    Like Polygamists
    So not using the term means the term is in there. Well done!



    No it wasn't. It was changed for political reasons. When it was removed from the DSM criteria it was not done so because of a scientific breakthrough
    Prove it. Bet you can't.

    There is no gay gene
    There is no known gay gene. There is possibly a gene or more likely a set of genes that impact orientation, but that is conjecture at this point. Saying there is no gay gene however is unsupportable with current science.
    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.

  10. #340
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,786

    Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    1.)It was intended as a commentary on our times.

    Don't you have equal rights now?
    1.) still made no sense
    2.) depends on how you are asking, im not gay but the answer is no
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

Page 34 of 112 FirstFirst ... 2432333435364484 ... 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
  •