If there's a god, damn it she won't mind.
If there's a god, baby she won't mind.
However, again, this ruling places the right to define marriage firmly with the States. Putting aside the Courts' willingness to interpose its' "sense of the nation" in lieu of actual law, I think it makes a "therefore the national government in the form of this Court must strike down State decisions if they happen to be ones we disagree with" argument more difficult.
“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”
- Alexander Hamilton. Spiritual father of #NeverTrump
There's a reason that this sort of remark doesn't belong in rigorous and reasonable debate. Let me show you why: your reply is just conservative (libertarian/green party/socialist/fascist/whatever) BS.Originally Posted by Dapper Andy
I can type that sort of thing all day. So can you. So can anybody. It's cheap, it plays on people's prejudices and emotions, and doesn't add anything to the conversation.
I disagree. Acting to restrict what people can and cannot do implies an ought. If I restrict people from, say, owning monkeys, I am implying that people ought not to own monkeys.Originally Posted by Dapper Andy
No doubt. But that's irrelevant.Originally Posted by Dapper Andy
And why doesn't he? If he doesn't, there is an implied ought, and a moral dimension to the issue.Originally Posted by Dapper Andy
I'm curious how you'd support this point. It seems that you're saying that the law was struck down purely to grant uneven privileges to liberal groups. If that's your point, I'd like to see how you argue for it. If it isn't, please clarify.Originally Posted by Dapper Andy
The prop 8 ruling, from my limited reading, seems a strange mix of increasing the power of the states at the expense of the CITIZENS, not the federal government as is usually the case. Essentially, and I may be reading this wrong, it seems to be suggesting that if a referendum is passed that the state government doesn't like and the new law is found to be "unconstituional" by a lower level court then that's the end of it. Citizens have no further recourse to appeal the courts ruling without somehow showing that not enforcing their justly voted for law directly harms them.
I'm honestly unsure how I really feel about that. In general, I am in favor of state rights...but this is generally at the expense of the federal government. The notion of referendums is there specifically for rare instances where the elected figures are so far out of line with the desires of the population in a particular form that the population rises up to speak themselves. Allowing only a single level of judicial challenge being needed to overturn the will of the people in a general sense seems to be a somewhat questionable action.
As asked/answered on SCOTUSblog, anyone with a state recognized marriage can file joint federal tax forms. Not sure what % of additional tax forms would apply to this, but it should reduce the tax burden.
Eventually, America gets it right. Despite those who oppose individual liberty, eventually we somehow arrive.
We seen them opposing the rights of women to vote. They lost.
We seen them opposing civil and voting rights to African Americans. They lost.
We seen them burning Beatle records and cursing rock and roll as devil music. They lost.
They will continue to lose because that's what losers do. Lose.
Congratulations America. Good to see the quest for freedom is still alive and well in our nation.
It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.
Women (Nasty or otherwise) are going to be the reason that Donald Trump is NEVER President!
"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.