Page 94 of 112 FirstFirst ... 44849293949596104 ... LastLast
Results 931 to 940 of 1111

Thread: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

  1. #931
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-17 @ 02:13 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,127

    Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

    Anybody find it ironic the LGBT lawyers argued on Equal Protection and State Rights? The two major positions which lead to the Civil War and the aftermath of it. We can recognize State's rights when it comes to a liberal position but can't on a conservative one? I am confused.

    And if anybody thinks that the DOMA ruling will just effect Federal workers or those States with gay marriage think again. Anybody that receives Federal money will now have to comply. That means School Districts, Cities, and States or they will have to forgo those funds. It's just like the drinking age law the Federal Government has. If you are a State that has drinking age lower the 21, you lose Federal Highway funds.
    Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office. H.L Mencken

  2. #932
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,866
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Texmex View Post
    You evidently don't have a clue about God or the Bible.
    More of a clue than many who go to church every week.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  3. #933
    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 CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Not really... though it depends on how one identifies WHY someone gets married. Problem is that the "why" is rarely addressed.

    Nowadays, people tend to get married because the person they want to marry is the person that they love. In THIS case, the argument that Papa bull makes is a complete failure. Unfortunately, the law doesn't recognize the "why". This is why the equality argument tend to hit a lot of snags. It's dishonest, but logical.
    Love might be why you would get married but it's not the reason the state sanctions it. Love your sister if you want, (in ways that are taboo or otherwise) but you can't marry her and you're not going to make a good case that you should because the interests of the state aren't about whether you love your spouse or not, but whether you are an appropriate biological pairing.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  4. #934
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by austrianecon View Post
    Funny part is it wouldn't have passed if a Senator by the name of Obama wasn't running for President. When 60% of the African-American community supported Prop 8.. it's gonna pass.
    Actually...I don't think that played much of a part at all. Obama actually ran robocalls here asking people to vote against prop8. Voters were more swayed by the Mormon lies that they plastered the airwaves with.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  5. #935
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-17 @ 02:13 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,127

    Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Actually...I don't think that played much of a part at all. Obama actually ran robocalls here asking people to vote against prop8. Voters were more swayed by the Mormon lies that they plastered the airwaves with.
    Sorry, bud.. you had a high African American turnout in 2008. How Proposition 8 passed in California — and why it wouldn’t today
    Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office. H.L Mencken

  6. #936
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,961

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Love might be why you would get married but it's not the reason the state sanctions it. Love your sister if you want, (in ways that are taboo or otherwise) but you can't marry her and you're not going to make a good case that you should because the interests of the state aren't about whether you love your spouse or not, but whether you are an appropriate biological pairing.
    The state sanctions marriage for many reasons, but definitely not just for procreation. And as long as it does sanction it for other reasons, then those groups who fit into those other reasons should fight for their right to enter into marriage. The state then must show a legitimate state interest in denying that group, that only pertains to that group and not others that can already marry, and how it furthers a legitimate state interest, against that pertains to the specific restriction. Exceptions are still legal grounds to counter a restriction.

    And in the case of same sex marriage restrictions, procreation fails as a legal argument for several reasons.

    First, there are no legal requirements to be able to procreate in any marriage laws.

    Second, there are no legal requirements for marriage in order to procreate.

    Third, around 25% of married opposite sex couples where the woman is of childbearing age do not have children, and many of them can't and don't want them. Around 12% of these couples are infertile (and that 12% is set, even if in rare cases some of those will turn up having a flawed diagnosis). Another 10% do not want children and will go out of their way to prevent pregnancy, including any and every birth control method available to them, up to voluntary infertilization.

    Fourth, we allow women past their childbearing ability to marry despite not being able to have children.

    Fifth, there are states that have laws that specifically limit marriage to first cousins only when those first cousins cannot reproduce together. The federal government recognizes all these marriages.

    And last, given all this information, same sex couples would be an extremely small percent of the overall married and would make up way less than any of these other opposite sex couples groups who cannot/do not procreate while married. They would absolutely fit into the "their an exception" and be most likely the smallest groups, in numbers, in the exceptions groups.

    On top of all this, it is plain that the majority of Americans, including heterosexuals and even anti-ssm people do not feel that marriage is truly about procreation since no group has been able to get enough signatures to even start an initiative to limit marriage to only those couples that can procreate. It has been tried. (By both sides)
    "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. #937
    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 state sanctions marriage for many reasons, but definitely not just for procreation.
    That's right, but you can't divorce that primary purpose from the reasoning of marriage without actually redefining it's purpose by disposing of the cornerstone.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  8. #938
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,961

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    That's right, but you can't divorce that primary purpose from the reasoning of marriage without actually redefining it's purpose by disposing of the cornerstone.
    It is not considered important in laws that deny marriage to only those opposite sex couples who can procreate if they are first cousins and want to marry. It is not considered important when it comes to lack of limitations on age of marriage, at least for women. It is not considered important when it comes to procreation that occurs outside of marriage.

    Legally, marriage has already been divorced from procreation, whether you want to recognize this fact or not.
    "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. #939
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    That's right, but you can't divorce that primary purpose from the reasoning of marriage without actually redefining it's purpose by disposing of the cornerstone.
    The primary purpose of the marriage contract is to deal with property and next of kin issues.

  10. #940
    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
    It is not considered important in laws that deny marriage to only those opposite sex couples who can procreate if they are first cousins and want to marry. It is not considered important when it comes to lack of limitations on age of marriage, at least for women. It is not considered important when it comes to procreation that occurs outside of marriage.

    Legally, marriage has already been divorced from procreation, whether you want to recognize this fact or not.
    We'll find out if and when homosexuals successfully get a case in front of the supreme court challenging the actual definition of marriage in states. The PURPOSE of marriage will be hashed out at that time, as well as whether or not the state that sanctions marriage has the right to define it. Don't hold your breath, though, because that's not happening tomorrow.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

Page 94 of 112 FirstFirst ... 44849293949596104 ... 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
  •