Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: DOMA: House Republicans Poised To Spend $3 Million On Legal Defense

  1. #31
    Sage

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

    Re: DOMA: House Republicans Poised To Spend $3 Million On Legal Defense

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    I don't agree with that though, and that's my point. Our entire gov't system is built so that one man cannot rule. When Presidents are allowed to do what Pres Obama is doing and past President's have done, it is totally against the entire premise of our system. The proper way to do it is have the SCOTUS rule it unconstitutional or the Congress repeal it. Yes, it takes longer to do. And yes, DOMA is unconstitutional. But it's the right way to do it. The American people elected idiots into power that did this. They need to elect people that will undo it.
    The President's duty is to enforce the law not necessarily defend a law as a matter of course.

  2. #32
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,735

    Re: DOMA: House Republicans Poised To Spend $3 Million On Legal Defense

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Slavery =/= SSM. Please do not make such an illogical straw man comparison.
    With all due respect, I don't think that was the point he was trying to make. I believe that his claim is that states rights only goes so far. With SSM, it comes down to whether each state gets to decide on it's own, thus making a patchwork of laws that vary from state to state, and therefore putting some marriages in a state of confusion. For example, if a couple gets married in California, then later move to Texas, are they still married? I believe that Article IV Sec. 1 of the Constitution of the United States sheds some light on this quandry:

    Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
    This pretty much says that, if a same sex couple is married in one state, and if that marriage is deemed by the Supreme Court to be Constitutional, then that couple is still married if they move to another state, and must be granted the same privileges in ALL states. Thus, should the Supreme Court decide this issue, one way or the other, then this issue is no longer within the realm of states rights, but is Federal law, which overrides the states.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  3. #33
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,982

    Re: DOMA: House Republicans Poised To Spend $3 Million On Legal Defense

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    With all due respect, I don't think that was the point he was trying to make. I believe that his claim is that states rights only goes so far. With SSM, it comes down to whether each state gets to decide on it's own, thus making a patchwork of laws that vary from state to state, and therefore putting some marriages in a state of confusion. For example, if a couple gets married in California, then later move to Texas, are they still married? I believe that Article IV Sec. 1 of the Constitution of the United States sheds some light on this quandry:
    The way I read it was he was trying to compare not allowing SSM to slavery.

    This pretty much says that, if a same sex couple is married in one state, and if that marriage is deemed by the Supreme Court to be Constitutional, then that couple is still married if they move to another state, and must be granted the same privileges in ALL states. Thus, should the Supreme Court decide this issue, one way or the other, then this issue is no longer within the realm of states rights, but is Federal law, which overrides the states.
    I don't think the full faith and credit clause applies to all state certificates and licenses. A license to drive may be recognized, but states can set their own standards for other things like a license to practice medicine, pharmacy, law, and other such things. Someone may be allowed to have a prescription for marijuana in some states, but another state doesn't have to recognize that either and smoking it there is still illegal regardless of the law and contracts in the other state. I personally don't view SSM as something covered under the clause and I would say using the clause to force all states to recognize SSM from other states is abusing it. Some states allow cousins to get married, those marriages are not forced to be recognized in other states and some state supreme courts have upheld rulings that banned cousin marriages that take place where it is legal does not force the current state to recognize the marriage. To my knowledge there is no SCOTUS ruling that overturns this or forces all states to recognize incest/cousin marriages if they ban them. I have not done extensive research into the issue.

    I've done a little legal research into this and cannot speak with certainty, but it appears that if a state does not specifically ban incestuous marriages the default is to recognize them. If a state does ban the marriage though it does not have to be recognized.
    Last edited by digsbe; 01-17-13 at 12:54 PM.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  4. #34
    Professor
    madman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    So. California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    1,936

    Re: DOMA: House Republicans Poised To Spend $3 Million On Legal Defense

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    The way I read it was he was trying to compare not allowing SSM to slavery.


    I don't think the full faith and credit clause applies to all state certificates and licenses. A license to drive may be recognized, but states can set their own standards for other things like a license to practice medicine, pharmacy, law, and other such things. Someone may be allowed to have a prescription for marijuana in some states, but another state doesn't have to recognize that either and smoking it there is still illegal regardless of the law and contracts in the other state. I personally don't view SSM as something covered under the clause and I would say using the clause to force all states to recognize SSM from other states is abusing it. Some states allow cousins to get married, those marriages are not forced to be recognized in other states and some state supreme courts have upheld rulings that banned cousin marriages that take place where it is legal does not force the current state to recognize the marriage. To my knowledge there is no SCOTUS ruling that overturns this or forces all states to recognize incest/cousin marriages if they ban them. I have not done extensive research into the issue.

    I've done a little legal research into this and cannot speak with certainty, but it appears that if a state does not specifically ban incestuous marriages the default is to recognize them. If a state does ban the marriage though it does not have to be recognized.

    I was not comparing SSM and slavery. I was placing them in the civil rights category.

    Just to be crystal clear:
    SSM is not the same as slavery
    However, they are both a civilright.

  5. #35
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,735

    Re: DOMA: House Republicans Poised To Spend $3 Million On Legal Defense

    For your edification - The top 15 anti-gay activists who got caught having gay sex. And these are just the ones who got caught. How many others are wearing the women's clothing that is in the closets they are hiding in?

    Jesus himself said that you can know ANYTHING by the fruit it bears, and believe me, the anti-gay movement is bearing a whole lot of fruits. Why does DOMA even exist? Easy answer - Because many Republicans hate themselves.
    Last edited by danarhea; 01-18-13 at 03:59 AM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  6. #36
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: DOMA: House Republicans Poised To Spend $3 Million On Legal Defense

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    That is not the issue with DOMA. The issue with DOMA iswhether the federal government can refuse to recognize something a state does and is traditionally states domain.
    Wrong.DOMA says that states don't have to recognize marriages that other states recognize even though the constitution says otherwise
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  7. #37
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,783

    Re: DOMA: House Republicans Poised To Spend $3 Million On Legal Defense

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Wrong.DOMA says that states don't have to recognize marriages that other states recognize even though the constitution says otherwise
    DOMA also says the federal govt will not recognize a legal same-sex marriage certified by a state. Basically, the federal government can just ignore a state's marriage certificate. Hence the opposition on states rights grounds.

  8. #38
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: DOMA: House Republicans Poised To Spend $3 Million On Legal Defense

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    DOMA also says the federal govt will not recognize a legal same-sex marriage certified by a state. Basically, the federal government can just ignore a state's marriage certificate. Hence the opposition on states rights grounds.
    It is really more a full faith and credit issue in the larger context of states' rights. I kind of like that there seems to be a lot of fertile states' rights issues festering out there (just so long as the courts come down on the side of states' rights). The irony is not lost on me that the liberals screaming about national supremacy of most things like gun laws are suddenly states' rights champions but just on this single issue.

  9. #39
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: DOMA: House Republicans Poised To Spend $3 Million On Legal Defense

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    It is really more a full faith and credit issue in the larger context of states' rights. I kind of like that there seems to be a lot of fertile states' rights issues festering out there (just so long as the courts come down on the side of states' rights). The irony is not lost on me that the liberals screaming about national supremacy of most things like gun laws are suddenly states' rights champions but just on this single issue.
    The claim that "gun laws" are a "states rights" issue is delusional. In fact, the whole idea of states having rights is delusional
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  10. #40
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,783

    Re: DOMA: House Republicans Poised To Spend $3 Million On Legal Defense

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    It is really more a full faith and credit issue in the larger context of states' rights. I kind of like that there seems to be a lot of fertile states' rights issues festering out there (just so long as the courts come down on the side of states' rights). The irony is not lost on me that the liberals screaming about national supremacy of most things like gun laws are suddenly states' rights champions but just on this single issue.
    I wasn't the one making the states rights argument, I was explaining what someone else was arguing.

    I oppose DOMA on full faith and credit grounds as well as gender discrimination.
    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.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

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