• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

AGENT J said:
actually AA/EO prevents ALL races from being discriminated against equally :shrug:

if somebody is practicing something that is unfair or doesn't do that they are not practicing AA/EO
but there are already threads here at DP that tackle this issue and prove that
Click to expand...

The law "reads" equal regardless race, but that hasn't been the practice since 1965.

Anyway, I'm part Sioux. And my European ancestors arrived in the late 1600s.

My family has been involved in ALL the history of the USA. And fought in every war including Viet Nam. But none since. Ran out of sons!
 
head of joaquin said:
I don't have to worry about such a narrow view of the Constitution. Society evolves and Constitutional hermeneutics with it. There is no way to avoid that. It's clear to me that soon -- probably sooner than we think -- the SC will rule that the equal protection clause applies generally to gays in matters involving legal rights, including marriage. And the nation will be the better for it. The days when homophobes caught pass discriminatory laws with impunity are numbers, despite Scalia's wish to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that is all too likely true, but has little to do with democracy (other than who gets to appoint the SCOTUS justices). The constitution is quite clear about defining the method for its meaning to be changed - using the amendment process. Simply because the constitution (or an amendment) mentions red, blue and green does not mean that it really meant any color that one can think of, just as we have an ongoing battle over the subtle differences between shall not be infringed and shall not be abridged or denied.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

yobarnacle said:
The law "reads" equal regardless race, but that hasn't been the practice since 1965.

Anyway, I'm part Sioux. And my European ancestors arrived in the late 1600s.

My family has been involved in ALL the history of the USA. And fought in every war including Viet Nam. But none since. Ran out of sons!
Click to expand...

its always been the practice and those practicing something different are breaking the law and not practicing AA/EO
 
Redress said:
Wrong as usual.
Click to expand...

Right as usual

Precedent is precedent

You want mne to quote him not saying something? Well that would be a neat trick. You got started on it since nothing you quoted from him said "marriage equality".
Click to expand...

Kennedy's majority opinion. I guess he's citing the 5th amendment and using words like equality means something else in your world. But hey feel free to grasp onto your semantics if it makes you feel better

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution
Click to expand...

You made the claim. Why am I not surprised you cannot back it up.
Click to expand...

You're the one who made the claim it was removed because of scientific reasons. Back it up then.

Wrong once more. Current science is that there is no known gay gene, not that there is no gay gene. That is a very large, unsubtle difference.
Click to expand...

You can speculate all you like. Current science says there is no gay gene.
 
Bronson said:
You can speculate all you like. Current science says there is no gay gene.
Click to expand...

If the doctors discovered a cure? An inoculation or a patch to wear?

Would gays take advantage of it? :)
 
head of joaquin said:
Expanding civil rights is good for everybody (except closed minded conservatives and tea party types). The Palm Springs tourist bureau is already promoting PS as a destination stop for marriage. More economic growth for California, less for Alabama!
Click to expand...

Like the right to own firearms?
 
I find it fascinating that some find joy in the current ruling by the same organization that said it's a Constitutional right to kill unborn babies for convenience.
 
mac said:
Like the right to own firearms?
Click to expand...

Firearms is a RIGHT.

gay marriage is a LEFT. :)

latin for left handed is sinister.

Therefore, gay marriage is sinister, as are all liberal ideas. :)
 
hfd said:
I find it fascinating that some find joy in the current ruling by the same organization that said it's a Constitutional right to kill unborn babies for convenience.
Click to expand...

Sometimes scotus gets it right sometimes wrong.

Recently, scotus scrapping section of 1965 voting rights bill requiring federal approval of a few states election laws, was GOOD!

State rights wins one!
 
iguanaman said:
The standards of marriage have been modified to include SS couples and nothing else. Any arguments against polygamy and incest that existed before SSM are still valid now. You are making a strawman argument because you have nothing.
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't polygamy be legal? And again, if we are the result of millions of years of evolutionary accidents why should we legalize incest? Other animals are involved in it. They seem to do quite well.
 
Papa bull said:
It must have been really awkward trying to type that clumsy attempt to refute the fact that anyone's sexual acts are dependent upon immutable characteristics. The Loving case is not the same because race is an immutable characteristic and because that immutable characteristic is the only thing that barred the loving marriage from being legal in the state of Virginia. In order to have a parallel, homosexuals will have to prove that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. Good luck proving that.
Click to expand...

Sex, according to many, is just as immutable. You cannot compare the characteristic involved in the restriction in one case with a characteristic not actually involved in the restriction in the other. You have to compare apples to apples, and oranges to oranges. The attraction in the case of the Lovings was just an attraction to a certain type of person. The attraction in the case of Windsor/Perry was just an attraction to a certain type of person. The restriction in the law was based on race in interracial marriage bans and sex/gender in same sex marriage bans.
 
Bronson said:
Right as usual

Precedent is precedent
Click to expand...

Too bad there is no precedent that would count since gays and people who prefer polygamy are different.

Kennedy's majority opinion. I guess he's citing the 5th amendment and using words like equality means something else in your world. But hey feel free to grasp onto your semantics if it makes you feel better
Click to expand...

Nothing he said was "marriage equality" nor would it necessarily apply to polygamists.

You're the one who made the claim it was removed because of scientific reasons. Back it up then.
Click to expand...

Actually I was responding to your claim that it was political, which you have yet to offer any evidence for. Since I can actually document what I claim, unlike you, here: Homosexuality and Mental Health

In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association's membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board's decision was ratified.
Click to expand...

You can speculate all you like. Current science says there is no gay gene.
Click to expand...

No, that is just stupidly wrong. We do not, for example, know what exactly caused life to start and begin down the path of evolution. That does not mean life did not start, which is exactly what your argument is. Not knowing what factors cause something does not mean those factors do not exist. You can say that there is no known gay gene and you would be exactly correct, but you cannot say there is no gay gene without being laughably wrong.
 
hfd said:
I find it fascinating that some find joy in the current ruling by the same organization that said it's a Constitutional right to kill unborn babies for convenience.
Click to expand...

This is why I no longer follow a party platform. I now prefer to deal with individual issues instead.
 
hfd said:
I find it fascinating that some find joy in the current ruling by the same organization that said it's a Constitutional right to kill unborn babies for convenience.
Click to expand...

I find it fascinating that some people bring fetuses up in every discussion. Have to start carrying a coat hanger around to every thread...
 
hfd said:
I find it fascinating that some find joy in the current ruling by the same organization that said it's a Constitutional right to kill unborn babies for convenience.
Click to expand...

Much as I think Roe v. Wade was a poor decision the SC said nothing about a Constitutional right to kill unborn fetuses. And in any event it has nothing to with the matter at hand
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, polygamy existed before gay marriage, and polygamy was ended, in fact outlawed in the US by 3 Federal statutes, for a number of reasons chiefly that polygamy restricted males from finding a female mate, a fact that is not changed today. Gay marriage does not change this reason.

You failed to address this point by joaquin.
Click to expand...

The "point by Joaquin" doesn't exist as a point of Constitutional interest. The availability (or not) of suitable mates is a point on which the Constitution is silent.:mrgreen:
 
hfd said:
I find it fascinating that some find joy in the current ruling by the same organization that said it's a Constitutional right to kill unborn babies for convenience.
Click to expand...
You can kill babies for convenience, but not criminals in self defense.

#libtardlogic
 
Gays can do what they want in the privacy of the bedroom. The problem is they won't let it STAY in the bedroom.

Where in ANY federal or state law is it ok to flaunt sexuality?

Discretion please, and marriage belongs to heterosexuals. Invent something new.

And invent some new words to describe yourself. Rainbow doesn't belong to you, nor gay for that matter. Old Fred Flintstone can't have a gay old time now days.

if you want respect? GIVE SOME!
 
yobarnacle said:
Gays can do what they want in the privacy of the bedroom. The problem is they won't let it STAY in the bedroom.

Where in ANY federal or state law is it ok to flaunt sexuality?

Discretion please, and marriage belongs to heterosexuals. Invent something new.

And invent some new words to describe yourself. Rainbow doesn't belong to you, nor gay for that matter. Old Fred Flintstone can't have a gay old time now days.

if you want respect? GIVE SOME!
Click to expand...
What server do you play on?
 
Kinda late to the party, but here to say: Great Job!
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

It was a bad day to be a bigot in America today.
 
yobarnacle said:
Gays can do what they want in the privacy of the bedroom. The problem is they won't let it STAY in the bedroom.

Where in ANY federal or state law is it ok to flaunt sexuality?

Discretion please, and marriage belongs to heterosexuals. Invent something new.

And invent some new words to describe yourself. Rainbow doesn't belong to you, nor gay for that matter. Old Fred Flintstone can't have a gay old time now days.

if you want respect? GIVE SOME!
Click to expand...

Oh puhlease Barnacle......words belong to no one....and as far as flaunting......heterosexuality is flaunted constantly all across this country. Sorry if it makes you uncomfortable....you are just going to have to learn to get used to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom