- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,075
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban
1.) no problem
2.) yes i would agree that some case precedence wouldnt be perfectly parallel
3.) correct just like the right not to be raped is not enumerated by the constitution
4.) that is your right, im sure theres things we could find that i would agree with the court either
5.) well I think they definitely have a place in it because theres no other way to protect it, I want the government protecting me and my family. But where i do agree with you is that what they should never have done is had some of the restrictions they had/have.
6a.) this is impossible IMO and i would never want this, I want them protecting me and my family.
How would the about 1200 fed rights/benefits be protected and the additional state ones be protected
6b.) this i agree, the history, laws, rights and court cases are already there for the support
7.) agree
8.) you're welcome.
1.)Yes, thanks Agent J.
2.)There are a few in there, like Moore vs CIty of East Cleveland that dont really apply but most do.
3.) Marriage is not a right enumerated in the Constitution but the courts have categorized it under other rights and protections.
4.) I dont agree with many of the court's interpretations on marriage and cant even tell what they were ruling on for those cases but I can look them up. The precedence is there.
5.) I agree with much of that personally, dont really agree that the govt has a place in it BUT it does support my position on SSM.
6A.) OTOH, I still think that a) the state & fed govt should stay out of marriage completely and
b) the issue can stand on equal rights and discrimination alone.
7.) Which for the sake of (IMO) truly being Constitutional, that is the way it should go.
8.) Thanks.
1.) no problem
2.) yes i would agree that some case precedence wouldnt be perfectly parallel
3.) correct just like the right not to be raped is not enumerated by the constitution
4.) that is your right, im sure theres things we could find that i would agree with the court either
5.) well I think they definitely have a place in it because theres no other way to protect it, I want the government protecting me and my family. But where i do agree with you is that what they should never have done is had some of the restrictions they had/have.
6a.) this is impossible IMO and i would never want this, I want them protecting me and my family.
How would the about 1200 fed rights/benefits be protected and the additional state ones be protected
6b.) this i agree, the history, laws, rights and court cases are already there for the support
7.) agree
8.) you're welcome.