For my money, any constitutionally protected right places the burden of proof on the federal government to show the nations highest law is not violated by inferior ones
^Not according to the rational that allowed the SCOTUS to uphold Obamacare. In it Roberts aserts that it is the duty of the court to uphold a law if it is possible under any interpretation. I don"t agree with him, but I am not a SC Justice.
DOMA (and homosexual marriage) is not an equal protections issue, no matter how many people try to claim it is. A hetrosexual and a homosexual have the exact same marriage privledge (it is not a "right" anyways). That is the definition of equal rights.
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM
867 Views
Completely unsurprising since the Justice department refuses to defend the law.
- 18/10/2012 09:05:16 PM
488 Views
For a moment there I thought you were saying the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 09:10:16 PM
533 Views
Do you know if there's a case about DOMA and the "full faith and credit" clause?
- 18/10/2012 10:05:11 PM
593 Views
I don't know offhand, but my gchat friend will. If she pops on again, I'll ask her. But...
- 18/10/2012 10:37:09 PM
612 Views
I asked her about pending cases taking on Section 2. "None that I know of," she answered. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 12:46:21 AM
211 Views
I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM
545 Views
Re: I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 01:18:22 AM
544 Views
Either a ban discriminates against those affected more than those unaffected, or it does not.
- 19/10/2012 03:48:32 PM
434 Views
Gun control laws can equally affect everyone, though, is my point.
- 20/10/2012 10:52:41 PM
534 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it.
- 19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM
580 Views
I just have to note in passing that Ted Olsons memoires will make fascinating reading.
- 19/10/2012 04:44:15 PM
630 Views
Also, hooray! Let's hope SCOTUS adheres (if you use that term over there). *NM*
- 18/10/2012 10:59:14 PM
235 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause
- 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM
678 Views
Not really
- 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM
609 Views
Then by the "legal argument" you all propose I should have the "right" to marry a spoon...
- 19/10/2012 05:48:32 PM
508 Views
if your spoon or dog is capable of making power of attorney decisions then by all means do so *NM*
- 19/10/2012 06:41:43 PM
244 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM
234 Views
provide for us a legal reason why marrying a corporation should be recognized by the US gov't
- 19/10/2012 08:09:08 PM
586 Views
The argument above was that there was no jsutification it should not, thus it should be allowed.
- 19/10/2012 10:57:16 PM
593 Views
you are only offering your own emotional take on a legal decision there is no logic in your posts
- 19/10/2012 11:12:17 PM
496 Views
Wrong. I do not have an emotional stake in this, I am simply using logic. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 03:59:08 PM
248 Views
saying you should be able to marry a spoon or corporation is not logical reasoning. try again *NM*
- 22/10/2012 06:19:29 PM
233 Views
EXACTLY, and that was the point I was making. Congratualtions for figuring that out. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:34:46 PM
215 Views
you are obviously using some humpty dumpty definition of "logic" then *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:40:12 PM
228 Views
No, you apparently failed reading comprehension in school.
- 23/10/2012 03:08:44 PM
516 Views
#1: fuck you. #2: you are still not using logic
- 23/10/2012 05:50:14 PM
479 Views
Ah yes, the fuck you argument... the height of all intelectual persuits... and you call ME emotional
- 23/10/2012 06:47:21 PM
556 Views
i see -- it's ok to be insulting as long as the "f-bomb" is not used. got it.
- 23/10/2012 10:27:54 PM
631 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM
239 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white?
- 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM
471 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully
- 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM
447 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument.
- 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM
472 Views
No, I am not, try reading everything I have written on the subject before jumping to conclusions.
- 22/10/2012 11:41:05 PM
611 Views
It was only a matter of time.
- 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM
523 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion.
- 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM
678 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb.
- 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM
592 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself
- 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM
557 Views
There is no right being denied...
- 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM
521 Views
that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
- 19/10/2012 08:06:54 PM
579 Views
Re: that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
- 19/10/2012 11:11:55 PM
650 Views
nobody is arguing the legal right to marry, they are arguing about the legal rights marriage gives
- 19/10/2012 11:37:14 PM
476 Views
There are no "marriage rights" NONE, zip, ziltch, nada...
- 22/10/2012 04:18:15 PM
539 Views
why bother settling custody in a divorce then if there are no "marriage rights"?
- 22/10/2012 06:38:14 PM
428 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument:
- 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM
548 Views