Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb.
HyogaRott Send a noteboard - 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM
It would be much more logical to join the religious argument about marriage instead of opposing it. Argue that it violates the Non-Establishment amendment, thus invalidating the existing marriage laws then participate in recrafting them in a more universal manner.
However, you couldn't then also try to force social and religious acceptance for their way of life down everyone's throats.
However, you couldn't then also try to force social and religious acceptance for their way of life down everyone's throats.
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM
1153 Views
Completely unsurprising since the Justice department refuses to defend the law.
- 18/10/2012 09:05:16 PM
717 Views
For a moment there I thought you were saying the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 09:10:16 PM
774 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
841 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
863 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
330 Views
I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM
811 Views
Re: I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 01:18:22 AM
815 Views
Either a ban discriminates against those affected more than those unaffected, or it does not.
- 19/10/2012 03:48:32 PM
717 Views
Gun control laws can equally affect everyone, though, is my point.
- 20/10/2012 10:52:41 PM
767 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it.
- 19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM
868 Views
I just have to note in passing that Ted Olsons memoires will make fascinating reading.
- 19/10/2012 04:44:15 PM
865 Views
Also, hooray! Let's hope SCOTUS adheres (if you use that term over there). *NM*
- 18/10/2012 10:59:14 PM
367 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause
- 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM
925 Views
Not really
- 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM
833 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
756 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
345 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM
346 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
826 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
842 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
757 Views
Wrong. I do not have an emotional stake in this, I am simply using logic. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 03:59:08 PM
359 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
372 Views
EXACTLY, and that was the point I was making. Congratualtions for figuring that out. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:34:46 PM
344 Views
you are obviously using some humpty dumpty definition of "logic" then *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:40:12 PM
341 Views
No, you apparently failed reading comprehension in school.
- 23/10/2012 03:08:44 PM
752 Views
#1: fuck you. #2: you are still not using logic
- 23/10/2012 05:50:14 PM
734 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
806 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
868 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM
351 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white?
- 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM
743 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully
- 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM
687 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument.
- 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM
710 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
851 Views
It was only a matter of time.
- 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM
763 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion.
- 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM
927 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb.
- 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM
833 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself
- 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM
811 Views
There is no right being denied...
- 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM
759 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
863 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
904 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
763 Views
There are no "marriage rights" NONE, zip, ziltch, nada...
- 22/10/2012 04:18:15 PM
757 Views
why bother settling custody in a divorce then if there are no "marriage rights"?
- 22/10/2012 06:38:14 PM
680 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument:
- 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM
783 Views