..and you should really be more hesitant before asuming what someone else's beliefs are.
Claiming that gay people are being denied their rights is logically false.
1: There is no "right" to marriage. Marriage is a specifically crafted legal entity that EVERYONE has the ability/privilege to participate in on the exact same grounds.
2: There is no "Equal Rights" issue because there is no "right" and everyone has equal access to the exact same legal entity. That is the definition of Equal Rights.
3: What is being requested/desired is an NEW legal entity in place of, or beside, the currently existing legal entity. My only complaint is that those who desire such are not brave enough, or honest enough, to admit it.
4: IF there was some sort of discrimination being performed, the current advocates are not seeking to eliminate it, only to place themselves as one of the accepted classes. Otherwise you would see those same advocates in favor of polygamy, or legalized incest. I guess one type of "discriminated class" is more politically acceptable than another...
As I said before I could not care less who anyone "marries". I was married once, and frankly everyone should share in the misery. I just object to the methods and dishonesty being employed. Legislating through judicial arguments is virtually ALWAYS a bad idea.
Claiming that gay people are being denied their rights is logically false.
1: There is no "right" to marriage. Marriage is a specifically crafted legal entity that EVERYONE has the ability/privilege to participate in on the exact same grounds.
2: There is no "Equal Rights" issue because there is no "right" and everyone has equal access to the exact same legal entity. That is the definition of Equal Rights.
3: What is being requested/desired is an NEW legal entity in place of, or beside, the currently existing legal entity. My only complaint is that those who desire such are not brave enough, or honest enough, to admit it.
4: IF there was some sort of discrimination being performed, the current advocates are not seeking to eliminate it, only to place themselves as one of the accepted classes. Otherwise you would see those same advocates in favor of polygamy, or legalized incest. I guess one type of "discriminated class" is more politically acceptable than another...
As I said before I could not care less who anyone "marries". I was married once, and frankly everyone should share in the misery. I just object to the methods and dishonesty being employed. Legislating through judicial arguments is virtually ALWAYS a bad idea.
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM
1003 Views
Completely unsurprising since the Justice department refuses to defend the law.
- 18/10/2012 09:05:16 PM
592 Views
For a moment there I thought you were saying the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 09:10:16 PM
633 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
710 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
724 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
261 Views
I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM
660 Views
Re: I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 01:18:22 AM
647 Views
Either a ban discriminates against those affected more than those unaffected, or it does not.
- 19/10/2012 03:48:32 PM
538 Views
Gun control laws can equally affect everyone, though, is my point.
- 20/10/2012 10:52:41 PM
639 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it.
- 19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM
707 Views
I just have to note in passing that Ted Olsons memoires will make fascinating reading.
- 19/10/2012 04:44:15 PM
734 Views
Also, hooray! Let's hope SCOTUS adheres (if you use that term over there). *NM*
- 18/10/2012 10:59:14 PM
280 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause
- 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM
786 Views
Not really
- 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM
704 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
620 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
285 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM
276 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
696 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
700 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
605 Views
Wrong. I do not have an emotional stake in this, I am simply using logic. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 03:59:08 PM
291 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
273 Views
EXACTLY, and that was the point I was making. Congratualtions for figuring that out. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:34:46 PM
262 Views
you are obviously using some humpty dumpty definition of "logic" then *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:40:12 PM
274 Views
No, you apparently failed reading comprehension in school.
- 23/10/2012 03:08:44 PM
627 Views
#1: fuck you. #2: you are still not using logic
- 23/10/2012 05:50:14 PM
590 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
663 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
739 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM
288 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white?
- 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM
574 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully
- 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM
556 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument.
- 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM
570 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
721 Views
It was only a matter of time.
- 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM
627 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion.
- 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM
787 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb.
- 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM
705 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself
- 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM
666 Views
There is no right being denied...
- 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM
638 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
704 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
763 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
595 Views
There are no "marriage rights" NONE, zip, ziltch, nada...
- 22/10/2012 04:18:15 PM
635 Views
why bother settling custody in a divorce then if there are no "marriage rights"?
- 22/10/2012 06:38:14 PM
532 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument:
- 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM
656 Views