..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
1005 Views
Completely unsurprising since the Justice department refuses to defend the law.
- 18/10/2012 09:05:16 PM
595 Views
For a moment there I thought you were saying the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 09:10:16 PM
636 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
713 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
726 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
262 Views
I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM
663 Views
Re: I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 01:18:22 AM
650 Views
Either a ban discriminates against those affected more than those unaffected, or it does not.
- 19/10/2012 03:48:32 PM
541 Views
Gun control laws can equally affect everyone, though, is my point.
- 20/10/2012 10:52:41 PM
641 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
737 Views
Also, hooray! Let's hope SCOTUS adheres (if you use that term over there). *NM*
- 18/10/2012 10:59:14 PM
281 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause
- 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM
788 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
623 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
277 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
699 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
703 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
274 Views
EXACTLY, and that was the point I was making. Congratualtions for figuring that out. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:34:46 PM
263 Views
you are obviously using some humpty dumpty definition of "logic" then *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:40:12 PM
275 Views
No, you apparently failed reading comprehension in school.
- 23/10/2012 03:08:44 PM
629 Views
#1: fuck you. #2: you are still not using logic
- 23/10/2012 05:50:14 PM
592 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
666 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
741 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM
289 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white?
- 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM
577 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully
- 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM
559 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument.
- 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM
572 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
724 Views
It was only a matter of time.
- 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM
630 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion.
- 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM
790 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb.
- 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM
708 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself
- 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM
669 Views
There is no right being denied...
- 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM
640 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
706 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
766 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
598 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
535 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument:
- 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM
658 Views