Active Users:516 Time:25/10/2025 07:23:40 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
You obviously have no idea what a right is. HyogaRott Send a noteboard - 22/10/2012 11:49:26 PM
Parental obligations and privledges are determined by the courts "in the best interest of the child" In other words they are set to protect the rights OF THE CHILD not the parents. They may be called "parental rights" for convienence, but they are NOT rights. Rights are not granted by a court decree, they exist WITHOUT law. Law can only defnine what naturally exists, or eliminate them, never grant them. We do not have freedom of speech BECAUSE of the 1st amendment, the 1st amendment exists to prevent the freedom of speech from being taken away by the government.

Property rights are a part of the Constitution. A marriage is a legal entity, just like a corporation. The marriage owns property. The marriage is composed of 2 individuals. The disolution of a marriage is just like the disolution of a company, the property owned by the marriage has liquidated and shared among the "shareholders".

There is NO marriage RIGHTS.
Reply to message
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional. Burr - 18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM 1039 Views
An excellent ruling. Thanks for the post. *NM* Ghavrel - 18/10/2012 08:47:54 PM 296 Views
Oh, and they addressed the First Circuit's argument: Burr - 18/10/2012 08:54:47 PM 814 Views
I always knew that DomA guy was bad news. Nate - 18/10/2012 09:05:13 PM 564 Views
Completely unsurprising since the Justice department refuses to defend the law. HyogaRott - 18/10/2012 09:05:16 PM 612 Views
For a moment there I thought you were saying the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional. Legolas - 18/10/2012 09:10:16 PM 661 Views
Do you know if there's a case about DOMA and the "full faith and credit" clause? Tim - 18/10/2012 10:05:11 PM 731 Views
I don't know offhand, but my gchat friend will. If she pops on again, I'll ask her. But... Burr - 18/10/2012 10:37:09 PM 747 Views
I asked her about pending cases taking on Section 2. "None that I know of," she answered. *NM* Burr - 19/10/2012 12:46:21 AM 270 Views
I wonder about that one as well. Joel - 19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM 691 Views
Re: I wonder about that one as well. Burr - 19/10/2012 01:18:22 AM 680 Views
Either a ban discriminates against those affected more than those unaffected, or it does not. Joel - 19/10/2012 03:48:32 PM 575 Views
Gun control laws can equally affect everyone, though, is my point. Burr - 20/10/2012 10:52:41 PM 662 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it. Tom - 19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM 734 Views
There is a good chance it won't happen Roland00 - 19/10/2012 03:02:50 PM 795 Views
Kennedy will go along with them. *NM* Tom - 19/10/2012 10:05:38 PM 279 Views
I just have to note in passing that Ted Olsons memoires will make fascinating reading. Joel - 19/10/2012 04:44:15 PM 762 Views
Also, hooray! Let's hope SCOTUS adheres (if you use that term over there). *NM* Tim - 18/10/2012 10:59:14 PM 289 Views
I believe we typically use the terms "affirms" or "upholds." Joel - 19/10/2012 12:23:50 AM 722 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause Joel - 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM 813 Views
Not really HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM 729 Views
Not quite Roland00 - 19/10/2012 02:56:56 PM 614 Views
Yes, really, for "any CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT." Joel - 19/10/2012 03:12:11 PM 699 Views
joel, please stop moondog - 19/10/2012 05:42:51 PM 675 Views
That's such a stupid, puerile argument. Ghavrel - 19/10/2012 03:47:26 PM 685 Views
Not the best analogy, though I agree with the sentiment. Joel - 19/10/2012 04:10:11 PM 627 Views
Then by the "legal argument" you all propose I should have the "right" to marry a spoon... HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 05:48:32 PM 642 Views
if your spoon or dog is capable of making power of attorney decisions then by all means do so *NM* moondog - 19/10/2012 06:41:43 PM 294 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM* HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM 288 Views
provide for us a legal reason why marrying a corporation should be recognized by the US gov't moondog - 19/10/2012 08:09:08 PM 716 Views
The argument above was that there was no jsutification it should not, thus it should be allowed. HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 10:57:16 PM 725 Views
you are only offering your own emotional take on a legal decision there is no logic in your posts moondog - 19/10/2012 11:12:17 PM 638 Views
Wrong. I do not have an emotional stake in this, I am simply using logic. *NM* HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 03:59:08 PM 304 Views
saying you should be able to marry a spoon or corporation is not logical reasoning. try again *NM* moondog - 22/10/2012 06:19:29 PM 282 Views
EXACTLY, and that was the point I was making. Congratualtions for figuring that out. *NM* HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 11:34:46 PM 274 Views
you are obviously using some humpty dumpty definition of "logic" then *NM* moondog - 22/10/2012 11:40:12 PM 287 Views
No, you apparently failed reading comprehension in school. HyogaRott - 23/10/2012 03:08:44 PM 649 Views
#1: fuck you. #2: you are still not using logic moondog - 23/10/2012 05:50:14 PM 614 Views
Ah yes, the fuck you argument... the height of all intelectual persuits... and you call ME emotional HyogaRott - 23/10/2012 06:47:21 PM 686 Views
i see -- it's ok to be insulting as long as the "f-bomb" is not used. got it. moondog - 23/10/2012 10:27:54 PM 766 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM* beetnemesis - 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM 297 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white? Dannymac - 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM 616 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM 575 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument. Dannymac - 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM 597 Views
No, I am not, try reading everything I have written on the subject before jumping to conclusions. HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 11:41:05 PM 746 Views
It was only a matter of time. Tom - 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM 650 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion. Joel - 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM 814 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb. HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM 730 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself moondog - 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM 689 Views
There is no right being denied... HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM 662 Views
that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way moondog - 19/10/2012 08:06:54 PM 729 Views
Re: that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 11:11:55 PM 785 Views
nobody is arguing the legal right to marry, they are arguing about the legal rights marriage gives moondog - 19/10/2012 11:37:14 PM 634 Views
There are no "marriage rights" NONE, zip, ziltch, nada... HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 04:18:15 PM 656 Views
why bother settling custody in a divorce then if there are no "marriage rights"? moondog - 22/10/2012 06:38:14 PM 560 Views
You obviously have no idea what a right is. HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 11:49:26 PM 897 Views
No? snoopcester - 19/10/2012 11:34:36 PM 631 Views
Really HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 04:29:38 PM 643 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument: Burr - 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM 685 Views
Nope I am not HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 04:34:59 PM 612 Views
That is just it: Most US marriage laws are already areligious. Joel - 23/10/2012 05:08:38 PM 628 Views
Yes, the laws are 100% secular... HyogaRott - 23/10/2012 07:01:08 PM 600 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes