Active Users:182 Time:18/06/2024 08:42:45 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 867 Views
An excellent ruling. Thanks for the post. *NM* Ghavrel - 18/10/2012 08:47:54 PM 243 Views
Oh, and they addressed the First Circuit's argument: Burr - 18/10/2012 08:54:47 PM 669 Views
I always knew that DomA guy was bad news. Nate - 18/10/2012 09:05:13 PM 430 Views
Completely unsurprising since the Justice department refuses to defend the law. HyogaRott - 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. Legolas - 18/10/2012 09:10:16 PM 534 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 593 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 612 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 211 Views
I wonder about that one as well. Joel - 19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM 545 Views
Re: I wonder about that one as well. Burr - 19/10/2012 01:18:22 AM 544 Views
Either a ban discriminates against those affected more than those unaffected, or it does not. Joel - 19/10/2012 03:48:32 PM 434 Views
Gun control laws can equally affect everyone, though, is my point. Burr - 20/10/2012 10:52:41 PM 534 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it. Tom - 19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM 580 Views
There is a good chance it won't happen Roland00 - 19/10/2012 03:02:50 PM 657 Views
Kennedy will go along with them. *NM* Tom - 19/10/2012 10:05:38 PM 220 Views
I just have to note in passing that Ted Olsons memoires will make fascinating reading. Joel - 19/10/2012 04:44:15 PM 630 Views
Also, hooray! Let's hope SCOTUS adheres (if you use that term over there). *NM* Tim - 18/10/2012 10:59:14 PM 235 Views
I believe we typically use the terms "affirms" or "upholds." Joel - 19/10/2012 12:23:50 AM 595 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 678 Views
Not really HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM 609 Views
Not quite Roland00 - 19/10/2012 02:56:56 PM 465 Views
Yes, really, for "any CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT." Joel - 19/10/2012 03:12:11 PM 570 Views
joel, please stop moondog - 19/10/2012 05:42:51 PM 536 Views
That's such a stupid, puerile argument. Ghavrel - 19/10/2012 03:47:26 PM 557 Views
Not the best analogy, though I agree with the sentiment. Joel - 19/10/2012 04:10:11 PM 481 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 508 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 244 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 234 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 586 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 593 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 496 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 248 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 233 Views
EXACTLY, and that was the point I was making. Congratualtions for figuring that out. *NM* HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 11:34:46 PM 215 Views
you are obviously using some humpty dumpty definition of "logic" then *NM* moondog - 22/10/2012 11:40:12 PM 228 Views
No, you apparently failed reading comprehension in school. HyogaRott - 23/10/2012 03:08:44 PM 516 Views
#1: fuck you. #2: you are still not using logic moondog - 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 HyogaRott - 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. moondog - 23/10/2012 10:27:54 PM 631 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM* beetnemesis - 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM 239 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white? Dannymac - 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM 471 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM 447 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument. Dannymac - 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. HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 11:41:05 PM 611 Views
It was only a matter of time. Tom - 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM 523 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion. Joel - 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM 678 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb. HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM 592 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself moondog - 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM 557 Views
There is no right being denied... HyogaRott - 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 moondog - 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 HyogaRott - 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 moondog - 19/10/2012 11:37:14 PM 476 Views
There are no "marriage rights" NONE, zip, ziltch, nada... HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 04:18:15 PM 539 Views
why bother settling custody in a divorce then if there are no "marriage rights"? moondog - 22/10/2012 06:38:14 PM 428 Views
You obviously have no idea what a right is. HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 11:49:26 PM 763 Views
No? snoopcester - 19/10/2012 11:34:36 PM 501 Views
Really HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 04:29:38 PM 508 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument: Burr - 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM 548 Views
Nope I am not HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 04:34:59 PM 487 Views
That is just it: Most US marriage laws are already areligious. Joel - 23/10/2012 05:08:38 PM 497 Views
Yes, the laws are 100% secular... HyogaRott - 23/10/2012 07:01:08 PM 468 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes