RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes

RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/28/2013 8:58:41 AM)
After listening to both sets of oral arguments I'm convinced the Court will punt on both by declaring that the defandants do not have the standing to appeal. That would overturn both prop 8 and DOMA but not force a ruling on whether banning same sex marriage violates equal protection.

tazzygirl -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/28/2013 9:05:26 AM)
Not sure about Prop 8, but the DOMA case.... over 300K in taxes she would not have had to pay if the state had recognized her marriage isnt a standing?

FunCouple5280 -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/28/2013 9:05:52 AM)
I couldn't agree more DK. I know some will look at it as spineless move on the part of the SCOTUS, but sometimes they have a habit of letting the states sort out their own messes and staying out of the realm that could be construed as legislating from the bench (people will still claim it anywat). Besides with the shift in public opinion about gay marriage, I think the heat will really be on congress to actually codify this into law in the next decade or two. In the end I would prefer them to write it into law. I don't want a Roe v Wade debate going on for the next 50yrs about gay marriage. Let's legislate it legality and put the issue to bed.

DomKen -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/28/2013 2:07:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Not sure about Prop 8, but the DOMA case.... over 300K in taxes she would not have had to pay if the state had recognized her marriage isnt a standing? The plaintiff certainly had standing. It is the defence that ha standings issues.

tazzygirl -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/28/2013 2:15:56 PM)
Sorry, I misread your previous post. But it does lead to another question. If DOMA isnt the law of the land, then what basis do states have to ban it, isnt that the basis for many states having done so?

JeffBC -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/28/2013 2:22:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice Between Prop 8 yesterday and DOMA today, this has been the SCOTUS equivalent of "shark week." I'm confused. Why is the SCOTUS hearing arguments about this stuff? What's it got to do with corporate profits, corporate rights, or the rights of the wealthy? I can't really imagine what their percentage is in this.

tazzygirl -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/28/2013 2:29:04 PM)
From one woman.... 300k.

DomKen -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/28/2013 4:36:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Sorry, I misread your previous post. But it does lead to another question. If DOMA isnt the law of the land, then what basis do states have to ban it, isnt that the basis for many states having done so? Each state determines marriage in that state. The Constitution requires that each state give full faith and credit to the official actions of the other states but allows Congress to pass laws detailing how that will be done. DOMA therefore is Congress legislating how each state will recognize the acts of other states.

tazzygirl -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/28/2013 5:15:31 PM)
Seems like the next step will be the denial of federal benefits from one state to another.

Politesub53 -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/28/2013 5:47:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You know, I understand the point of the "equal" sign. I understand what it means, too. But, isn't it strange that the symbol being used is two parallel lines. That is, two lines that will never intersect? Oh I got it, you mean like a Swastika. [8\|]

Real0ne -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/28/2013 8:56:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Since Kelo, there isnt that much that pisses me off on sight but that is one of the top 3

Real0ne -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/28/2013 9:00:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Sorry, I misread your previous post. But it does lead to another question. If DOMA isnt the law of the land, then what basis do states have to ban it, isnt that the basis for many states having done so? Each state determines marriage in that state. The Constitution requires that each state give full faith and credit to the official actions of the other states but allows Congress to pass laws detailing how that will be done. DOMA therefore is Congress legislating how each state will recognize the acts of other states. thats only within our commercial state, not to forget common law where you dont even need a preacher or a state to be married. State permission is only for those who want entitlements and the God state good housekeeping stamp of approval LOL marriage can be completely and totally contractual fuck the state. people are just trained good slaves thats all! yessa massa state!

Real0ne -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/28/2013 9:02:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280 I couldn't agree more DK. I know some will look at it as spineless move on the part of the SCOTUS, but sometimes they have a habit of letting the states sort out their own messes and staying out of the realm that could be construed as legislating from the bench (people will still claim it anywat). Besides with the shift in public opinion about gay marriage, I think the heat will really be on congress to actually codify this into law in the next decade or two. In the end I would prefer them to write it into law. I don't want a Roe v Wade debate going on for the next 50yrs about gay marriage. Let's legislate it legality and put the issue to bed. dream on. there is no money in sorting out a mess, only confusion and mixing it up. the leego system survives and thrive on it.

Powergamz1 -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/31/2013 10:44:13 PM)
Congress has already codified it into law... bad law. The job of the Court is to decide if the wording in DOMA violates the 14th. If it does (as it clearly does) then there needs to be an overwhelming public interest in stopping an actual harm to the greater good. None of the arguments for DOMA pass the smell test or cite compelling legal precedent on that. (You know your case is weak when Dredd Scott and the dissent in Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board of Education are all you've got). No real person, or real component of society can demonstrate actual harm if gay folks go down to the courthouse and pick up a license... be it a fishing license, business license or marriage license. The pseudo-religious rhetoric being fawned over in the media and on the internet, is of course a big old smokescreen, since it (even the parts that are blatant lies), only applies to charging money to perform the sacrament of marriage... which isn't at issue in any of these cases. quote: ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280 I couldn't agree more DK. I know some will look at it as spineless move on the part of the SCOTUS, but sometimes they have a habit of letting the states sort out their own messes and staying out of the realm that could be construed as legislating from the bench (people will still claim it anywat). Besides with the shift in public opinion about gay marriage, I think the heat will really be on congress to actually codify this into law in the next decade or two. In the end I would prefer them to write it into law. I don't want a Roe v Wade debate going on for the next 50yrs about gay marriage. Let's legislate it legality and put the issue to bed.

SadistDave -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (4/1/2013 1:12:53 AM)
The whole thing is a load of leftist bullshit and has nothing at all to do with equality. Marriage is not a constitutional right. It is a religious and/or legal contract. SCOTUS has no interest in the religious aspects, however, a government has every right to define what marriage is for legal purposes, just as it has the right to deny drivers licenses to blind people or to deny citizenship to criminal immigrants. In fact, part of the job of the government is to define legal statuses and decide who pays fines, fees, or taxes based on their legal statuses. That's rather a big part of what governments do actually... Gays have the same right to marry as straights. As far as the federal government is concerned, they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. That right has never been denied them. They may enter into this federally recognised contract at any time they wish to. They simply choooooooose not to marry someone of the opposite sex. In spite of the fact that they are exactly equal under the law as heterosexuals; their entire argument hinges soley on the fact that they just don't want enter into a legal contract with someone of the opposite sex, but they want the same benefits of those who do. I would guess that SCOTUS will gut DOMA because it is politically expedient, but stop short of making gay marriage legally recognized at the federal level. -SD-

epiphiny43 -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (4/1/2013 1:55:20 AM)
If marriage is but a legal contract, (And our Constitution says the govt can't enforce religious dogma or ceremonies?) the constitutional principle of equal treatment under the law gives everyone the benefits of such a choice, not just potentially fertile couples. Or those who appear to have the potential for fertility, if we don't ask for actual medical records? Almost no legal benefits of 'marriage' have to do with fertility or the actual presence of children, so gender shouldn't matter, but are very important for property and financial rights and inheritance. The bond is recognized and privileged under law without reference to childbearing fact or absence. So it's denial to only gender non-fertile couples is at the least Very arguable. If gays can't marry, legal couples should have to pass fertility tests? AND have children? Or why is govt. involved at all? If promoting the best environment for child raising is the rational for legally recognizing marriage, it should be a provisional title/institution only fully recognized with a birth? Where getting the excessive government intrusion out of families of whatever form becomes a leftist idea baffles me. "Conservatives" are against intrusion except if it reinforces their own desires to mess with other people's lives? Which makes as much sense to me as the Right saying legal recognition of 'unconventional' marriages threatens the traditional unions. Only any dysfunctional behavior of their own threatens traditional marriages, just as it always has. The several pieces by observers of all viewpoints that the ship has sailed on gay marriage simply recognizes the sea change with the newer generations who have more familiarity with non-traditional sexual 'choices' and unions and see no issue there. As the anti-gays die out the issue will become a 'What was that all about?' type of issue. Like anti-Irish discrimination a century ago?

DomKen -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (4/1/2013 2:48:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave I would guess that SCOTUS will gut DOMA because it is politically expedient, but stop short of making gay marriage legally recognized at the federal level. That is impossible. The only thing keeping the federal government from recognizing same sex marriages is DOMA.

Powergamz1 -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (4/1/2013 4:50:46 AM)
And I'm sure you'll have no trouble employing your vast legal expertise to give us the case law defining the status of merely being a gay person, as being the same as that of a convicted felon. Or the chances of people dying if gays marry, being proven in a court of law to be the same as letting a blind person drive. (Pro tip - Don't start with Lawrence v Texas... you'll look like an idiot). quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave The whole thing is a load of leftist bullshit and has nothing at all to do with equality. Marriage is not a constitutional right. It is a religious and/or legal contract. SCOTUS has no interest in the religious aspects, however, a government has every right to define what marriage is for legal purposes, just as it has the right to deny drivers licenses to blind people or to deny citizenship to criminal immigrants. In fact, part of the job of the government is to define legal statuses and decide who pays fines, fees, or taxes based on their legal statuses. That's rather a big part of what governments do actually... Gays have the same right to marry as straights. As far as the federal government is concerned, they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. That right has never been denied them. They may enter into this federally recognised contract at any time they wish to. They simply choooooooose not to marry someone of the opposite sex. In spite of the fact that they are exactly equal under the law as heterosexuals; their entire argument hinges soley on the fact that they just don't want enter into a legal contract with someone of the opposite sex, but they want the same benefits of those who do. I would guess that SCOTUS will gut DOMA because it is politically expedient, but stop short of making gay marriage legally recognized at the federal level. -SD-

tweakabelle -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (4/1/2013 8:06:07 AM)
This debate features a lot of hyperbole from defenders of 'traditional marriage'. This trailer, for a forthcoming film, is in a league of its own in the hyperbole stakes. "The trailer for a new film by a Christian organisation claims that the legalisation of equal marriage, and the advancement of LGBT rights will lead to the “criminalisation of Christianity”. The film trailer, made by Faith 2 Action, the anti-gay Christian organisation which is headed up by Janet Porter, credits the writing and direction of the trailer to Porter. The trailer warns “If homosexual activists achieve their goal, it will be the criminalization of Christianity.” It goes on to claim that: ”Time and freedom are running out”, and that if ”gays win, Christians lose.” Check it out at: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/03/31/video-film-trailer-claims-equal-marriage-will-lead-to-the-criminalisation-of-christianity/ So over the top it's almost ..... gay!!!! [:D]

Powergamz1 -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (4/1/2013 10:12:35 AM)
'Traditional marriage'... is that the one that begins with the words "By the power vested in me BY THE STATE"? and ends with a judge saying "I declare that this marriage is now dissolved"? [;)]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.222656E-02