U.S. Judge: U.S. Gay marriage ban violates 10th Amendment STATES[ RIGHTS (Representatives, Congress)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes I did know that. I am a white male that was raised in a Mexican/American Indian family. Are you aware that the American Indians were not recognized as citizens of the US till the 1970's? African American blacks got their equal rights before American Indians did. Some day in the future this will all be history and wonder what all the fuss was about.
If a member of a tribe wishes to leave that sovereignty and submit, as a citizen, that's fine.
What you claim is not in the law.
No one can maintain a foreign status and a domestic status, simultaneously.
What you may not know, is that rights endowed by one's Creator are not "granted" by government.
Anything "granted" by government is not an inalienable right.
The question is - which inalienable right to life, liberty or property ownership was denied to the foreign sovereigns or non-citizens?
I can find no law that prohibits ownership of property by non-citizens.
Voting and holding public office are not rights, but government granted privileges. If there was no government, there would be no voting, nor offices to hold. But inalienable rights exist independent of government.
Last edited by jetgraphics; 07-08-2010 at 07:01 PM..
I agree with this. However, those who choose to get "married" in one state cannot expect to move and have that "marriage" recognized in another state. It should be a state's option to define.
I agree with this. However, those who choose to get "married" in one state cannot expect to move and have that "marriage" recognized in another state. It should be a state's option to define.
I believe the Full Faith And Credit Clause should result in all marriages being recognized across the country. Yes, individual states can choose whether or not to perform them, but they shouldn't be allowed to not recognize legitimate marriages performed in other states.
In 2007, Oklahoma was required by a federal court to recognize an adoption by a same-sex couple that was performed in another state.
Did you just equate LGBT rights to the Civil Rights struggle in the 60s? If you did, hope you know that is very insulting to black people and other minorities
Kindred spirits. Gays are attacked, brutalized, marginalized, ostrasized all the time. All minorties must fight for their rights at some point.
Maybe muslim rule won't be too bad after all . If nothing else it would fun just watching them dive back into the closets , don their burkas and blankets .
Maybe muslim rule won't be too bad after all . If nothing else it would fun just watching them dive back into the closets , don their burkas and blankets .
Meaning that many Repuplicans and Conservtives hate it when the federal government asserts its dominance over a "legal" issue. But when it comes to mandating morality, they want federal laws, hell amendments out the butt, to get their Conservative Christian way.
Not to you, but I have to say, this is totally uncomparable to the Arizona issue. Immigration is a right granted to the Federal government. Even if the law "mimicks" the federal law, it doesn't matter one bit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
