Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-31-2012, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Old Town Alexandria
14,492 posts, read 26,608,823 times
Reputation: 8971

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Hence politics, hence not not politics, hence my point. It became "politics" when it was conceived, proposed, passed, signed into law and enforced, and continues to be supported by politicians at EVERY level.
Good news from OP.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-31-2012, 02:26 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,156,622 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
I was addressing the denial that DOMA is political.
99.9% of the public could oppose it, but that doesnt matter. We dont govern by Democracy, we govern by laws. Your statement is nothing but continuing trolling for the sake of arguing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 02:37 PM
 
14,292 posts, read 9,687,852 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by helenejen View Post


"A federal appeals court on Thursday struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

In the ruling, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the law discriminates against gay couples and is unconstitutional."

Federal appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
How gay!

No where in the constitution does it state how any state government must define marriage, or if they need to define it at all, in fact it leaves things like that completely up to the states to decide for themselves.

Where does the US Constitution say that a state government must even be in the business of endorsing any marriages, much less declare how they must do it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 03:00 PM
 
10,854 posts, read 9,308,788 times
Reputation: 3122
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14Bricks View Post
Probably not, seeing that there are 5 conservative judges vs 4 liberal, on the Supreme court.
That is not indicative of how this will be decided. I'd suggest you check the voting history of the Supreme Court Justices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 03:00 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,839,819 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14Bricks View Post
Ask your liberal buddies, they're the ones who are trying to redefine what marriage is.
I don't see liberal/progressive buddies and self trying to even associate a definition with marriage. If anything, we would prefer to see government kicked out of the very premise of marriage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
99.9% of the public could oppose it, but that doesnt matter. We dont govern by Democracy, we govern by laws. Your statement is nothing but continuing trolling for the sake of arguing.
And I take it that if it is law, you respect it, live with it, and won't ever call it "unconstitutional" or "stupid" or "crazy". But then, you haven't exactly kept it a secret that you switch your position on a dime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 03:09 PM
 
Location: Va. Beach
6,391 posts, read 5,172,232 times
Reputation: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlassoff View Post
Which again indicates that the probability is the ruling will be sustained.
Not sure how you get that indication, there is a 54% chance the ruling will be sustained based on previous record. That indicated a POSSIBILITY. The Word Probability, means "a strong likelihood or chance of something". Mathematically, it would indicate a greater than not, statistical chance, something an 8 percentage point spread does not indicate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 03:22 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,839,819 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatt View Post
Not sure how you get that indication, there is a 54% chance the ruling will be sustained based on previous record. That indicated a POSSIBILITY. The Word Probability, means "a strong likelihood or chance of something". Mathematically, it would indicate a greater than not, statistical chance, something an 8 percentage point spread does not indicate.
What would be the constitutional ground for DOMA? Is it based on a prescribed power designated to the federal government?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 03:25 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,548,114 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by helenejen View Post


"A federal appeals court on Thursday struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

In the ruling, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the law discriminates against gay couples and is unconstitutional."

Federal appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
So access to federal benefits is now a right based on the Constitution ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Silver Springs, FL
23,416 posts, read 37,029,273 times
Reputation: 15560
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
99.9% of the public could oppose it, but that doesnt matter. We dont govern by Democracy, we govern by laws. Your statement is nothing but continuing trolling for the sake of arguing.
One could apply the same statement to your posts as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 03:26 PM
Sco
 
4,259 posts, read 4,922,320 times
Reputation: 3373
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
So access to federal benefits is now a right based on the Constitution ?
No, but EQUAL access is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top