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)
 
Old 06-26-2013, 02:11 PM
 
Location: Suffolk, Va
3,027 posts, read 2,523,640 times
Reputation: 1964

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by banchoi View Post
Next up: Pedophilia.

For social justice!
I know you must be thrilled. please stay away from my children.

 
Old 06-26-2013, 02:12 PM
 
2,635 posts, read 3,514,451 times
Reputation: 1686
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
Congress can't decide what is and is not marriage. SCOTUS just ruled that the definition of marriage is the domain of the States.
No, SCOTUS just ruled that the ban on federal benefits in DOMA violates the equal treatment clauses in the constitution.

Answering your original question, DOMA explicitly states that states that don't recognize same-sex marriage don't have to accept SSM marriages from other states. This part of the law wasn't in the scope of today's decision. Based on today's ruling, however, it will just be a matter of challenging this clause in the courts since it violates both equal treatment and full faith and credit.
 
Old 06-26-2013, 02:13 PM
 
Location: Near a river
16,042 posts, read 21,987,203 times
Reputation: 15773
Default DOMA: Michele Bachmann seriously needs help

This lady needs some therapy/counseling. Try to follow what she is saying. How did she ever rise to her position?

Bachmann slams Supreme Court, says justices not at 'level of God' - Video on NBCNews.com
 
Old 06-26-2013, 02:13 PM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
23,861 posts, read 24,136,913 times
Reputation: 15141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lior Arel View Post
Again, please take your fight to legalize pedophilia to another thread and I will be happy to argue it there. You are completely off topic here.
Well, to be clear, this thread actually has no topic. Blame the OP for breaking the ToS on that one.
 
Old 06-26-2013, 02:13 PM
 
Location: Suffolk, Va
3,027 posts, read 2,523,640 times
Reputation: 1964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
I'm not surprised. After all, we are living in the Age of Insanity. Society is going down the drain fast.

But those who engage in a pretend marriage will have to answer for it in the afterlife (assuming they make it there).
like the straight couples in hollywierd? or the first 2 marriages of any republican politician over 40?
 
Old 06-26-2013, 02:13 PM
Sco
 
4,259 posts, read 4,923,605 times
Reputation: 3373
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
I suspect that will be the next thing SCOTUS has to look at with respect to same sex marriage. However, this is not always the case with marriage and should not be assumed. For example, some states do not recognize marrying first cousins but others do. If you move to a state where that is not recognized, you are, from the state's perspective, not married.
Yes, but the same sex marriage issue is different. In your example, a state has chosen not to recognize the marriages of all first cousins without respect to gender or sexual orientation. The issue will be can a state continue to recognize straight marriages performed in a specific state but not the same sex marriages performed in that same state even though under both federal and state law there is no longer a difference.
 
Old 06-26-2013, 02:16 PM
 
Location: Mississippi
6,712 posts, read 13,466,717 times
Reputation: 4317
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl View Post
This lady needs some therapy/counseling. Try to follow what she is saying. How did she ever rise to her position?

Bachmann slams Supreme Court, says justices not at 'level of God' - Video on NBCNews.com
It must be hard to live in cognitive dissonance and denial about a husband who is himself in denial. Imagine the depths of inanity one must have to go to in order to protect all that. I also love how people such as herself get to somehow victoriously claim being "at the level of god" and casting judgment on all other people. Pretty self-righteous and arrogant, don't you think?
 
Old 06-26-2013, 02:20 PM
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,342 posts, read 54,462,599 times
Reputation: 40756
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionsgators View Post
finally I figure out this thread is about gay marriage. gee, another gay marriage thread. how original. of course they won't have to answer for anything in the afterlife silly, they will be mocked here on earth. not really by me, because I think the institution of marriage is a joke, and begging for government acceptance is pathetic.


Really?

It's pathetic to want to be allowed to do simple little things like visit someone you're in a committed relationship with in the hospital?

Personally, I think it's pathetic so many self-righteous twits take it as their duty to ride moral herd on others who are doing nothing to hurt anyone.
 
Old 06-26-2013, 02:23 PM
 
Location: Apple Valley Calif
7,474 posts, read 22,894,101 times
Reputation: 5684
Good news for obama, now he can come out of the closet...
 
Old 06-26-2013, 02:25 PM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
11,011 posts, read 11,037,695 times
Reputation: 6192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoke_Jaguar4 View Post
No, SCOTUS just ruled that the ban on federal benefits in DOMA violates the equal treatment clauses in the constitution.

Answering your original question, DOMA explicitly states that states that don't recognize same-sex marriage don't have to accept SSM marriages from other states. This part of the law wasn't in the scope of today's decision. Based on today's ruling, however, it will just be a matter of challenging this clause in the courts since it violates both equal treatment and full faith and credit.
Actually, it was in the decision.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...2-307_g2bh.pdf
Quote:
Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v.
Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area
that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the
States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404. The significance of state
responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to
the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the
common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband
and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,”
Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379, 383–384. Marriage laws
may vary from State to State, but they are consistent within each
State
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.


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