Goodbye, DOMA and good riddance...

[bobabode]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-the-second-day-supreme-court-considers-doma/2013/03/26/331bb5ae-966e-11e2-9e23-09dce87f75a1_story.html?hpid=z1

Good riddance to a stupid law. I hope they strike down Prop 8, too. This country has better things to do than pry into people's private lives and dictate who they choose to spend their lives with.

[BlueStreak]

“Citizens’ day-to-day life” is affected by the more than 1,100 references to marriage contained in federal laws and regulations, Kennedy said, creating a “real risk of running in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essence of the state police power, which is to regulate marriage, divorce, custody.”

Are you listening, wingnuts?

YOU, attempting to run the lives of consenting adults. YOU.
Well, once again, you have been shown that it is YOU that wipes your hind parts with the US Constitution. It's YOU that hates freedom.

Have a nice day. Loser.

Dave

[merrylander]

Why are so many people determined to make other peoples lives miserable?

[BlueStreak]

They think life is SUPPOSED to be miserable, Rob.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

So democracy is bad? Appointed berobed masters of the universe know better...

Pete

[merrylander]

So democracy is bad? Appointed berobed masters of the universe know better...

Pete

Pete you are always pointing at the Constitution, well look at it again, denying citizens equal rights before the law is un-constitutional, dumbass voters aside.:rolleyes:

No doubt we could get some voters to declare homosexuality a crime punishable by death, but that does not make it right.

Plus the Mormon church spent a bunch of money in CA lobbying for Prop 8. As voter I take strong objection to outsiders coming into my State and telling me how to vote.

[piece-itpete]

Funny but I don't recall this being discussed when the Constitution was written ;)

Pete

[merrylander]

Funny but I don't recall this being discussed when the Constitution was written ;)

Pete

It wasn't, but what part of the Fourteenth amendment don't you understand?:rolleyes:

[piece-itpete]

So felons should be able to buy guns? The 14th means the government can do anything?

Pete

[BlueStreak]

It wasn't, but what part of the Fourteenth amendment don't you understand?:rolleyes:

You didn't know that we have no brains of our own, Rob? When such issues arise, we're supposed to just take a guess at what the Founders might have done and go with that, no matter how hosed up it may be.

Think of all the wonderful tyrannies we would still have if all of our predecessors had adhered to that assinine mentality....................:rolleyes:

Dave

[piece-itpete]

People are too stupid to govern themselves.

[edit" Whoops, forgot the: /sarcasm]

Pete

[icenine]

Funny but I don't recall this being discussed when the Constitution was written ;)

Pete

I thought you loved liberty Pete!
liberty means consenting adults should be able to marry who they want...regardless of sex...

don't tread on me and all that...

[merrylander]

So felons should be able to buy guns? The 14th means the government can do anything?

Pete

Forget it, I don't have time for this crap.

[piece-itpete]

Liberty means having someone else forceably tell you what a word means? ;)

Pete

[merrylander]

Not being a follower of Leopold von Sacher-Masoch I am outta here.

[BlueStreak]

People are too stupid to govern themselves.

[edit" Whoops, forgot the: /sarcasm]

Pete

Some of them, yes. And, I am not being sarcastic.

Regards,
Dave

[piece-itpete]

They should listen to their betters, preferably Harvard or perhaps Yale grads :p

Maybe NAMBLA has a case for equal rights protection too? Of course not is the answer - but why?

Pete

[BlueStreak]

So felons should be able to buy guns? The 14th means the government can do anything?

Pete

Maybe it means the founders realized future governments might face issues they had not yet conceived of and figured, 'You know what..we don't know everything. Just maybe, sometime in the future, live leaders will have to use their own brains instead of relying on us dead government officials to figure it out for them.'?

Ya think? I know the idea doesn't comport well with modern day Christian Conservatism. You guys always seem to need an instruction manual to refer to. I think we 21st Century types are smart enough to figure things out on our own.

See, you despise the SCOTUS because they aren't toeing the wingnut line.
That's because they can't, being sworn to serve justice and not just pander to idiotic religion based prejudices and whatever riles the redneck tempers and such.

Regards,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

Whoa....I call Safellite about a crack in the Dakotas windsheild and a Safellite banner appears at the top of this forum.............

WTF?

Dave

[piece-itpete]

I see that advertising all the time, it's amazing. Not just this site but all over the net. 'They' see us! :eek: [edit -you CALLED??! Wholey chit!!]

On the dead guys, they included this little thing in case things changed, it's called the amendment process ;)

Pete

[BlueStreak]

They should listen to their betters, preferably Harvard or perhaps Yale grads :p

Maybe NAMBLA has a case for equal rights protection too? Of course not is the answer - but why?

Pete

No, NAMBLA has no case.

Because some of the parties involved are MINORS.

'Splain to me just how two consenting adult homos getting married destroys any heterosexual couples marriage? Just what is it "traditional marriage" is being defended from?:confused:

Dave

[JBS...]

I thought you loved liberty Pete!
liberty means consenting adults should be able to marry who they want...regardless of sex...

don't tread on me and all that...

So Mommy can marry her Son or Daughter as long as they are old enough. :rolleyes:

I guess you can kiss the death tax goodbye :D

[BlueStreak]

I see that advertising all the time, it's amazing. Not just this site but all over the net. 'They' see us! :eek: [edit -you CALLED??! Wholey chit!!]

On the dead guys, they included this little thing in case things changed, it's called the amendment process ;)

Pete

It's because I looked up the number online.....but still......it's kinda creepy.

Oh, and they also created the Supreme Court to decide whether or not some laws, that were NOT adopted through the Amendment process to begin with----are or aren't constitutional. So, I don't see why we should have to go through an amendment process to strike down an unconstitutional law that was created outside of the amendment process to begin with.

Seems like that would be nothing but a silly waste of time.

Dave

[icenine]

Liberty means having someone else forceably tell you what a word means? ;)

Pete

YES if it is good for you we will make you eat all your vegatables;)

[BlueStreak]

YES if it is good for you we will make you eat all your vegatables;)

"Shut up and eat the broccoli, wingnut!":p

Dave

[piece-itpete]

No pop for you!!

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQR0AIMATAAzLMm9E33WsFE06tDBNgwp-eDic7oEeE9rKDnWfZd

Pete

[piece-itpete]

Was it unConstitutional before now?

And minors don't have rights?

Pete

[ebacon]

Whoa....I call Safellite about a crack in the Dakotas windsheild and a Safellite banner appears at the top of this forum.............

WTF?

Dave

Does your telephone go through your internet connection? My Comcast cable does. All my phone activity is available on the teh interwebz. It can even give me a text transcription of my voicemail. How icky is that?

The corporations control EVERY THOUGHT IN YOUR HEAD. EVERY LAST ONE. Choice is an illusion of the American hologram.

[d-ray657]

I use Adblock so I'm not reminded that they're watching me. :eek:

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

I suddenly want a McDouble.

:D

Pete

[bobabode]

So Mommy can marry her Son or Daughter as long as they are old enough. :rolleyes:

I guess you can kiss the death tax goodbye :D

Incest is still frowned upon in some circles, mostly blue states last I heared.;) Check with Mendel.
As to the "death tax"? Find a qualified attorney to explain what a family trust can do for you. Don't die intestate.

[BlueStreak]

Does your telephone go through your internet connection? My Comcast cable does. All my phone activity is available on the teh interwebz. It can even give me a text transcription of my voicemail. How icky is that?

The corporations control EVERY THOUGHT IN YOUR HEAD. EVERY LAST ONE. Choice is an illusion of the American hologram.

I don't know about THAT, Ed. Birdseye has as yet to hypnotize me into eating peas, try as they might.

I went online to find the phone number. Now, everywhere I go online, there it is. I checked my FB page a few minutes ago and there was this thigy asking me to "Like" Safellite. I abstained from doing so.

GAW!

Dave

[bobabode]

Goooogle Analitics.:D

[finnbow]

Funny but I don't recall this being discussed when the Constitution was written ;)

Pete

The Supreme Court itself is established by the Constitution. Wait and see what they have to say in June. FWIW, I'm betting DOMA is toast, but Prop 8 will survive. All in all, that's probably as it should be, for now anyway.

[Oerets]

I for one think it is way to early to make any predictions or guesses from questions asked by the Roberts Court on DOMA. I keep thinking who on the court will what their names tied to making same sex marriage legal in anyway? Will it be a majority?

No matter what it will be legal, maybe not now but in the near future.


Barney

[piece-itpete]

The same SC that tramples the will of the people in CA can also call money free speech - correct?

Or decide seperate but equal is OK? Or MainCore is OK?

How much power do we want the 9 to have?

Are we admitting that rule by the people is failed?

Pete

[bobabode]

You're looking at it through excrement covered goggles, brother P. :cool:

[BlueStreak]

The same SC that tramples the will of the people in CA can also call money free speech - correct?

Or decide seperate but equal is OK? Or MainCore is OK?

How much power do we want the 9 to have?

Are we admitting that rule by the people is failed?

Pete

If the will of the people of California runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution.....Yeah, actually. Trample away.

Wasn't there a little thing the founders worried about, that they referred to as "mob rule"?

I love me some democracy, Pete, but at some point a government does have to govern, ferfuksake. Anarchy doesn't work either, my friend.

Dave

[Oerets]

Will of the people or mob rule? Delicate balance from day one in the USA. But the voter mandates on the ballots need to be in plan language. Most amendments and initiatives are worded so confusing that it is wounder to most what exactly you are voting for.


Barney

[bobabode]

The same SC that tramples the will of the people in CA can also call money free speech - correct?

Or decide seperate but equal is OK? Or MainCore is OK?

How much power do we want the 9 to have?

Are we admitting that rule by the people is failed?

Pete

Does Ohio have the (sometimes idiotic) ballot initiative? I have to swing an 8' stud at the signature hounds outside Home Despot around here. Christ, they often have a dozen different petitions to sign, (at a dollar a pop for the poor sap who took the job). Most are atitooodinal asswipes. I've started to come back with some snarky crap about how they should get a real job waving advertising on the side of the road.:rolleyes:

[finnbow]

If the will of the people of California runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution.....Yeah, actually. Trample away.

Wasn't there a little thing the founders worried about, that they referred to as "mob rule"?

I love me some democracy, Pete, but at some point a government does have to govern, ferfuksake. Anarchy doesn't work either, my friend.

Dave

Indeed. I thought we were supposed to have a representative democracy. I don't think anything good has come out of CA's proposition process - lots of dumb ideas foisted upon the sheeple.

[CarlV]

The Supreme Court itself is established by the Constitution. Wait and see what they have to say in June. FWIW, I'm betting DOMA is toast, but Prop 8 will survive. All in all, that's probably as it should be, for now anyway.
Nope, if the SCOTUS punts then the lower court overturn stands. Yes?

After a five-month wait, 9th Circuit District Court Judge Vaughn Walker offered a 136-page decision in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, firmly rejecting Proposition 8, which was passed by voters in November 2008.

"Although Proposition 8 fails to possess even a rational basis, the evidence presented at trial shows that gays and lesbians are the type of minority strict scrutiny was designed to protect," Walker ruled.

"Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs' objective as "the right to same-sex marriage" would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy -- namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages."

"Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-gay-mar_n_671018.html


Carl

[finnbow]

Nope, if the SCOTUS punts then the lower court overturn stands. Yes?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-gay-mar_n_671018.html


Carl

I'm not real sure. The ramifications of the Prop 8 case are pretty confusing. I just think that the court will ultimately rule that the state of CA is within its rights to proscribe gay marriage (as is still true in most states). I sense that they don't want to federalize the marriage issue (at this moment, anyway). On this same basis, however, I feel they will be compelled to rule against DOMA. In doing so, they would reaffirm states historical rights when it comes to marriage and divorce.

At the rate things are moving, most blue states will allow gay marriage within the next 7-8 years and ultimately the red states will be swept up by the tide of history. The SCOTUS doesn't appear willing to impose this eventuality on the nation at this point.

[CarlV]

This is what I had heard on the radio news:


Unless five justices conclude Prop. 8 is unconstitutional, the surest route to restoring gay marriage in California lies in an option raised by Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy suggested that if there was not a majority willing to preserve or overturn the ban, the court could belatedly dismiss the case "as improvidently granted," meaning it should not have taken up the appeal in the first place.

In that instance, a narrow 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that struck down Prop. 8 without affecting gay marriage bans in other western states would stand, putting California back among states where gays and lesbians can wed, said John Culhane, a professor at Widener University School of Law in Delaware.

"Talk about deflating a balloon," he said. "Hundreds of briefs, the countless thousands of dollars spent on the case ... but practically, the effect would be the same as a win on the merits."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/us/article/Court-inaction-could-return-gay-marriage-to-Calif-4392593.php#ixzz2OtNkGNSd



Carl

[finnbow]

This is what I had heard on the radio news...:


It seems that SCOTUS bit off more than it's actually willing to chew. They're wishing they never took the Prop 8 case along with the DOMA case. A DOMA reversal seems pretty close to a slam-dunk to me.

[merrylander]

So just for fun let’s take a traditional set of marriage vows.

The original wedding vows, as printed in The Book of Common Prayer are:
Groom: I,____, take thee,_____, to be my lawful wedded Wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I plight thee my troth.

Good enough so far, not a word about children, but I do like that word ‘cherish’.

Bride: I,_____, take thee,_____, to be my lawful wedded Husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I give thee my troth.

Still no reference to children, but what is that nonsense about “obey”. Took that out of our wedding vows, I wanted a partner not a female slave.

Then, as the groom places the ring on the bride's finger, he says the following:

With this Ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Well ours was a double ring ceremony so we both made this vow. But according to some people our marriage was not legal because there was not the slightest possibility of our having children since in removing a tumor they had performed a radical hysterectomy. Since I was 52 and she was 48 and. I really doubt that we would have been allowed to adopt. However my adopted son from my first marriage calls her “Mom” - does that count?

So Chief Justice Robert’s thinks there is a separate but equal type of union out there? What planet does he live on? We have so many rules, laws, mores where “marriage” is the entrance fee or key that we would triple the national debt revising them all. Should, Heaven forbid, I or my wife require hospitalization the partner could be there to provide comfort and support simply because we are married and that makes us “next of kin”.

To reduce the concept of marriage to simple procreation is demeaning the institution, as if saying it is simply a license to copulate. Marriage is so much more, it is a means of doubling joys and halving sorrows. It is support for each other in times of stress or tribulation. It is even such simple events such as looking up from a book and seeing the love shining in your partner’s eyes. From “Our Song” (Sarah Brightman’s No One Like You) the simple phrase “In your arms is a comfort that I have never known” says much.

If marriage is such a sacred institution why are people allowed to enter it so casually? All the State wants is its few dollars for a license, and sometimes a waiting period. But should you both discover somewhere down the road that you made a mistake they will throw everything but the kitchen sink in your way. But note how many “traditional” marriages wind up in divorce.

Oh yes, if not already obvious we are straight, just not narrow.

[barbara]

[QUOTE=merrylander;152244]So just for fun let

[barbara]

Huh? The words in my previous post is not what I wrote!! How did that happen?

[merrylander]

Huh? The words in my previous post is not what I wrote!! How did that happen?

Maybe it was to big to copy? I do get gabby at times.:)

[piece-itpete]

If a thing was not covered by the Constitution at the signing or the acceptance of the amendments it is an upsurpation of power if the judges claim it. Forget the topic. Want something done? Argue it in the public arena. That's not mob rule, that's the way it was supposed to be.

However as we get/feel/think more and more elite we believe we not only can but should use the courts to force minority opinions on the majority for the 'good of all'. I find this arrogant and the complete opposite of what the founder intended. But the ivory tower knows best.

Not pointing fingers just giving my opinion.

Bob, no, Ohio isn't as prop happy (thank goodness from what I can see :D) but it's heading that direction.

Pete

[merrylander]

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

[BlueStreak]

Oh, bullshit, Pete.

No law can be struck down, except by Constitutional Amendment?

How is that supposed to work?

Gay marriage has been argued to death in the public arena.

You're just a sore loser. That's all.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Yes that's what I'm saying.

I think what we really need is a panel of appointees to vet the laws we directly pass, in case we pass one that doesn't line up with current Harvard thought.

Pete

[merrylander]

Yes that's what I'm saying.

I think what we really need is a panel of appointees to vet the laws we directly pass, in case we pass one that doesn't line up with current Harvard thought.

Pete

Prop 8 does not meet the 14th amendment, fuck Harvard.

Ai Dios mio.

[piece-itpete]

It appears to be an emotionally charged subject. I bow out.

Pete

[BlueStreak]

Yes that's what I'm saying.

I think what we really need is a panel of appointees to vet the laws we directly pass, in case we pass one that doesn't line up with current Harvard thought.

Pete

We have them.
It's called the Supreme Court.
And they based the decision on constitutionality.
Stop your whining.

It is unconstitutional to outlaw gay marriage.

Get used to the idea.

Dave

[bobabode]

Yes that's what I'm saying.

I think what we really need is a panel of appointees to vet the laws we directly pass, in case we pass one that doesn't line up with current Harvard thought.

Pete

Now you're just sounding butt hurt.http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/images/smilies/moon.gif edit-:D

[BlueStreak]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Sound familiar?

It's from the Declaration of Independence.

Dave

[merrylander]

H L Mencken had summat to say about people who get terribly upset because they fear that someone, somewhere might be happy.

[merrylander]

"Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy. "

H.L. Mencken

[piece-itpete]

Soooo... when that amendment was passed gay marriage became Consititutional?

If (as stated in a Friday cartoon) the majority favors gay marriage, why use the hammer of a activist Court? Can't get the majority to vote?

;)

Pete

[BlueStreak]

When was it unConstitutional?

The government telling consenting adults who wish to marry and a church willing to marry them that they can't is Constitutional? How?

Dave

[piece-itpete]

It was when the document was adopted...

Pete

[BlueStreak]

How so?

Dave

[merrylander]

Soooo... when that amendment was passed gay marriage became Consititutional?

If (as stated in a Friday cartoon) the majority favors gay marriage, why use the hammer of a activist Court? Can't get the majority to vote?

;)

Pete

We did and it is now legal in Maryland.:p

[JBS...]

Hmmm, wasn't the US Constitution founded on natural law :confused:

[BlueStreak]

Hmmm, wasn't the US Constitution founded on natural law :confused:

Ever gotten a bj? Ooooooo, that's not natural!

Bugger off with that nonsense.

Dave