Why do you think the law will be struck down? Is there any case that forcing one state to recoginize a marrage that would be invailed if preformed there? Like under age or incest that might not count in one state but does in another?
Why do you think the law will be struck down? Is there any case that forcing one state to recoginize a marrage that would be invailed if preformed there? Like under age or incest that might not count in one state but does in another?
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Agreed. The DoMA will get challenged if any state allows same-sex marriage. The challenge will probably come from a couple the tied the know in either a CA or MA and then went back to another state and was denied equal rights.
UQ:
I'd like to think that most State Supreme Courts would find the infirmities in DOMA compelling enough to reject its constitutionality. (It flies in the face of Loving v. Virginia, so there is ample U.S. Supreme Court opinion to do so.) I will grant that some state Supreme Courts might try to "distinguish" DOMA from prior rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, but without a constitutional amendment I feel pretty confident that even this U.S. Supreme Court wouldn't overrule or distinguish Loving to save DOMA. I didn't mean to imply that states would necessarily ignore DOMA when presented with a valid gay marriage. Most states will probably interpose DOMA in an attempt to reject the license. Such efforts should fail, in my view.
-Robert
I'd like to think that most State Supreme Courts would find the infirmities in DOMA compelling enough to reject its constitutionality. (It flies in the face of Loving v. Virginia, so there is ample U.S. Supreme Court opinion to do so.) I will grant that some state Supreme Courts might try to "distinguish" DOMA from prior rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, but without a constitutional amendment I feel pretty confident that even this U.S. Supreme Court wouldn't overrule or distinguish Loving to save DOMA. I didn't mean to imply that states would necessarily ignore DOMA when presented with a valid gay marriage. Most states will probably interpose DOMA in an attempt to reject the license. Such efforts should fail, in my view.
-Robert
1. The outlawing of gay marriages violates the basic human rights our country was founded on and that are guaranteed in the Constitution.
2. Almost every states marriage laws are different (blood work, age, etc) but all are recognized nationally as being valid, I think because the Constitution requires states to recognize each others laws. The DoMA allows them to not recognize the marriages performed in another state which is unconstitutional, IMO, and will probably be found as such if it ever reaches the USSC.
Spencer:
Google Loving v. Virginia. The U.S. Supreme Court, about 1968-69, or thereabouts, struck down the anti-miscegenation statute of Virginia.
-Robert
Google Loving v. Virginia. The U.S. Supreme Court, about 1968-69, or thereabouts, struck down the anti-miscegenation statute of Virginia.
-Robert
Yes and as any good conservative Republican like me knows, if the court rules against gays it will reverse Loving and re-institute slavery and we will have to find another Lincoln to fight another civil war. That's the real slippery slope a constitutional amendment to ban gays from marriage will have us sliding down, unless, in the off chance, slippery slope arguments are a distraction designed to appeal to fear rather than logic and mean little intellectually and pertinently to the discussion at hand.
Moonbeam:
In all fairness to the traditionalists I don't think it will go that far. Limiting gays to civil unions is one thing, but reinstituting slavery would precipitate civil war, or I hope it would.
Regardless, sooner or later gays will receive the right to marry just as straights. Progress is inevitable.
-Robert
In all fairness to the traditionalists I don't think it will go that far. Limiting gays to civil unions is one thing, but reinstituting slavery would precipitate civil war, or I hope it would.
Regardless, sooner or later gays will receive the right to marry just as straights. Progress is inevitable.
-Robert
Progress is inevitable.
Hehe, and you say Bush will win the election. I'm not sure if your comment inspires me to the confidence it intended.
I hope you realize that I don't see slavery in the offing any more than I do the collapse of civilization of gays can marry. I was taking a poke at the absurdity of the slope arguments we get here so often, although the notion of marrying my horse does have a certain appeal. I'm sure it would be a kick.
Hehe, and you say Bush will win the election. I'm not sure if your comment inspires me to the confidence it intended.
I hope you realize that I don't see slavery in the offing any more than I do the collapse of civilization of gays can marry. I was taking a poke at the absurdity of the slope arguments we get here so often, although the notion of marrying my horse does have a certain appeal. I'm sure it would be a kick.
so, as per the inalienable human right of 'common decency' we must proved all who say they are lovers with the benefits of a married heterosexual couple.
This is a very weak argument, the lack of logic first show by your need for an irrational personal attack to try and prove it.
I'm sorry I'm not getting this but you keep saying we will take a step back if we don't change the definition of marriage? I guarantee that if we don't change the definition of marriage we won't go back to holding slaves.
Perhaps because I am not particularly concerned with being misunderstood, it being something of a way of life for me, and also because of two other things, namely that what people need, generally more than anything else, is to see themselves and that that can best happen in a mirror, I will often respond to somebodies absurd point of view with a homologous absurdity. In the process of deconstructing my nonsense they will use and sharpen the same tools they will need to deconstruct themselves.Originally posted by: chess9
Moonbeam:
Ok.
-Robert
I'm sorry I'm not getting this but you keep saying we will take a step back if we don't change the definition of marriage? I guarantee that if we don't change the definition of marriage we won't go back to holding slaves.
--------------------
OK, well thanks. In that case I promise not to marry my horse when we do change the definition.
--------------------
OK, well thanks. In that case I promise not to marry my horse when we do change the definition.
You are no
fun KMK, I have to translate everything you say into English. The following sentence makes no sense at all:
so, as per the inalienable human right of 'common decency' we must proved all who say they are lovers with the benefits of a married heterosexual couple.
Everybody makes mistakes and everybody could probably be more exact in what they wish to say, but you are terrible. Proof read your posts, please. I don't want to have to take wild guesses at what you mean. If you are a non native speaker please state as much and I may take the time to attempt a translation and ask if it's what you meant. But if you wish to be as slpooy as you are with your words I'm afraid I can't help but infer that you are as sloppy in your thinking. That won't encourage me to pay much attention to what you say.
so you stick with the irational atacks on me as a person.. have you read the forum rules?
I used to post w/out using a spell check as well;
you're argument is that those calling themselves homosexual lovers deserve spousal benefits equal to that of married heterosexuals. You say this view is logical because of inalienable human rights. When asked what inalienable human right you indicated 'common decency' was the specific right.
I don't agree that spousal benefits for same-sex lovers equaling that of married heterosexuals is 'common decency': what is 'common' and what is 'decent' are both highly singular to the individual. To make laws based on the minority's view on what 'common decency' is, over the super-majority's view, is tyranny.
As such i reject both your argument, and the basis of your argument. If you'll give me some logical reasons for your view I'll give it full consideration. Unfortunately thus far logical justifications aren't forth coming as you've relied entirely on name-calling and attacking the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.
1. Has nothing to do with the DoMA and neither does Loving v. Virginia. Loving v. Virginia strikes down the antimiscegenation law not of the bases that other states don't have the law but it violates the Constitution.
2. Every state has different requirement for a drives licenses but if I get a drivers licenses to drive in Vermont I can drive every where unless I'm under 17. If I'm under 17 and drive in NYC I'm breaking the law because to get a valid licenses to drive in NYC you have to be 17. Other states only have to recognize laws if they have a similar law.
Spencer:
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Marriage is an inalienable right.
And, you are dead wrong about Loving, assuming I understand your bollixed syntax.
-Robert
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Marriage is an inalienable right.
And, you are dead wrong about Loving, assuming I understand your bollixed syntax.
-Robert
Loving has nothing to do with the DoMA. Loving could be used baises for claiming the anti-gay marriage laws violate the 14th Amendment but that has little to do with the DoMA.
Marriage is not a right. A state could chose to stop issueing marriages licenses to everyone if they wanted to. Show a case where a state had to recongize a marriage that was illegal in their state.
LMK quoting me: "But if you wish to be as slpooy as you are with your words I'm afraid I can't help but infer that you are as sloppy in your thinking. [/quote] so you stick with the irational atacks on me as a person.. have you read the forum rules
M: I was hoping some error would get through. I'm a bit dyslexic and lucky to be able to read, as far as I'm concerned, but it's you grammar and how you use words that's trying to me. I don't mind the occasional error even mine. The sentence I quoted, however, makes no sense and I'm tired of trying to figure out what you may have meant. But the question of inalienable rights interests me so I will try to make sense of your latest. It doesn't on first read look too bad.
LMK: so, as per the inalienable human right of 'common decency' we must proved all who say they are lovers with the benefits of a married heterosexual couple.
M: That sentence makes no sense as I told you already.
LMK: This is a very weak argument, the lack of logic first show by your need for an irrational personal attack to try and prove it
M: This doesn't make sense either. It is gibberish. Sorry
LMK: I used to post w/out using a spell check as well
M: Spelling is not the problem.
LMK: you're argument is that those calling themselves homosexual lovers deserve spousal benefits equal to that of married heterosexuals. You say this view is logical because of inalienable human rights. When asked what inalienable human right you indicated 'common decency' was the specific right.
M: No I said that if you had any common decency you wouldn't need to ask which right because you would feel that it is simply a matter of fair play.
LMK: I don't agree that spousal benefits for same-sex lovers equaling that of married heterosexuals is 'common decency'
M: I know, how could you? You are a bigot. You have an irrational dislike of homosexuality based on a religious teaching that claims to be the absolute truth because it claims to be the absolute truth. That amounts to you attempting to impose a religious view on people who don't share in your delusion, however real it is to you. You have no logical reason for your opinion except your belief in religion. Be careful. My religion says people like you are too stupid to be allowed to breed.
LMK: imposing a religious view on: what is 'common' and what is 'decent' are both highly singular to the individual.
M: This makes no sense either but I think I know what you mean. I think you mean that what each person thinks is common and what each thinks is decent is particular to that individual.
M: So what. If truth is inalienable there is just one truth and most people don't know what it is. We claim that truth is inalienable in our society and we created a government to apply that truth to society. We said, no religious doctrine as law. We said the Supreme Court will have the final say in government over what will be adjudicated to be inalienable.
LMK: To make laws based on the minority's view on what 'common decency' is, over the super-majority's view, is tyranny.
M: That's right. That's the tyranny you buy into by being an American. Don't like it than move out or change the Constitution. You are pissed off that people 200 years ago had your number and put you in a box for the safety of the rest of us just like they did me. I can't gas you as inferior without going to jail. I don't like it, but I have to live under the law if I want to function in society.
LMK: As such i reject both your argument, and the basis of your argument.
M: Reject anything you want but you are still anti-American and a bigot.
LMK: If you'll give me some logical reasons for your view I'll give it full consideration.
M: The logic is that I'm going to let you live.
LMK: Unfortunately thus far logical justifications aren't forth coming as you've relied entirely on name-calling and attacking the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.
M: Thus far I have repeatedly demolished your arguments only to have you repeat them again and again. That happens because you are as blind as a bigot. I just identified you as what you are. That's not calling you names.
Opinions based on Biblical text are totally worthless in the eyes of the law. You need to find yourself a theocracy to live under, but not mine because there you'd be removed as a matter of sanitation.
M: I was hoping some error would get through. I'm a bit dyslexic and lucky to be able to read, as far as I'm concerned, but it's you grammar and how you use words that's trying to me. I don't mind the occasional error even mine. The sentence I quoted, however, makes no sense and I'm tired of trying to figure out what you may have meant. But the question of inalienable rights interests me so I will try to make sense of your latest. It doesn't on first read look too bad.
LMK: so, as per the inalienable human right of 'common decency' we must proved all who say they are lovers with the benefits of a married heterosexual couple.
M: That sentence makes no sense as I told you already.
LMK: This is a very weak argument, the lack of logic first show by your need for an irrational personal attack to try and prove it
M: This doesn't make sense either. It is gibberish. Sorry
LMK: I used to post w/out using a spell check as well
M: Spelling is not the problem.
LMK: you're argument is that those calling themselves homosexual lovers deserve spousal benefits equal to that of married heterosexuals. You say this view is logical because of inalienable human rights. When asked what inalienable human right you indicated 'common decency' was the specific right.
M: No I said that if you had any common decency you wouldn't need to ask which right because you would feel that it is simply a matter of fair play.
LMK: I don't agree that spousal benefits for same-sex lovers equaling that of married heterosexuals is 'common decency'
M: I know, how could you? You are a bigot. You have an irrational dislike of homosexuality based on a religious teaching that claims to be the absolute truth because it claims to be the absolute truth. That amounts to you attempting to impose a religious view on people who don't share in your delusion, however real it is to you. You have no logical reason for your opinion except your belief in religion. Be careful. My religion says people like you are too stupid to be allowed to breed.
LMK: imposing a religious view on: what is 'common' and what is 'decent' are both highly singular to the individual.
M: This makes no sense either but I think I know what you mean. I think you mean that what each person thinks is common and what each thinks is decent is particular to that individual.
M: So what. If truth is inalienable there is just one truth and most people don't know what it is. We claim that truth is inalienable in our society and we created a government to apply that truth to society. We said, no religious doctrine as law. We said the Supreme Court will have the final say in government over what will be adjudicated to be inalienable.
LMK: To make laws based on the minority's view on what 'common decency' is, over the super-majority's view, is tyranny.
M: That's right. That's the tyranny you buy into by being an American. Don't like it than move out or change the Constitution. You are pissed off that people 200 years ago had your number and put you in a box for the safety of the rest of us just like they did me. I can't gas you as inferior without going to jail. I don't like it, but I have to live under the law if I want to function in society.
LMK: As such i reject both your argument, and the basis of your argument.
M: Reject anything you want but you are still anti-American and a bigot.
LMK: If you'll give me some logical reasons for your view I'll give it full consideration.
M: The logic is that I'm going to let you live.
LMK: Unfortunately thus far logical justifications aren't forth coming as you've relied entirely on name-calling and attacking the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.
M: Thus far I have repeatedly demolished your arguments only to have you repeat them again and again. That happens because you are as blind as a bigot. I just identified you as what you are. That's not calling you names.
Opinions based on Biblical text are totally worthless in the eyes of the law. You need to find yourself a theocracy to live under, but not mine because there you'd be removed as a matter of sanitation.
Spencer:
Good grief...how old are you?
Edit: Ok, I felt badly for blowing you off because of your age so I came back. Go read any of the many discussions to be found on the web. You might also want to read the sodomy case Lawrence, and the Romer case. This is a complex matter, but if Cali or Mass rule in favor of gay marriage I have no doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court will hold the other states must give full faith and credit to marriages solemnized in those states. Why do you think the constitutional amendment is being proposed?
-Robert
Good grief...how old are you?
Edit: Ok, I felt badly for blowing you off because of your age so I came back. Go read any of the many discussions to be found on the web. You might also want to read the sodomy case Lawrence, and the Romer case. This is a complex matter, but if Cali or Mass rule in favor of gay marriage I have no doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court will hold the other states must give full faith and credit to marriages solemnized in those states. Why do you think the constitutional amendment is being proposed?
-Robert
Originally posted by: chess9
Spencer:
Good grief...how old are you?
Edit: Ok, I felt badly for blowing you off because of your age so I came back. Go read any of the many discussions to be found on the web. You might also want to read the sodomy case Lawrence, and the Romer case. This is a complex matter, but if Cali or Mass rule in favor of gay marriage I have no doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court will hold the other states must give full faith and credit to marriages solemnized in those states. Why do you think the constitutional amendment is being proposed?
-Robert
The reason for the constitutional amendment is to keep Mass or Cali in line. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage it will not be about other states having to give full faith and credit to marriages solemnized in other states but it will be on 14th amendment issues.
--U.S. Constitution: Article IV Section 1.
Lets say a legal gay marrage is preformed in mass. The people then move to texas. Texas has to give full faith and credit to the marrage but in Texas there is no law giving benifets to gay marrage so the state by doing nothing has given full faith and credit.
Spencer:
I'm not so sure the U.S. Supreme Court will embrace the 14th Amendment argument. I think they should, but the 14th Amendment analysis is tied into race in Loving, which may not be where they go. They may follow Lawrence and simply expand on it.
Congress isn't as worried about Cali and Mass as the U.S. Supreme Court. The Lawrence case when read with Loving and Romer make them very uneasy. The only way to keep states from having to recognize gay marriages performed in other states is by constitutional amendment. The Full Faith and Credit Clause ain't goin' nowhere and DOMA simply ignored it, which won't wash.
You are walking half way to the wall each time. A few more posts and you'll have it.
-Robert
I'm not so sure the U.S. Supreme Court will embrace the 14th Amendment argument. I think they should, but the 14th Amendment analysis is tied into race in Loving, which may not be where they go. They may follow Lawrence and simply expand on it.
Congress isn't as worried about Cali and Mass as the U.S. Supreme Court. The Lawrence case when read with Loving and Romer make them very uneasy. The only way to keep states from having to recognize gay marriages performed in other states is by constitutional amendment. The Full Faith and Credit Clause ain't goin' nowhere and DOMA simply ignored it, which won't wash.
You are walking half way to the wall each time. A few more posts and you'll have it.
-Robert
If Cali legally marries a gay couple Texas will have to recognize them as married and if texas pays benefits to straight couples they will have to pay to gays. If you just think with your heart a bit and leave bigotry behind things will be clearer.
Moonbeam:
Think with your heart and you will have heartache, but no need for aspirin.
-Robert, the cynic.
Think with your heart and you will have heartache, but no need for aspirin.
-Robert, the cynic.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter