As prop 8 of California comes into question: Justices take up gay marriage for the first time | Reuters
A voter referendum comes into question because someone didn't like the outcome. End of story. The Federal Defense of Marriage Act also up for question, seems constituents and representatives alike can be countermanded by nine individuals dressed in robes.
And with such challenges facing this nation, whether homosexuals can get married is critical. Typical progressive misplaced values and priorities. unneeded insult removed
And with such challenges facing this nation, whether homosexuals can get married is critical. Typical progressive misplaced values and priorities. unneeded insult removed
Last edited by a moderator:
The argument of this case by those that favor gay marriage is "equal protection". That dog won't hunt. If equal protection were to be fully enforced there would be no differences in the laws through out the country. The laws in Texas would be exactly the same as there are in California, the same as they are in Iowa and Mississippi.
Agreed....but nothing else has worked. It is a pity to need to resort to such things in an adult forum.
Unneeded doesn't mean inaccurate, the removal of my correct ascertation doesn't change the fact that it was dead on correct. In any adult world.
Our Represenatives in Congress voted in the DOMA. California voters referendumed prop 8. Why not seek a change there, why go to our court system?
Our Represenatives in Congress voted in the DOMA. California voters referendumed prop 8. Why not seek a change there, why go to our court system?
Had your comment been even remotely similar to the above, rather than an attempt at debasing another member....I would never have felt the need.
While I support ssm I do see a problem. With DOMA, and any other federal involvement. The tenth amendment states that marriage is a state issue. however of there is discrimination our state sanctioned withholding of the constitutional rights then the fed must intervene.
Is it right for gay people to marry? That is the only question. I don't understand why so many people care so deeply about two men our two women being legally married, it seems to be folks that already have wives and husbands. It seems a bit busy body ish to me.
The fact that our supreme court has to decide is strange to me. It seems very immature.
Is it right for gay people to marry? That is the only question. I don't understand why so many people care so deeply about two men our two women being legally married, it seems to be folks that already have wives and husbands. It seems a bit busy body ish to me.
The fact that our supreme court has to decide is strange to me. It seems very immature.
Glaring is the absence of the word successful in front of your word 'attempt' there. And I really couldn't care less for what need you felt.
Moving on.
What was your opinion on the role of Federal legislation in ending slavery or segregation?
The DOMA may be unconstitutional and same sex couples should receive federal benefits in the states where same sex marriage has been legalised. And this is consistent with Obama's policy on gay marriage as he thinks that the issue is up to the states to decide as American society evolves on a state-by-state basis.
Did you vote for anyone that approved of that federal mandate form of discrimination?
So those that voted for it bigots?
But if any state should decide one man one woman.....and that is all the DOMA did..then it must be your opinion that each would be guilty of 'state mandated discrimination.' And if that is your belief....and it seems to be....then the federal government would have no choice but to step in......so your "without the Fed interfering" statement is a complete contradiction on your part.
Your opinion is that a state decision denying same sex marriage would be government mandated discrimination by any state but then don't think that should be a federal issue. I mean....what in the world?
Let us pray.
tecoyah, what must I do to get a question answered? Your opinion here states that should a state deny same sex marriage, they are guilty of state "mandated discrimination'......and continue to explain that the federal government should play no roll. The federal government should then....in your opinion....sit idle while the states engage "mandated discrimination?"
The sentence above ends in a question, it's a query. Thanks.
The sentence above ends in a question, it's a query. Thanks.
Similar threads
