DOMA: Obama invokes incest and people marrying children

Whether he defends DOMA or not its still misleading to say "Obama invokes incest and people marrying children."

 

SCJ's word = interpretation of the constitution. I.e. their word is basically law until another case is brought and they overturn it; although the general preference is to uphold the precedent. So basically, it's a constitutional right.

 

There is no enumerated right in the Constitution but that is one of the reasons why we have a USSC in the first place to determine the practical application of rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
In the decision the court wrote:
[rquoter]Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.[/rquoter]

Clearly the USSC sees marriage as something being innate to us as a species that there is no need to specifically enumerate it.

Anyway if there isn't an enumerated right then under the 10th Ammendment marriage should go to the States to decide and the present situation is that the states on their own are deciding whether to have Gay Marriage or not.

 

No one thinks he's a bigot. But your posts here prove that you are bigoted against homosexuals. And your disapproval of gay marriage puts you in the extreme minority for your age group. Gay marriage will be legal, country-wide, in the next 20 years if not the next 10.

Your weird paranoia about liberalism leading to the downfall of America also places you in the extreme fringe minority.

 

dude, you reek of falseness. you're using CBS polls of about 700 people to make a blanket statement for the entire nation.

and even then 60/40 is not the vast majority.

 

thank you sir.

 

Well, I definitely am a minority in many senses. Doesn't make me wrong. The US dollar used to be THE currency that other countries wanted their reserves in, several major economic powers including China have started shifting away from the dollar now. If you think that we can keep running huge deficits we won't even be able to make the interest payments. And that's when the foreign investments will stop, and we'll be downright screwed.

But, I digress. That's a debate for another thread. As to the argument about gay marriage, I do not believe that homosexual 'marriage' is the same as a heterosexual marriage, nor do I believe it should confer the same benefits. There are certain rights that shouldn't even be linked to marriage...hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. which I have nothing against.

 

Whatever gets you through the night, sweetness.

 

WRONG. The right to marry falls under the right to privacy which is a fundamental right and thus triggers strict scrutiny. For example, a law requiring those wishing to marry to first get a counselor's certificate before being able to do so, is unconstitutional.

However, rights often have limits to its scope. For example, one of the most sacred rights, the right to free speech, does not protect defamation or libel.

It is possible that homosexuals are not covered by the right to marry. However, SCOTUS has not set precedent on this yet so it remains to be seen.

I'm tired of seeing this argument: "Marriage is not a right." I'm sorry that my pimphand had to lay down the law.

 

Not trying to be a moderator here but as a fellow poster I think this is over the line.

You might not agree with what Landford Landry teaches his kids, I don't, but they are his kids. He has a right to teach them his religious beliefs and maybe he will get a Karmic come uppance but its presumptious and arrogant of you to accuse him of philosophically abusing his kids.

You may feel you are fighting the good fight and speaking your mind that's fine but is it necessary to personalize this by accusing him of child abuse?

I'm not going to report your post, I'm not going to call for you to be banned or take any other action. I have no authority here and want no authority but am expressing my own opinion.

 

Threads like these are an unpleasent reminder of why I stopped arguing with bigoted morons.

Thankfully, they are slowly shrinking into a small and ignorable minority. (haha - get it, minority?!1) Unfortunately, they seem to get louder as their numbers dwindle.

 

I see that kokopuffs already beat me to it. I don't have time to read full threads. I thereby retract my pimphand. Sorry baby.

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#marr


Marriage

In 2004, a lot of controversy began to swirl around the topic of marriage as homosexual marriage entered the news once again. In 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ordered that the state must make accommodations for gay unions, bringing the issue into the public eye. Vermont created civil unions as a result. In 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Court went a step further, and ruled that the state must accommodate not just an institution equal to marriage, as civil union was designed to be, but that gay marriage itself must be offered in the state. Subsequently, mayors in New York and California to offer gay marriage in their towns and cities, citing civil rights concerns. Those opposed to gay marriage began to urge that an amendment to the Constitution be created to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only. Opponents of the amendment pointed to the failed Prohibition Amendment as a reason why such social issues should stay out of the Constitution. In the absence of any such amendment, however, <b>marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point. </b>

 

Oh please. If you're going to get on the "he has the right" bull**** train, than batman jones has an equal right to call landry out for his prejudicial crap.

This "stand by silently and shake your head" ideology perversely stemming (predominantly) from the left is utterly disgusting; like a 1960s era sit-in in reverse. Shame on you, judoka, for preaching it.

 

if there is ever a time for the proverbial, internet, its serious bidness post this is it.

no need for batman to keep harping on dude's personal life and raising of his kids.

 

for the record.....Batman Jones is also free to express his beliefs. Personally, I think his posts are more detrimental than any ban or warning would ever suffice.

I appreciate your concern for the board, however, it's words on a screen. It does not effect me in the least. Batman actually seems like a smooth cat, outside of this little disagreement. I honestly take no offense.

 

BJ certainly has a right to disagree about his views but accusing someone who he doesn't know personally as philosophically abusing his kids is arrogant and presumptious.

Do you like it when people who you don't know and aren't close to you accuse you of abusing your kids?

I'm all for political and philosophical disagreement. This isn't about shaking my head silently, if it was I wouldn't have wrote anything in response to BJ's post, this is about needless personalizing a philosophical disagreement.

 

to protect children, not to discriminate against them.

 

I don't think teaching your kids that homosexuality is wrong is child abuse. I think Batman Jones is going too far with that.

However, i do think it's a disservice to one's children to teach them it is wrong.

Nevertheless, I do not understand why intelligent rational people would be against gay marriage.

Why shouldn't gays be allowed to married? Why stop them? Why not let them have what heterosexuals have as well? Everyone needs a life partner whom can be there when they are sick or can depend on. Gays need love too man! They need a life companion. They are still human.

They are not criminals. They have not done wrong to anyone else. Nor have they broken any just law. Why should people deny them the opportunity to live their life?

Perhaps this has been discussed many times. But I have yet to hear a reasoned objections. And that's because there is none.

It's not for anyone to tell Landlord landry how to raise his kids. But it's a bit sad I admit.

 

I view anything offensive to me as an opportunity and a motivation to revaluate/reaffirm my own convictions.

Pgabs: I suppose you'd have a different take on it if the story was instead that a parent was teaching his/her children to hate african americans.