DOMA going down to Full Faith and Credit.

It depends on their ability to address the issue without being influenced by their religious beliefs...given the way they ruled on Citizens United they are seriously compromised.
 
Haiku said:
It depends on their ability to address the issue without being influenced by their religious beliefs...given the way they ruled on Citizens United they are seriously compromised.
Click to expand...
the supreme court has been compromised since the early 1800s, but if you knew anything about the constitution, you'd know this already. CU is not an earth shattering decision like you idiots claim it to be. it's easily defeated by educating the people, not keeping them dumbed down.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the supreme court has been compromised since the early 1800s, but if you knew anything about the constitution, you'd know this already. CU is not an earth shattering decision like you idiots claim it to be. it's easily defeated by educating the people, not keeping them dumbed down.
Click to expand...

I have no problem understanding you believe this to be true but I would take issue with your interpretation of the constitution. It isn't intended to be more than a guide hardly the frozen in time equivalent of the Bible. Most of you have a problem with the Bill of Rights being applied equally to everyone...but our system was corrupted with the Citizens United ruling which was based on an earlier error...money is not speech and corporations are not people. Any person capable of understanding how our system is set up can see that. Ayn Rand is no prophet.
 
Haiku said:
I have no problem understanding you believe this to be true but I would take issue with your interpretation of the constitution. It isn't intended to be more than a guide hardly the frozen in time equivalent of the Bible. Most of you have a problem with the Bill of Rights being applied equally to everyone...but our system was corrupted with the Citizens United ruling which was based on an earlier error...money is not speech and corporations are not people. Any person capable of understanding how our system is set up can see that. Ayn Rand is no prophet.
Click to expand...
\

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speech, but Austin's antidistortion rationale would permit the Government to ban political speech because the speaker is an association with a corporate form. Political [**766]speech is "indispensable to decision-making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation."

^ tell me how the above is wrong or why you don't agree with it.
 
Jarod said:
So what do you think the Supreme Court will give more power to....

The United States Constitution and the Full Faith and Credit Clause Or The Defense of Marriage Act?


Will the Supreme Court say that prohibiting gay marriage is unlawfull discrimination?

Will the Supreme Court uphold the FREEDOM to marry who you chose?

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_new...court-to-take-up-same-sex-marriage-issue?lite
Click to expand...

So you think ANYONE can marry ANYONE they choose with ZERO restrictions? Do you think there should be ANY restrictions on who can marry? If so what are they and under what justification?
 
I Love America said:
So you think ANYONE can marry ANYONE they choose with ZERO restrictions? Do you think there should be ANY restrictions on who can marry? If so what are they and under what justification?
Click to expand...

Consent would be the line I would draw. Children cannot give consent, and I don't think parents should be allowed to do it for them. It is way too large a decision to let parents "allow" a 14 year old to marry due to religious reasons, the vast majority of their life will be when they are adults and can consent, such decisions should be made then.

And before we get there... animals do not have a capacity for consent either, that is where this argument usually goes. Nor does a roller coaster...

Basically, advised and adult consent should be where we should draw the line. One should not be able to defraud one wife/husband by taking an unknown wife/husband on the side... advised consent matters.

How people choose to make families is not a valid extension of government power, while intent to defraud is... or victimizing children through force of a parent giving consent for them.
 
Haiku said:
I have no problem understanding you believe this to be true but I would take issue with your interpretation of the constitution. It isn't intended to be more than a guide hardly the frozen in time equivalent of the Bible.
Click to expand...
no more than a guide? are you for real? the constitution is the framework of the federal government. months and months of debates and votes went in to ensuring that the federal government was given ONLY the powers that were necessary, and no more. how can you possibly consider that to be no more than a guide?

Haiku said:
Most of you have a problem with the Bill of Rights being applied equally to everyone
Click to expand...
what are you talking about here? the bill of rights, if you read them correctly, do not give any rights to people, it simply tells the federal government that they have zero power to touch them. how is that not applicable to all?

Haiku said:
.but our system was corrupted with the Citizens United ruling which was based on an earlier error...money is not speech and corporations are not people. Any person capable of understanding how our system is set up can see that.
Click to expand...
i'm curious to what error you are referring to. I know where corps attained rights and I do believe it's in error. The USSC had no business creating a right where none existed, but the government had no power in taking property that wasn't for public use.

Haiku said:
Ayn Rand is no prophet.
Click to expand...
never said she was.
 
Conservative said:
Gods Law says Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve
Click to expand...
1) the 1st Amendment says - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
2) marriage is a contract only and the people have the inherent right to contract. numerous court decisions bear this out.

so God has zero authority over marriage, unless it's a marriage performed and sanctioned by the church.
 
I think it will be interesting to see how the fat turd Scalia will rationalize his defense of DOMA in Windsor. I am also interested to see how Thomas rules in Perry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top