DOMA Is Unconstitutional

Now we have "free marriage" states, and "restricted marriage" states.

It sounds so 1860's to me.
 
Im glad you are agreeing that the DOMA and PROP 8 decisions are Constitutional restoring decisions.
 
tekkychick said:
Sounds to me like DY was happy when there were slave states and free states. I assume he wanted to live in the slave states.
Click to expand...

Its interesting that the slave states and the restricted marriage states are just about the same states....
 
Jarod said:
Im glad you are agreeing that the DOMA and PROP 8 decisions are Constitutional restoring decisions.
Click to expand...

Don't know about Prop 8, but again SCOTUS declared one provision of DOMA unconstitutional, and agrees on State's rights. Funny how now you like states rights.
 
DamnYankee said:
Once again you've made retarded assumptions.
Click to expand...

Feel free to explain how I misinterpreted you. I'm always willing to admit when I'm wrong, if I am.

Jarod said:
Now we have "free marriage" states, and "restricted marriage" states.

It sounds so 1860's to me.
Click to expand...

You said:
Sounds 1783 to me, which is awesome.
Click to expand...
My mistake. I meant 1787.
Click to expand...

Jarod was obviously referring to free/slave states. You said it was awesome. Did I just get wrong that you wanted to live in the slave states?
 
tekkychick said:
Feel free to explain how I misinterpreted you. I'm always willing to admit when I'm wrong, if I am.

Jarod said:


You said:



Jarod was obviously referring to free/slave states. You said it was awesome. Did I just get wrong that you wanted to live in the slave states?
Click to expand...

I was obviously getting back to the OP and referring to the Constitution, and when the federal government paid attention to it and let states make their own laws. This thread has zero do with with slavery and I'm not sure why you Democrats, who institutionalized slavery and segregation keep wanting to talk about it.
 
DamnYankee said:
I was obviously getting back to the OP and referring to the Constitution, and when the federal government paid attention to it and let states make their own laws. This thread has zero do with with slavery and I'm not sure why you Democrats, who institutionalized slavery and segregation keep wanting to talk about it.
Click to expand...

hmmm... then I would recommend you expand your comments a bit more; I didn't connect your comment "awesome" with the original posting, but rather with Jarod's comment on free/restricted which referred to slave states.

I doubt I was the only one who misinterpreted you, but I'll take your comment as stated and apologize for interpreting it differently.

By the way, when it comes to slavery, I really don't like states rights. Besides the basic thing that slavery should never be legal, having it legal in some states and not in others also led to many disparities, such as a person walking across one border and being free, walking across another and being slave. But as you said, that would be a different thread.

I think the same thing will happen to marriage equality as happened to inter-racial marriages; eventually the many contradictions of being legally married in one state and not in another will pile up, and the Supreme Court will say "it's legal everywhere". After all, the federal constitution - with equal protection - does trump states' rights.
 
This is very cool; great customer service -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/us/gay-married-man-in-florida-is-approved-for-green-card.html?_r=1&

For the last two years, the agency has kept a list of same-sex couples whose green card petitions were denied, the officials said, anticipating that the Supreme Court would eventually weigh in on DOMA. Those denials will now be reversed without couples having to present new applications, if no other issues have arisen. Gay couples with no denials, like Mr. Marsh and Mr. Popov, will move through the system at the same pace as traditional spouses, officials said.
Click to expand...
 
tekkychick said:
hmmm... then I would recommend you expand your comments a bit more; I didn't connect your comment "awesome" with the original posting, but rather with Jarod's comment on free/restricted which referred to slave states.

I doubt I was the only one who misinterpreted you, but I'll take your comment as stated and apologize for interpreting it differently.

By the way, when it comes to slavery, I really don't like states rights. Besides the basic thing that slavery should never be legal, having it legal in some states and not in others also led to many disparities, such as a person walking across one border and being free, walking across another and being slave. But as you said, that would be a different thread.

I think the same thing will happen to marriage equality as happened to inter-racial marriages; eventually the many contradictions of being legally married in one state and not in another will pile up, and the Supreme Court will say "it's legal everywhere". After all, the federal constitution - with equal protection - does trump states' rights.
Click to expand...

I don't find it necessary to write each post as if anyone reading it makes unfounded assumptions. That being said, your apology is accepted.

Slavery is not the same as the marriage issue. In fact there is no valid comparison at all. State-sanctioned marriage is a license, similar to a license to practice plumbing or engineering. As an engineer licensed in NC I can't legally practice in say, California. So gay married Californians can't claim legality here.

I chose my profession and gays chose their lifestyle. There may be an argument about that but I could argue that I was born an engineer, being the son of one and my son also entering the profession. Each state has decided for itself who is qualified for the privilege license. As long as it's enforced uniformly the feds should not be involved.
 
Marriage is a constitutional right; the Supreme Court has found it so (I've posted before, feel free to google). States, for example, can't forbid a prisoner to marry. Plumbing ISN'T a constitutional right, as far as I know. That's why I think sooner or later, based on the 14th amendment, the Supreme Court will eventually declare same sex marriage legal everywhere, just as they did with interracial marriage.

That won't make you happy, DY. Luckily, there are still countries - such as Saudi Arabia - that probably will still ban same-sex marriages, so you will have places to go.
 
You're obviously referring to a case that has no relevance. And with regards to moving to areas that abide by your politics, I assume that you won't be residing in any states that currently define marriage as between one woman and one man?
 
DamnYankee said:
I was obviously getting back to the OP and referring to the Constitution, and when the federal government paid attention to it and let states make their own laws. This thread has zero do with with slavery and I'm not sure why you Democrats, who institutionalized slavery and segregation keep wanting to talk about it.
Click to expand...

They respected the Constitution in 1787, huh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top