Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, let me think about these issues for a minute....or three....
RoeVWade? If it is taken back to the Supreme Court, and reason(s) are found to overturn it, what effect will such a decision have on me, my family, and friends?
well, in truth, none, zero, zilch, nada, no way. If RvW is overturned, the SC will simply leave it up to the individual states to decide. OK, that's settled, it is a non-issue for me. I don't care.
Same Sex "Marriage", or civil union, or co-habitation contract or whatever society decides to label it: Again, if it is taken back to the SC for review, and the Justices decide it is a state issue, not a Federal one, what effect will that have on me, my family and friends? And again, none, zero, zilch, etc. However, I do believe if it is returned to the states, the states should be required to grant full Reciprocity to the "marriage" license, co-hab contract, civil union, etc. just as Reciprocity is granted to Driving Licenses, civil contracts of all other types, etc.. If the paper is legal in whatever state granted it, it should be accepted as a done deal in all other states, even if it is not legal to create such a contract in that state. FULL Reciprocity!
Note that a Marriage License IS a "contract"; between two people in its simplest form, or between two people and the State, or between two people and their Deity, or any combination thereof. A "civil union" or a "co-habitation contract" is exactly the same, legally and morally, if worded properly. The privileges and responsibilities are (or should be) identical.
the bottom line: again, I just don't care.
Sure, as we all do, I have opinions, but that doesn't mean I really care about the issues. The only time I even think about it is when I read something like this thread.
Roe took powers not granted to the Feds (and thereby reserved for the States under Amendment 10) and Federalized them in contradiction to the 10th Amendment.
Do you have reading comprehension problems?
The person I responded to said she was "for the Constitution" which is why she "wouldn't overturn" Roe v. Wade or same-sex marriage(IE he was making the claim that both rights were enumerated in the Constitution).
Maybe you should actually read what was written in full context before you respond.
All "overturning Roe v. Wade" does is return the abortion decision back to the states, as it was prior to Roe v. Wade.
Well, let me think about these issues for a minute....or three....
RoeVWade? If it is taken back to the Supreme Court, and reason(s) are found to overturn it, what effect will such a decision have on me, my family, and friends?
well, in truth, none, zero, zilch, nada, no way. If RvW is overturned, the SC will simply leave it up to the individual states to decide. OK, that's settled, it is a non-issue for me. I don't care.
Same Sex "Marriage", or civil union, or co-habitation contract or whatever society decides to label it: Again, if it is taken back to the SC for review, and the Justices decide it is a state issue, not a Federal one, what effect will that have on me, my family and friends? And again, none, zero, zilch, etc. However, I do believe if it is returned to the states, the states should be required to grant full Reciprocity to the "marriage" license, co-hab contract, civil union, etc. just as Reciprocity is granted to Driving Licenses, civil contracts of all other types, etc.. If the paper is legal in whatever state granted it, it should be accepted as a done deal in all other states, even if it is not legal to create such a contract in that state. FULL Reciprocity!
Note that a Marriage License IS a "contract"; between two people in its simplest form, or between two people and the State, or between two people and their Deity, or any combination thereof. A "civil union" or a "co-habitation contract" is exactly the same, legally and morally, if worded properly. The privileges and responsibilities are (or should be) identical.
the bottom line: again, I just don't care.
Sure, as we all do, I have opinions, but that doesn't mean I really care about the issues. The only time I even think about it is when I read something like this thread.
Absolutely agree with that point, especially since there are Federal Benefits that accompany marriage.
On another note if it went back to the states, and marriage rights were suddenly taken away, you may see an economic backlash against those states. We saw what happened in NC over transgender bathrooms, and what would of happened in Texas had they passed a bathroom bill. I think stripping gays of marriage rights now would create an even bigger backlash.
You win this centurys award for the stupidest analogies to appear in a CD Forum.
A fetus is not a "pile" of proteins, or even parts. It is an already-assembled baby upon which the finishing touches are being applied, and in which a functioning brain is found.
The biggest contortion of "logic" ever to appear on CD.
You really should give the "thoughts" you have some consideration before you actually post them thereby making you vulnerable to such shameful awards.
A "functioning" brain that cannot sustain life on its own.
A fetus is a collection of unfinished parts that are incapable of sustaining life, just like the unassembled parts of a car or house are unable to function as the finished product.
Can one be legally charged with murdering a fetus? Yes. Murder. Homicide. That grants a fetus status as a person.
Again, if a fetus is a person it should be considered a legal dependent for tax and child support purposes, etc.
It isn't.
The government taking action against someone who killed a fetus against the mother's will does not violate the woman's right to privacy. That FACT provides the basis for the exception to the rule regarding fetal homicide.
The OP's question seems like it is designed to paint all Conservatives with the same brush.
I am a Conservative. I believe very strictly in the Constitution. Therefore, I would not overturn those rulings, in keeping with the 9th Ammendment. The 9th Ammendment, in short, states that just because something isn't explicitly spelled out (like in Ammendments 1, 2 or, 4), doesn't mean those rights don't exist.
Except that the R party platform explicitly calls for rolling both of them back.
Apparently Ds take the R party platform more seriously than Rs do. A curious state of affairs to say the least.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
