Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-27-2013, 12:35 PM
 
26,497 posts, read 15,074,947 times
Reputation: 14643

Advertisements

The SC striking down a key provision of DOMA, means that states that allow gay marriage can have their married gay couples receive federal benefits.

Aren't conservatives for state's rights?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-27-2013, 12:36 PM
 
9,855 posts, read 15,205,540 times
Reputation: 5481
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
The SC striking down a key provision of DOMA, means that states that allow gay marriage can have their married gay couples receive federal benefits.

Aren't conservatives for state's rights?
Libertarians are for state's rights. Neither conservatives nor democrats are really in favor of a smaller federal government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2013, 12:37 PM
 
Location: San Antonio Texas
11,431 posts, read 19,000,893 times
Reputation: 5224
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
The SC striking down a key provision of DOMA, means that states that allow gay marriage can have their married gay couples receive federal benefits.

Aren't conservatives for state's rights?
If you go by Scalia's definition of being a "strict constructionist", it is a simple matter of reading the 14th Amendment clause of equal protection. But Scalia being Scalia often lets his religious bigotry get in the way of his decisions, the height of judicial activism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2013, 12:39 PM
 
4,176 posts, read 4,670,550 times
Reputation: 1672
Quote:
Originally Posted by wehotex View Post
If you go by Scalia's definition of being a "strict constrictionist", it is a simple matter of reading the 14th Amendment clause of equal protection. But Scalia being Scalia often lets his religious bigotry get in the way of his decisions, the height of judicial activism.
I don't even know if it's a religious thing with him. The guy is simply a complete a-hole. Have you read any of his dissents? Holy crap. We're dealing with an extremely mean and angry man.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2013, 12:41 PM
 
Location: San Antonio Texas
11,431 posts, read 19,000,893 times
Reputation: 5224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199 View Post
I don't even know if it's a religious thing with him. The guy is simply a complete a-hole. Have you read any of his dissents? Holy crap. We're dealing with an extremely mean and angry man.
Not sure why this man doesn't suffer from a heart attack/arterial blockage, etc. He's so angry all of the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2013, 12:42 PM
Sco
 
4,259 posts, read 4,918,958 times
Reputation: 3373
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
The SC striking down a key provision of DOMA, means that states that allow gay marriage can have their married gay couples receive federal benefits.

Aren't conservatives for state's rights?
Conservatives support cetain state's rights, but only if they match up with their overall agenda. Banning abortion is OK
Disenfranchising minority voters is OK
Gay marriage not OK
Medical marijuana not OK
Drivers licenses for Dreamers not OK

DOMA was specifically designed to preempt state's rights when it came to defining marriage. It was a direct reaction to Hawaii allowing same sex marrigage and the social conservatives all came down with a collective case of the vapors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2013, 12:47 PM
 
Location: texas
9,127 posts, read 7,943,324 times
Reputation: 2385
DOMA and Keystone Pipeline are definitely anti-states rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2013, 12:54 PM
 
26,497 posts, read 15,074,947 times
Reputation: 14643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sco View Post
Conservatives support cetain state's rights, but only if they match up with their overall agenda. Banning abortion is OK
Disenfranchising minority voters is OK
Gay marriage not OK
Medical marijuana not OK
Drivers licenses for Dreamers not OK

DOMA was specifically designed to preempt state's rights when it came to defining marriage. It was a direct reaction to Hawaii allowing same sex marrigage and the social conservatives all came down with a collective case of the vapors.
Social Conservatives like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and 2/3rd of the Democrats in the House and Senate in 1996 -- I suppose they may be social conservatives by 2013 standards.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2013, 01:08 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
13,714 posts, read 31,176,487 times
Reputation: 9270
Some conservatives (such as me) don't think the federal government has any role in defining what marriage is or isn't. So I think DOMA should have never existed and the SCOTUS ruling was correct.

Because I don't think marriage is a federal issue, the 14th Amendment shouldn't apply. If marriage itself were not protected by the Constitution, then "equal protection" is not an issue. If marriage is not a federal issue, it shouldn't be in the tax code. It shouldn't matter to the feds what states do or don't do about marriage. Traditional marriage related issues such as inheritance could and should be handled purely as civil matters.

Republicans are not necessarily conservatives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2013, 01:14 PM
 
Location: Fredericktown,Ohio
7,168 posts, read 5,366,055 times
Reputation: 2922
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano View Post
Some conservatives (such as me) don't think the federal government has any role in defining what marriage is or isn't. So I think DOMA should have never existed and the SCOTUS ruling was correct.

Because I don't think marriage is a federal issue, the 14th Amendment shouldn't apply. If marriage itself were not protected by the Constitution, then "equal protection" is not an issue. If marriage is not a federal issue, it shouldn't be in the tax code. It shouldn't matter to the feds what states do or don't do about marriage. Traditional marriage related issues such as inheritance could and should be handled purely as civil matters.

Republicans are not necessarily conservatives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:54 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top