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 02-03-2015, 12:54 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,125,964 times
Reputation: 9895

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by catfishin2000 View Post
the only issue I have is with the use of the word "Marriage."
That is a word with an existing definition. If two gay folks want to enter into a binding union, then it needs it's own word. I don't care if they live together. I don't care if they have all the legal and other benefits of a married couple, just come up with your own word.

What the courts are doing is not protecting rights, they are redefining the meaning of words. That I don't like.
Churches have the term holy matrimony. You don't own the word marriage, and don't get to tell others that they can not use that word.

Courts redefine words all the time. The redefined the word voter when women and blacks were allowed to vote. The redefined the word marriage when they said that people of different races can get married. They even redefined the word citizen when they decided that blacks are to be treated like any other citizen.

Words change meaning over time.
I'm sorry that you have a problem with sharing, but most of us get over that issue in pre-school.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-03-2015, 01:01 PM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
22,121 posts, read 19,341,771 times
Reputation: 5273
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMM05 View Post
This won't last. I live in Alabama. Assure this abusive move by this Godless Judge will be overturned. Wait and SEE.
This move by a Judge appointed by George W Bush will certainly stand. God has nothing to do with Civil Marriage law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2015, 01:10 PM
 
2,345 posts, read 1,662,077 times
Reputation: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
This move by a Judge appointed by George W Bush will certainly stand. God has nothing to do with Civil Marriage law.
Really?

Wait & SEE !!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2015, 01:15 PM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
22,121 posts, read 19,341,771 times
Reputation: 5273
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMM05 View Post
Really?

Wait & SEE !!!
Out of curiosity, how do you believe this will be overturned? Instead of simply stating wait and see, just explain how overturning of the ban will be overturned..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2015, 01:26 PM
 
Location: North America
14,204 posts, read 12,223,854 times
Reputation: 5565
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMM05 View Post
Really?

Wait & SEE !!!
The Supreme Court pretty much signaled it wouldn't by failing to take up earlier cases, or even putting them on an indefinite stays. As of today *11th circuit refused to stay the judgement* it's legal in 37 states. Its possibly that by the time the Supreme Court hears it it will be legal in 41, since Georgia is also under the 11th circuit and the 5th circuit seems poised to also strike it down as well. With all of that it's not very likely that the Supreme Court will go against dozens of decisions in Federal Court to strike it down when only two Courts have ruled to uphold it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2015, 01:35 PM
 
Location: Home is Where You Park It
23,856 posts, read 13,635,235 times
Reputation: 15481
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMM05 View Post
Really?

Wait & SEE !!!
The supreme court, in its decision regarding the federal DOMA, has already said that there is no compelling state interest in barring SSM.

That was what, a year ago? Why do you think they will change their collective mind?

(apparitions of the deity do not count as a discussable reason)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2015, 01:36 PM
 
Location: North America
14,204 posts, read 12,223,854 times
Reputation: 5565
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg View Post
The supreme court, in its decision regarding the federal DOMA, has already said that there is no compelling state interest in barring SSM.

That was what, a year ago? Why do you think they will change their collective mind?

(apparitions of the deity do not count as a discussable reason)
He's stuck in the mindset that it's States rights and the Supreme Court will uphold their rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2015, 01:39 PM
 
2,851 posts, read 3,462,192 times
Reputation: 1200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Becky2517 View Post
What I find more than amusing, is that people are up in arms thinking the judge actually made it a law (reading the comments on AL.com's FB)...which she didn't - she just ruled it unconstitutional, and we all know how much people love their constitutional rights!
There is no constitutional right to marry. We can argue the emotion of gays marrying, polygamy, etc but there is ZERO constitutional basis for these rulings. There is also no constitutional right to abortion.

This coming from a pro-choice and I-Don't-Care-About-Your-Homosexuality guy. The Constitution of the United States sets limits on the government, to make rights out of that is distressing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2015, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Home is Where You Park It
23,856 posts, read 13,635,235 times
Reputation: 15481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucidkitty View Post
He's stuck in the mindset that it's States rights and the Supreme Court will uphold their rights.

That argument still raises other constitutional questions. So if the supremes decide to uphold the SSM ban on the grounds of state's rights, what would happen to a legally married gay couple who moved to one of the states where SSM is banned? On what basis would the marriage be invalidated? After all, people right now elope to other states to get married, because of differences in waiting periods and minimum ages. But when they go back to their home state after two nights in a motel - they are still legally married.

So there would have to be some sort of legal mechanism for states banning SSM to not recognize a marriage performed legally in another state. I am not aware of how that would be legally defensible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2015, 01:49 PM
 
Location: San Antonio Texas
11,431 posts, read 18,936,878 times
Reputation: 5224
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg View Post
That argument still raises other constitutional questions. So if the supremes decide to uphold the SSM ban on the grounds of state's rights, what would happen to a legally married gay couple who moved to one of the states where SSM is banned? On what basis would the marriage be invalidated? After all, people right now elope to other states to get married, because of differences in waiting periods and minimum ages. But when they go back to their home state after two nights in a motel - they are still legally married.

So there would have to be some sort of legal mechanism for states banning SSM to not recognize a marriage performed legally in another state. I am not aware of how that would be legally defensible.
The only reason why that doesn't happen now is because DOMA forbids it. Once DOMA is completely struck down, state laws banning SSM become subject to the "full Faith and Credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution.
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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


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
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6.

© 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