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.
It has less basis in the constitution and law than even Dred Scott did in the constitution and law in its time. Basically it means the Supreme Court is not really bound to anything and is a super-legislator.
Yes "sex" in title VII and IX means male or female, not sexuality, not sexual partners and associates, and not sexual orientation. So much for what words mean.
And if a man can marry a woman but a woman can not marry a woman. She is being discriminated against on the basis of her own sex.
Yes "sex" in title VII and IX means male or female, not sexuality, not sexual partners and associates, and not sexual orientation. So much for what words mean.
Sexual harassment was not even a legal concept in 1964, and yet the court decades ago found it to be prohibited conduct under the 1964 Civil Rights Act — the law barring employment discrimination "because of sex."
And if a man can marry a woman but a woman can not marry a woman. She is being discriminated against on the basis of her own sex.
Absolutely not. She is being discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation, homosexuality, and trying to enter arrangement intended for heterosexuals. Neither sex could marry the same sex, so the person's sex was not the basis.
Okay some 65 percent Americans support Roe vs. Wade...and I think the percentage is higher for same sex marriage.
Do the Republicans really want to run on those issues?
I'm Republican and I don't if it actually becomes a issue I will speak out against fellow Republicans who want to make it a issue.
I lean toward banning late term abortion though, unless the mother is in danger. It is philosophical debate that can get heated, I see both sides of the issue to a extent, but at the later term of pregnancy the "my body my choice" belief looses support from me.
Also I don't support tax funded abortions. That is forcing people who don't support it to pay for it anyway. Considering the highly charged emotions and philosophical nature of the topic, making people pay into it when they think it is fundamentally or religiously wrong is just wrong. Abortion should be funded by private money not public money and that is part of where the left or Democrats go off toward the wrong end when they include it in public health plans.,,,like affordable health care act.
I vote Republican I have no problem with people that are gay marrying, whether I agree with it or not at the end of the day I don't think government should have the right to decide who marries who as long as consenting and of a certain age.
On the flip side I don't believe a certain religion should be forced to recognize a marriage either. For instance if the Catholic church won't recognize a marriage well then just don't be a catholic.
That's a good way of looking at it, and pretty much matches what is currently implemented. Being in a mixed marriage, my wife and I had to go looking a bit for someone of her faith who'd officiate. I certainly wouldn;t hold that against anyone. I'm pretty sure neither the Catholic church, the local Hindu congregation, the Sikhs or the Mormons consider us properly married, to which I say "So what?".
It has less basis in the constitution and law than even Dred Scott did in the constitution and law in its time. Basically it means the Supreme Court is not really bound to anything and is a super-legislator.
wtf? I mean, how does "it even have less basis in the Constitution & law"?
Sexual harassment was not even a legal concept in 1964, and yet the court decades ago found it to be prohibited conduct under the 1964 Civil Rights Act — the law barring employment discrimination "because of sex."
Just stating that the Court has not stayed true to the original meaning and intent of the law and has legislated, doesn't make it right.
Absolutely not. She is being discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation, homosexuality, and trying to enter arrangement intended for heterosexuals. Neither sex could marry the same sex, so the person's sex was not the basis.
The concept of orientation doesn’t even enter the picture without her own sex. Government doesn’t even care if the people getting married are attracted to each other. If one sex can marry a sex but the other can’t, that is discrimination on the basis of your sex.
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.
