DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional

[Nash B.]

Show me one election that considers that "close" when a presidential election is considered a "land slide" when it's a 5 point difference.

It's quite different. You're talking about voting for a person and all his policies, which usually leads to voting for only a handful that you agree with and many more that you don't, and voting for a bill or answering a polling question that's pretty black and white.

[Vertnut]

Dont go all skidmark on us, but what does the federal law changing to allow gay couples have to do with state laws?

Just in California.

[Vertnut]

It's quite different. You're talking about voting for a person and all his policies, which usually leads to voting for only a handful that you agree with and many more that you don't, and voting for a bill or answering a polling question that's pretty black and white.

Considering California is one of the most liberal states in the country, and it still voted that way, I'd say it speaks volumes.

[Baron Von Crowder]

Just in California.

expand?

[Vertnut]

expand?

They tossed out the voter's decision in California. That's all. Not here. California.


They're allowing the original order by a lower level gay federal judge to stand. Jerry Brown is backing it.

[racrguy]

I don't need to be more specific about anything. If you dont understand, I can't help you. No citation needed. You admitted you lied (one way or the other) after the election to show you had "balls" to do it. It doesn't surprise me that you don't remember it considering your "selective" memory.

I don't have selective memory. You said I lied, I'd like some clarification. I do not think you understand your own talking points in detail, so you have to remain vague so you can appear to have any idea what you're talking about. After all, you're the one who jumped straight from gay marriage to pedophilia. A more appropriate step in logic would be to go from gay marriage to polygamy, but you wanted to go from 0-derp in half a fucking second.

Yes, pedophiles have rights. No, the SCOTUS doesn't need to rule on them having rights because they're automatically granted at birth.

You neo-cons make me laugh. You guys want to grab just as many rights and liberties as the "liberals" do. Which is odd, because liberal is a term used for those that want more and more government control in all aspects of life, whether it affects you or not. There are only a handful of true conservatives on the boards.

[racrguy]

Just in California.

Do you understand the concept of majority rules; minority rights?

Edit: the SCOTUS didn't even rule on prop 8, they sent it back down to a lower court because they felt it wasn't scrutinized well enough. Don't be dense.

Prop 8 =/ DOMA

[Baron Von Crowder]

They tossed out the voter's decision in California. That's all. Not here. California.


They're allowing the original order by a lower level gay federal judge to stand. Jerry Brown is backing it.

Well, I did some reading, as I thought you were talking about DOMA, and you are not.

In the second case, the court said that it could not rule on a challenge to Proposition 8, a ban on gay marriage in California passed by voters there in 2008, because supporters of the ban lacked the legal standing to appeal a lower court’s decision against it.

The court did not rule on the constitutionality of gay marriage, but the effect of the decision will be to allow same-sex marriage to resume in California. That decision was also 5-4, written by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Lt. Gavin Newsom told NBC News that gay marriage would resume in California within 30 days. Gov. Jerry Brown said counties could begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples as soon as one formality was taken care of: A federal appeals court had to lift a stay issued by a lower judge.

Ok. So if texas holds an election and passes a law saying that old people arent allowed to eat apples on sundays (it far fetched example) and it is challenged, overturned, and then taken to the SC, and they declined to take it because there isnt merrit to overturn the lower judges ruling, is that nessisarily a bad thing?

[Vertnut]

I don't have selective memory. You said I lied, I'd like some clarification. I do not think you understand your own talking points in detail, so you have to remain vague so you can appear to have any idea what you're talking about. After all, you're the one who jumped straight from gay marriage to pedophilia. A more appropriate step in logic would be to go from gay marriage to polygamy, but you wanted to go from 0-derp in half a fucking second.

Yes, pedophiles have rights. No, the SCOTUS doesn't need to rule on them having rights because they're automatically granted at birth.

You neo-cons make me laugh. You guys want to grab just as many rights and liberties as the "liberals" do. Which is odd, because liberal is a term used for those that want more and more government control in all aspects of life, whether it affects you or not. There are only a handful of true conservatives on the boards.

You labeling me is pretty humorous. After what you've done to other members on this board, and being called out for it. Since you know all the answers, I'll leave it at that.

[Vertnut]

Do you understand the concept of majority rules; minority rights?

Edit: the SCOTUS didn't even rule on prop 8, they sent it back down to a lower court because they felt it wasn't scrutinized well enough. Don't be dense.

Prop 8 =/ DOMA

Hence, the lower court ruling (made by the gay judge) stands. Gay marriage is legal in California.

From a business-owners' standpoint, this can get very expensive. If you're forced to cover a "spouse" on medical insurance and the incidence of AIDS/HIV is 1 in every 5 gay men, the cost of premiums will skyrocket. Several large companies have opted to NOT cover the gay spouse for this very reason (in states that allow gay marriage), but it is being legally challenged as we speak.

[racrguy]

You labeling me is pretty humorous. After what you've done to other members on this board, and being called out for it. Since you know all the answers, I'll leave it at that.

Everyone labels everyone. I don't have to know the right answer to know yours are highly flawed.

Hence, the lower court ruling (made by the gay judge) stands. Gay marriage is legal in California.

So, you can't properly direct your anger at the parties that have actually ruled on the case.

I'll ask you again. Do you understand the concept of Majority rules; minority rights?

I'll ask another question. Can you properly rebut anything I've said?

[Vertnut]

I'm not angry about it. It doesn't affect me. I edited a post to say how it affects businesses, which are long-reaching. Further rebutting on my part just validates you more. I'll not play. You might live for this, but I don't.

[stevo]

I don't have to know the right answer to know yours are highly flawed.

/facepalm

Stevo

[exlude]

/facepalm

Stevo

To be fair, that's a perfectly reasonable statement (I haven't followed this argument at all).

Ex: I don't know the full answer to "how do black holes work", but can confidently say that the answer "because fat men spin in bathtubs" is wrong.