that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
moondog Send a noteboard - 19/10/2012 08:06:54 PM
..and you should really be more hesitant before asuming what someone else's beliefs are.
or maybe you should argue from a legal reasoning instead of an emotional one...
1: There is no "right" to marriage. Marriage is a specifically crafted legal entity that EVERYONE has the ability/privilege to participate in on the exact same grounds.
and when the federal government, and 2/3 of the states of the union, DO NOT RECOGNIZE that marriage there is a major problem for things like estate inheritance (which the law referenced in the original post was settling), power of attorney, hospital visitation rights, and a host of other *LEGAL* issues. what DOMA did was to say that not only is a non-heterosexual marriage not recognized by the federal government, but that non-heterosexual marriages (heterosexual marriage defined as one man, one woman) are denied such benefits as described above.
2: There is no "Equal Rights" issue because there is no "right" and everyone has equal access to the exact same legal entity. That is the definition of Equal Rights.
see above. the original lawsuit was filed because the couple was LEGALLY married according to canadian law. the US recognizes marriages performed in other countries, but because of DOMA the government put in legal terms that only marriages consisting of one man and one woman could enjoy the LEGAL protection of marriage. by writing a law specifically denying that same legal protection to a group based solely on their sexual orientation, it most certainly *is* denying equal rights to a minority group and therefore violates the equal protection clause
3: What is being requested/desired is an NEW legal entity in place of, or beside, the currently existing legal entity. My only complaint is that those who desire such are not brave enough, or honest enough, to admit it.
there is no new legal entity being requested. what is being requested is applying the EXISTING framework to same sex couples who marry each other. nothing more, nothing less. to frame the discussion in other terms is to deliberately ignore the actual issue at hand.
4: IF there was some sort of discrimination being performed, the current advocates are not seeking to eliminate it, only to place themselves as one of the accepted classes. Otherwise you would see those same advocates in favor of polygamy, or legalized incest. I guess one type of "discriminated class" is more politically acceptable than another...
polygamy/bigamy is only recognized by utah AFAIK, and that only in the specific circumstance of fundamentalist mormonism. incest laws vary from state to state, but it's very rare that an incest case leads to marriage, so throwing that one in shows you are not thinking rationally about the issue. exactly the reasoning the courts have continued to use when these laws are coming up for appeal -- that the only reason to allow the law to stand is because they were written with specific malice towards a group of people and not for any actual legal reason.
As I said before I could not care less who anyone "marries". I was married once, and frankly everyone should share in the misery. I just object to the methods and dishonesty being employed. Legislating through judicial arguments is virtually ALWAYS a bad idea.
the courts exist solely to settle this exact type of conflict. just because you do not like the ruling does not invalidate the legality of the argument.
as an aside, when you ended your marriage (an assumption based on your statement), did you just shake hands and walk away or was there an actual legal divorce procedure? if you actually filed paperwork to end your marriage, that is the right of married couples who wish to end their relationship. property laws vary from state to state, but there is a LEGAL FRAMEWORK for ending a marriage which is only available to heterosexual married couples until the supreme court decides the issue one way or the other.
"The RIAA has shown a certain disregard for the creative people of the industry in their eagerness to protect the revenues of the record companies." -- Frank Zappa
"That's the trouble with political jokes in this country... they get elected!" -- Dave Lippman
"That's the trouble with political jokes in this country... they get elected!" -- Dave Lippman
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM
902 Views
Completely unsurprising since the Justice department refuses to defend the law.
- 18/10/2012 09:05:16 PM
522 Views
For a moment there I thought you were saying the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 09:10:16 PM
570 Views
Do you know if there's a case about DOMA and the "full faith and credit" clause?
- 18/10/2012 10:05:11 PM
632 Views
I don't know offhand, but my gchat friend will. If she pops on again, I'll ask her. But...
- 18/10/2012 10:37:09 PM
647 Views
I asked her about pending cases taking on Section 2. "None that I know of," she answered. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 12:46:21 AM
228 Views
I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM
583 Views
Re: I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 01:18:22 AM
581 Views
Either a ban discriminates against those affected more than those unaffected, or it does not.
- 19/10/2012 03:48:32 PM
468 Views
Gun control laws can equally affect everyone, though, is my point.
- 20/10/2012 10:52:41 PM
575 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it.
- 19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM
627 Views
I just have to note in passing that Ted Olsons memoires will make fascinating reading.
- 19/10/2012 04:44:15 PM
666 Views
Also, hooray! Let's hope SCOTUS adheres (if you use that term over there). *NM*
- 18/10/2012 10:59:14 PM
251 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause
- 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM
713 Views
Not really
- 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM
637 Views
Then by the "legal argument" you all propose I should have the "right" to marry a spoon...
- 19/10/2012 05:48:32 PM
548 Views
if your spoon or dog is capable of making power of attorney decisions then by all means do so *NM*
- 19/10/2012 06:41:43 PM
257 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM
248 Views
provide for us a legal reason why marrying a corporation should be recognized by the US gov't
- 19/10/2012 08:09:08 PM
621 Views
The argument above was that there was no jsutification it should not, thus it should be allowed.
- 19/10/2012 10:57:16 PM
626 Views
you are only offering your own emotional take on a legal decision there is no logic in your posts
- 19/10/2012 11:12:17 PM
532 Views
Wrong. I do not have an emotional stake in this, I am simply using logic. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 03:59:08 PM
262 Views
saying you should be able to marry a spoon or corporation is not logical reasoning. try again *NM*
- 22/10/2012 06:19:29 PM
243 Views
EXACTLY, and that was the point I was making. Congratualtions for figuring that out. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:34:46 PM
230 Views
you are obviously using some humpty dumpty definition of "logic" then *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:40:12 PM
243 Views
No, you apparently failed reading comprehension in school.
- 23/10/2012 03:08:44 PM
552 Views
#1: fuck you. #2: you are still not using logic
- 23/10/2012 05:50:14 PM
513 Views
Ah yes, the fuck you argument... the height of all intelectual persuits... and you call ME emotional
- 23/10/2012 06:47:21 PM
589 Views
i see -- it's ok to be insulting as long as the "f-bomb" is not used. got it.
- 23/10/2012 10:27:54 PM
670 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM
252 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white?
- 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM
505 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully
- 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM
481 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument.
- 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM
502 Views
No, I am not, try reading everything I have written on the subject before jumping to conclusions.
- 22/10/2012 11:41:05 PM
651 Views
It was only a matter of time.
- 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM
557 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion.
- 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM
715 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb.
- 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM
626 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself
- 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM
595 Views
There is no right being denied...
- 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM
559 Views
that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
- 19/10/2012 08:06:54 PM
619 Views
Re: that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
- 19/10/2012 11:11:55 PM
683 Views
nobody is arguing the legal right to marry, they are arguing about the legal rights marriage gives
- 19/10/2012 11:37:14 PM
512 Views
There are no "marriage rights" NONE, zip, ziltch, nada...
- 22/10/2012 04:18:15 PM
570 Views
why bother settling custody in a divorce then if there are no "marriage rights"?
- 22/10/2012 06:38:14 PM
462 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument:
- 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM
581 Views