Active Users:661 Time:04/06/2026 07:04:36 AM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
You obviously have no idea what a right is. HyogaRott Send a noteboard - 22/10/2012 11:49:26 PM
Parental obligations and privledges are determined by the courts "in the best interest of the child" In other words they are set to protect the rights OF THE CHILD not the parents. They may be called "parental rights" for convienence, but they are NOT rights. Rights are not granted by a court decree, they exist WITHOUT law. Law can only defnine what naturally exists, or eliminate them, never grant them. We do not have freedom of speech BECAUSE of the 1st amendment, the 1st amendment exists to prevent the freedom of speech from being taken away by the government.

Property rights are a part of the Constitution. A marriage is a legal entity, just like a corporation. The marriage owns property. The marriage is composed of 2 individuals. The disolution of a marriage is just like the disolution of a company, the property owned by the marriage has liquidated and shared among the "shareholders".

There is NO marriage RIGHTS.
Reply to message
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional. Burr - 18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM 1113 Views
An excellent ruling. Thanks for the post. *NM* Ghavrel - 18/10/2012 08:47:54 PM 329 Views
Oh, and they addressed the First Circuit's argument: Burr - 18/10/2012 08:54:47 PM 892 Views
I always knew that DomA guy was bad news. Nate - 18/10/2012 09:05:13 PM 635 Views
Completely unsurprising since the Justice department refuses to defend the law. HyogaRott - 18/10/2012 09:05:16 PM 686 Views
For a moment there I thought you were saying the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional. Legolas - 18/10/2012 09:10:16 PM 731 Views
Do you know if there's a case about DOMA and the "full faith and credit" clause? Tim - 18/10/2012 10:05:11 PM 800 Views
I don't know offhand, but my gchat friend will. If she pops on again, I'll ask her. But... Burr - 18/10/2012 10:37:09 PM 823 Views
I asked her about pending cases taking on Section 2. "None that I know of," she answered. *NM* Burr - 19/10/2012 12:46:21 AM 309 Views
I wonder about that one as well. Joel - 19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM 765 Views
Re: I wonder about that one as well. Burr - 19/10/2012 01:18:22 AM 761 Views
Either a ban discriminates against those affected more than those unaffected, or it does not. Joel - 19/10/2012 03:48:32 PM 658 Views
Gun control laws can equally affect everyone, though, is my point. Burr - 20/10/2012 10:52:41 PM 731 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it. Tom - 19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM 819 Views
There is a good chance it won't happen Roland00 - 19/10/2012 03:02:50 PM 856 Views
Kennedy will go along with them. *NM* Tom - 19/10/2012 10:05:38 PM 308 Views
I just have to note in passing that Ted Olsons memoires will make fascinating reading. Joel - 19/10/2012 04:44:15 PM 826 Views
Also, hooray! Let's hope SCOTUS adheres (if you use that term over there). *NM* Tim - 18/10/2012 10:59:14 PM 326 Views
I believe we typically use the terms "affirms" or "upholds." Joel - 19/10/2012 12:23:50 AM 797 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause Joel - 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM 887 Views
Not really HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM 793 Views
Not quite Roland00 - 19/10/2012 02:56:56 PM 684 Views
Yes, really, for "any CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT." Joel - 19/10/2012 03:12:11 PM 761 Views
joel, please stop moondog - 19/10/2012 05:42:51 PM 747 Views
That's such a stupid, puerile argument. Ghavrel - 19/10/2012 03:47:26 PM 763 Views
Not the best analogy, though I agree with the sentiment. Joel - 19/10/2012 04:10:11 PM 696 Views
Then by the "legal argument" you all propose I should have the "right" to marry a spoon... HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 05:48:32 PM 715 Views
if your spoon or dog is capable of making power of attorney decisions then by all means do so *NM* moondog - 19/10/2012 06:41:43 PM 324 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM* HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM 323 Views
provide for us a legal reason why marrying a corporation should be recognized by the US gov't moondog - 19/10/2012 08:09:08 PM 791 Views
The argument above was that there was no jsutification it should not, thus it should be allowed. HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 10:57:16 PM 801 Views
you are only offering your own emotional take on a legal decision there is no logic in your posts moondog - 19/10/2012 11:12:17 PM 709 Views
Wrong. I do not have an emotional stake in this, I am simply using logic. *NM* HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 03:59:08 PM 339 Views
saying you should be able to marry a spoon or corporation is not logical reasoning. try again *NM* moondog - 22/10/2012 06:19:29 PM 321 Views
EXACTLY, and that was the point I was making. Congratualtions for figuring that out. *NM* HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 11:34:46 PM 306 Views
you are obviously using some humpty dumpty definition of "logic" then *NM* moondog - 22/10/2012 11:40:12 PM 322 Views
No, you apparently failed reading comprehension in school. HyogaRott - 23/10/2012 03:08:44 PM 717 Views
#1: fuck you. #2: you are still not using logic moondog - 23/10/2012 05:50:14 PM 688 Views
Ah yes, the fuck you argument... the height of all intelectual persuits... and you call ME emotional HyogaRott - 23/10/2012 06:47:21 PM 763 Views
i see -- it's ok to be insulting as long as the "f-bomb" is not used. got it. moondog - 23/10/2012 10:27:54 PM 832 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM* beetnemesis - 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM 328 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white? Dannymac - 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM 679 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM 643 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument. Dannymac - 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM 668 Views
No, I am not, try reading everything I have written on the subject before jumping to conclusions. HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 11:41:05 PM 812 Views
It was only a matter of time. Tom - 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM 722 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion. Joel - 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM 890 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb. HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM 798 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself moondog - 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM 770 Views
There is no right being denied... HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM 727 Views
that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way moondog - 19/10/2012 08:06:54 PM 817 Views
Re: that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 11:11:55 PM 854 Views
nobody is arguing the legal right to marry, they are arguing about the legal rights marriage gives moondog - 19/10/2012 11:37:14 PM 719 Views
There are no "marriage rights" NONE, zip, ziltch, nada... HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 04:18:15 PM 721 Views
why bother settling custody in a divorce then if there are no "marriage rights"? moondog - 22/10/2012 06:38:14 PM 631 Views
You obviously have no idea what a right is. HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 11:49:26 PM 966 Views
No? snoopcester - 19/10/2012 11:34:36 PM 694 Views
Really HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 04:29:38 PM 705 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument: Burr - 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM 751 Views
Nope I am not HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 04:34:59 PM 685 Views
That is just it: Most US marriage laws are already areligious. Joel - 23/10/2012 05:08:38 PM 708 Views
Yes, the laws are 100% secular... HyogaRott - 23/10/2012 07:01:08 PM 667 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes