24
   

SUPREME COURT RULES DOMA UNCONSTITUTIONAL

 
 
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Sat 29 Jun, 2013 01:06 am
re Mysteryman
Of course the Republicans, no hypocrites they, still have both feet firmly planted in the fourteenth century, where they've always been. Far better a little flexibility in admitting "Maybe I was wrong" than a stubborn adherence to punishing anyone who dares disagree with you.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 29 Jun, 2013 03:27 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:
But do all of you note some hypocrisy in their stance?


They're Americans, MM, it's genetic.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Sat 29 Jun, 2013 04:49 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

The dems are happy that DOMA was overturned, and they should be.
But do all of you note some hypocrisy in their stance?

After all, it was Bill Clinton that signed DOMA into law.
Joe Biden voted in favor of DOMA, as did many of the same dems that now welcome it being overturned.

You use that word - I do not think it means what you think it means.

It's hypocrisy when a person holds contradictory positions simultaneously, it's not hypocrisy when a person repudiates a previous position and adopts its opposite in its place. Bill Clinton supported DOMA. Now, evidently, he doesn't. That may be inconsistency, but it's not hypocrisy.
Joe Nation
 
  3  
Reply Sat 29 Jun, 2013 04:56 pm
No President likes to veto bills passed by Congress, even less liked is to have a veto overridden. That is exactly what would have happened had Bill Clintion vetoed DOMA when it passed both Houses of Congress.

The process of attaining freedom for all Americans has been one of slow, but persistent, movement towards what is written in the Fourteenth Amendment :
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note the section about abridgment, no State can fail to recognize the legally made marriage entered into in another State. In Loving vs. Virginia, the couple had been legally married in Washington, DC. Virginia refused to recognize the union.
Too bad, said the USSC. Legal marriage is legal anywhere in the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia<br />
JCBOY: File suit on Monday to force Florida to step up or step out of the way.

Joe(My best wishes)Nation
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jun, 2013 05:32 pm
@Joe Nation,
were I Clinton , I would have vetoed the bill and , as it was overridden, make a political stand for principle. That's what Mr Smith would have done.
Would I have been re-elected?
He could have made a point that, despite the override, the time would come when we would all look like the Bridge of the Starship Enterprise.
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jun, 2013 05:59 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:

It's hypocrisy when a person holds contradictory positions simultaneously, it's not hypocrisy when a person repudiates a previous position and adopts its opposite in its place. Bill Clinton supported DOMA. Now, evidently, he doesn't. That may be inconsistency, but it's not hypocrisy.


I agree, JoefromChicago. Societal changes may cause one to alter one's previous opinion possibly do to a series of events, life experience, or just plain common sense. But it is also the height of naiveté for anyone to suggest "hypocrisy" because at one time in one's life one was opposed to something and now, today, hold contrary views.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jun, 2013 06:04 pm
@farmerman,
Slick Willy was just two months away from an election. That was probably the factor that clinched it for him.
0 Replies
 
JeffreyEqualityNewma
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 Jun, 2013 06:49 pm
@Joe Nation,
It's in the works.

In 2008 the State of Florida amended their state contittution to ban same sex marriage, same as they did in CA. Regardless of what some people think you cannot amend your state Constitution for reasons of morality, like they did here in Florida and CA, in doing so violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment has substance and it does prohibit the states from enacting laws that serve only to oppress. Florida’s same sex marriage ban is just as unconstitutional as California’s ban.

They will amend their 2012 Federal tax returns from the date they were legally married in New York and file jointly at the end of the year.

If people want to live in a society where the whims of the electorate reign supreme, we will have to change the Constitution and that’s not going to happen.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  3  
Reply Sat 29 Jun, 2013 08:28 pm
And the next asshole, I'm talking to Chris Christie, who says it should be up to the voters....I want to remind him and the rest, that what we possess are inalienable rights.
If voters were able to choose what rights each of us has there wouldn't be any black voters, never mind a black President. Massachusetts would have, in 1814, voted to prevent any Irishman from setting foot in the Commonwealth making it a little difficult for people like John Kennedy and Tip O'Neil to born there.
And there wouldn't be an female voters either. It wasn't a general plebiscite to bestowed the vote on Women. It was Constitutional Amendment.

Joe(Forward! Full rights for all)Nation
0 Replies
 
Buffalo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jun, 2013 01:43 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack: I believe that the government should charge EVERYONE an estate tax who inherits something from someone else when they die, or charge NO ONE.
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Sun 30 Jun, 2013 03:06 pm
@Buffalo,
When two people marry, they form a legal entity. When the entity is dissolved (both die) then taxes are levied.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Wed 3 Jul, 2013 06:28 am
http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/6/Y/4/gay-marriage-opponents.jpg

farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Jul, 2013 06:46 pm
@firefly,
I never knew this about Bert and Ernie
    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/new-yorker-cover-bert-ernie-gay-marriage-580.jpg
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  4  
Reply Wed 3 Jul, 2013 08:58 pm
@firefly,
Equality Florida has raised 251 thousand dollars since DOMA to fight amendment 2 which banned same sex marriage in Florida.

The lawyers are with Lambda Legal. We were interviewed and they are looking for a couple with standing, in other words a couple with a justiciable case. They stated we have standing. Not sure what all that means, all legal mumbo jumbo to me. If we are the couple chosen they will be filing suit claiming that restriction’s has harmed our child, denying him all the rights and privileges other children in two parent families enjoy.

In the mean time the Puerto Rican can legally adopt me since I do not have a living parent. By doing so he avoids paying any estate tax if something were to happen to me. Sounds silly but that’s what we have been told.
Ragman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Jul, 2013 10:43 pm
@jcboy,
Then you can say legitimately, "who's your daddy?'
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Jul, 2013 10:50 pm
re jcboy
hm, better wait on that one, jc, because if he adopts you that would legally make you father and son, so if Florida ever gets sensible and legalizes gay marriage (and deep sixes Stand Your Ground), you couldn't legally get married then because it would be incest, which would probably still be on the books tho I doubt anybody would have thought of your particular variant when they passed that law. Yeah, Florida is definitely peculiar.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  4  
Reply Wed 3 Jul, 2013 11:10 pm
Or do as Joe Nation suggests, challenge FL's refusal to honor gay marriages from other states as a violation of the Constitution, which requires reciprocity of recognizing other states' laws--come on up to a sensible state, Massachusetts, and get married here. I'm pretty sure the Boston contingent would turn out to throw rice and then take the three of you out for dim sum. We're suckers for happy endings. And good at starting revolutions.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Jul, 2013 11:15 pm
@MontereyJack,
jcboy already got married in New York.

If his spouse adopted him, would it nullify the marriage in NY?

I know that in Ontario, spouses can't adopt each other. They have to divorce to adopt (it's been done). There's also the question of gay divorce. In Ontario when gay marriages were legalized a decade ( hooray !) ago, they didn't think through to divorce and a special law had to be put into place. Now almost everything legal refers to spouse vs husband or wife here. It's become the standard.
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Thu 4 Jul, 2013 06:50 am
@ehBeth,
oh, hadn't seen notice of the ceremony.
CONGRATULATIONS, JC, MAY YOU HAVE MANY HAPPY YEARS TOGETHER.
<throws handfuls of virtual rice>
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  2  
Reply Thu 4 Jul, 2013 02:02 pm
If we’re not selected we could still make history. I could be the first Gay Jew adopted by a shaved headed Puerto Rican. I just may have a T-Shirt made.

Time to head to our forth of July BBQ!
 

Related Topics

Well, That Didn't Take Long - Question by blueveinedthrobber
DOMA ruling - Discussion by Buffalo
CONSERVATIVE THIRD PARTY - Discussion by Setanta
Political Activism in American Churches - Discussion by wandeljw
a logic found in california - Discussion by dyslexia
Marriages vs. Civil Unions - Question by Shapeless
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.43 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 08:29:04