DOMA shot down

Gonz said:
Still you missed the obvious...here, let me help

DOMA, which I had no problem with, is a

federal law where none need be
Click to expand...

2minkey said:
how in the fuck could you be a strict constructionist and not have a problem with DOMA?
Click to expand...

apparently i already understand that. please learn to read things before you get all uppity.

states however should not trod upon rights to pursue happiness.
 
Because it simply defined the tradition & cultural norms of our society
 
yep, as much as I dislike saying it...the Constitution is The Constitution.
One either believes it or not, and there are Reps, same as Dems that want to pick and choose.
Now some is left to 'interpretation', but most of it is clear.

John Adams Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
 
I personally don't like being flirted with, if being played.
Either let's get serious, or move along.
I'm not as 'social' as I used to be when I drank alcohol.
 
2minkey said:
not in your fascist/literalist interpretation. bringing up "facts" when it's obviously an issue of interpretation is the dead giveaway.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of interpretation. A marriage dose not consists of homosexuals. It goes against its very nature and principle. You can call a circle a square all you like, it does not make it so.

But the government does need to get out of marriage. You ought not need a license in order marry.
 
Gonz said:
Granted. Every time a state has given its citizens a vote on this matter, the citizens have declined to allow homosexual marriage. Every time they have denied homosexual marriage, a federal court has overturned that vote. So, Congress did what they are allowed to do, in order to assuage the voters & move to overturn a court decision, it passed a law.
Click to expand...

The law that was passed addressed the symptom of the problem, not the cause. Thus it perpetuated the problem. The problem is that the federal courts ought not have jurisdiction over an issue of which the state has jurisdiction.

Gonz said:
Get government out of marriage. That is the only solution.
Click to expand...

I agree. It used to be like that too.
 
Gotholic said:
It's not a matter of interpretation. A marriage dose not consists of homosexuals. It goes against its very nature and principle. You can call a circle a square all you like, it does not make it so.

But the government does need to get out of marriage. You ought not need a license in order marry.
Click to expand...


i wasn't talking about your interpretation of marriage. learn to read for comprehension before you start getting clever, sparky.
 
mar·riage

[mar-ij] Show IPA
noun
1.​
a legally, religiously, or socially sanctioned union of persons who commit to one another, forming afamilial and economic bond: Anthropologists say that some type of marriage has been found inevery society, past and present.
2.​
a.​
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husbandand wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
b.​
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender, as in gay marriage; same-sexmarriage .
3.​
the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: They have a happy marriage.Synonyms: matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness.
4.​
the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a marriedcouple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms:nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.
5.​
a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of ahusband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.
Make a careful note of 2b
 
so, your point is that it is 'normalized' enough to appear in formal definitions?

or perhaps that nefarious forces are controlling the dictionary?
 
Noah Webster has probably been rolling in his grave well over a century now, at least.
Looking back on it, it's really no big wonder why I never did well in "English" class.
(I failed mostly the classes that gave homework, 'cause I never did it)
I wonder if they still 'diagram' sentences.
I know they've been talking about doing away with cursive writing.
 
2minkey said:
so, your point is that it is 'normalized' enough to appear in formal definitions?

or perhaps that nefarious forces are controlling the dictionary?
Click to expand...



Note the words "similar institution", which was my point. Nice of you to miss that, even when pointed to it.
 
similar institution didn't seem pivotal to me. the dissimilarities appear to involve gay marriage begin gay, and not being "traditional" but rather something new-ish. no story there.

that and dictionary definitions are often terribly sloppy and not really the ideal data set for exploring subtle nuances of similitude.

it would be nice if you made your points more obvious, for us tards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top