|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 9, 2010 17:17:43 GMT -5
kchoya - To me, those arguments don't sound any different than the old arguments saying, "A black person is allowed to marry - just that they can't marry a white person. They are still free to get married to a black woman." Except that the issue is what is "marriage?" That wasn't the issue with miscegenation or other prohibitions based on racial lines. I feel like this argument is only valid if civil union was only between a man and a woman and not also between a woman and a man. If a woman is allowed to enter into a government agreement with a guy how come a guy can't enter into a government agreement with a guy.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 9, 2010 19:59:12 GMT -5
Are you people still arguing about this? That is so gay. (and, despite my smiley, I'm sure someone's going to get Editeded off.)
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 10, 2010 15:21:12 GMT -5
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 10, 2010 16:31:16 GMT -5
I got a headache after trying to figure how the facts in that story.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 10, 2010 19:12:40 GMT -5
That's a really interesting question. So if a man has a sex change to become a women do the opponents of gay marriage on this board think they should only be allowed to marry a woman or only be allowed to marry a man?
|
|
SFOHoya
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 500
|
Post by SFOHoya on Aug 12, 2010 14:29:58 GMT -5
Local radio is reporting that the stay on same-sex marriages has been lifted. I"m sure more details will come soon.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 12, 2010 14:52:41 GMT -5
Local radio is reporting that the stay on same-sex marriages has been lifted. I"m sure more details will come soon. I'm not sure what "stay" you're referring to, but the LA Times is reporting: "A federal judge Thursday refused to permanently stay his ruling overturning Proposition 8 but extended a temporary hold to give supporters time to appeal the historic ruling."
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 12, 2010 15:45:02 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 12, 2010 18:12:20 GMT -5
The people of California have now been overruled by the governor and attorney general of the state of California refusing to appeal Judge Walker's decision.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,205
|
Post by hoya9797 on Aug 12, 2010 19:34:12 GMT -5
Good. The people of CA were wrong so someone with sense had to step in and straighten things out.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Aug 12, 2010 19:38:44 GMT -5
The people of California have now been overruled by the governor and attorney general of the state of California refusing to appeal Judge Walker's decision. Yeah, those dirty Republicans! On a more serious note, the Governor and the AG don't have much to do with this. They won't be the ones filing the appeal. This case is still going to the SCOTUS, regardless of what the Governator wants. The only question is whether gay marriages will be allowed between now and the time the SCOTUS gives a ruling.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 13, 2010 13:04:56 GMT -5
The people of California have now been overruled by the governor and attorney general of the state of California refusing to appeal Judge Walker's decision. Yeah, those dirty Republicans! On a more serious note, the Governor and the AG don't have much to do with this. They won't be the ones filing the appeal. This case is still going to the SCOTUS, regardless of what the Governator wants. The only question is whether gay marriages will be allowed between now and the time the SCOTUS gives a ruling. I'm not a lawyer so please explain to me how this business is not the business of the governor and attorney general of California.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 13, 2010 13:15:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 13, 2010 13:24:49 GMT -5
Here are the 9th Circuit papers that were filed yesterday. As noted above, the Governor et al. have not joined in the appeal. Hopefully these issues will be briefed fully and well. I am not sure that these stay papers quite hit the mark, perhaps because of the rushed time frame. There is also in-depth coverage at Scotusblog. seegersalvas.com/emergencystay.pdf
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 16, 2010 19:18:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 29, 2010 18:51:16 GMT -5
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 23, 2011 16:48:24 GMT -5
First: I liked this thread better when it had a title that referenced the Princess Bride. Second: Obama and DoJ have decided not to defend the constitutionality of DOMA. I don't think I like the Executive as the decider of what is / isn't constitutional in an area of unsettled law like this. It seems to open up the door to a lot of shenanigans (why would any future president defend a controversial law they don't like in the future? Like, say, the healthcare mandate?) and vests a lot of power in the Executive that I don't know should be with the Executive. volokh.com/2011/02/23/the-executive-power-grab-in-the-decision-not-to-defend-doma/Orin Kerr makes an interesting comparison b/w this decision and the Bush Administration's decision to adopt John Yoo's theories on executive power (obviously a different subject matter, but I think the logic behind both decisions are similar)
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 23, 2011 17:04:53 GMT -5
I think there's a lot to be said against what Obama is doing on this, but, at the same time, it ain't exactly new. Lincoln comes to mind. There's also the signing statements that were used heavily in a previous administration.
Boehner's response could have been lifted from the Onion: Michael Steel, a spokesman for (House Speaker John) Boehner, said in an e-mail he questions why Obama "thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation" when "most Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2011 13:35:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jul 28, 2011 15:40:50 GMT -5
|
|