Supreme Court Strikes Down Key DOMA Provisions

[the_randomizer]

Having political/religious discussions on the internet = creating hatred, animosity and grudges for over 20 years!

 

[Nathan Drake]

2. orly?:
"In 2006, on the 50th anniversary of its adoption, the Senate reaffirmed "In God we trust" as the official national motto of the United States of America.[18] In 2011 the House of Representatives passed an additional resolution reaffirming "In God we trust" as the official motto of the United States, in a 396-9 vote.[19][20] According to a 2003 joint poll by USA Today, CNN, and Gallup, 90% of Americans support the inscription "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins.[21]"

That doesn't change that "God" in itself is very ambigious. If they choose to specify the Judeo-Christian God, that means that although we grant freedom of religion, we are pushing a specific religion onto the people. If we start basing our laws and practices around this statement, we will turn into a theocracy. Theoretically, following the much older definition of a country that grants separation of church and state, "In God we trust" should be entirely irrelevant when looked at as anything but a morale booster. Our government can not be based on religion and still claim separation of church and state. Although a key political skill is hypocrisy, you can't use tactics when defining a whole country.

 

[The Catboy]

1. Yes but I can due to freedom of speech and my own opinion. Indeed we have freedom of speech as well

2. orly?:
"In 2006, on the 50th anniversary of its adoption, the Senate reaffirmed "In God we trust" as the official national motto of the United States of America.[18] In 2011 the House of Representatives passed an additional resolution reaffirming "In God we trust" as the official motto of the United States, in a 396-9 vote.[19][20] According to a 2003 joint poll by USA Today, CNN, and Gallup, 90% of Americans support the inscription "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins.[21]" It doesn't change the constitution.

3. Yet it always comes up regarding things like Marriage, abortion, death sentencing ect? Refer to my previous statement, we are running in circles here and clearly neither of us are backing down.

 

[Ericthegreat]

Yes it doesn't change the constitution, I'm just trying to prove that the Bible does affect laws of the United States. Even if it isn't supposed too.

 

[KingVamp]

Alright, let see if I can explain my position a little clearer...
I am not against marriage of same sex couples, could honestly care less~For whoever said marriage = happiness is far deluded.What I am saying is, if they want to be married they do not get the same benefits as a standard married couple. I have several homosexual friends who only want to be married for the tax break and hospital visitation rights, otherwise they could care less about some magical God sanctified "union". If you want what is fair you fight for want, not to be lumped in with everyone else.
If homosexual marriage where a legit argument, they would be vying for a concession not an acceptance. They need a law that covers them and IS SEPARATE than the pre-existing law, but no one seems to look at it that way. They all cry "unfair" and expect everyone to bend to knee and egress.

Actually, you are just making it worst, considering that it just doesn't make sense.

So what? Heterosexual couples can do the same thing.

Separate, but equal is not equal, period.

 

[macmanhigh]

 

[The Catboy]

Yes it doesn't change the constitution, I'm just trying to prove that the Bible does affect laws of the United States. Even if it isn't supposed too.

Yes some laws seem to be based on the Bible (some try to pretend they don't and some flat out admit they do.) But a lot of those laws that are based on the Bible are often State law and not actually federal law. And sadly yes the Bible does effect America, should it? No obliviously. But today's ruling does show that some Bible based federal laws are finally being looked at and shot down, which only shows that the Bible is losing some grounds in law making.

 

[weiff]

Actually, you are just making it worst, considering that it just doesn't make sense.

So what? Heterosexual couples can do the same thing.

Separate, but equal is not equal, period.

The key being that they cannot be the same and equal, because one group is clearly not the same as the other... one is different. So separate and equal is the only level of equivalency here.

 

[KingVamp]

The key being that they cannot be the same and equal, because one group is clearly not the same as the other... one is different. So separate and equal is the only level of equivalency here.

Except making separate laws for just for the sake of making separate laws, holds no equivalency, whatsoever.

You haven't presented any good reason for making separate laws.

 

[The Catboy]

The key being that they cannot be the same and equal, because one group is clearly not the same as the other... one is different. So separate and equal is the only level of equivalency here.

So just apply the same argument from 60 years ago and call it a day? You realize that we are actually the same as everyone right, we just love someone of the same sex. If that's a good enough reason to treat us like something different, then you need to take a good long look at yourself and realize just how stupid you really sound.

 

[Gahars]

So separate and equal is the only level of equivalency here.

>Advocating for "Separate but equal"
>2013

Stay classy.

 

[weiff]

I am not for segregation, I am not for separate but equal. I am for tackling the legitimate issue with government, they think fixing a problem is to just let everyone in on the PRE-existing laws, instead of doing things the way they used to be done and create laws that apply properly to people they are meant to represent and protect.

 

[Sicklyboy]

The Bible also forbids eating and touching pork and shellfish, mixing fabric, tattoos, and working on Sunday. All within the same section. If you are going to follow one part of the Bible, you need to follow the rest as well, not just the parts easiest to you.
Not mention the Bible's word is not law and should never be used as law. As well not everyone follows it, meaning it does not effect them and it shouldn't. Please don't use your book as a reason to not give people their civil rights.

I fucking love you for retorting with that, Catboy.

All of these rules are for the Jews. I am Catholic so I believe in forgiveness. But the word of the Lord is still the word of the Lord. As I said may you all be forgiven. And if I am not mistaken we are "One nation under God"

All of you should read the Bible, it is not what you probably think it is, it is quite exciting.

And the Bible not being used as law is only your own opinion is it not?

I don't believe in your god. I don't believe in your lord. I don't believe in any supernatural, fictional or otherwise, religious being. Who's word should I follow? I'm going to follow the moralistic high ground and go with the word of my own, and apply that solely to myself, and not others, because the word I live my life by does not, nor should it, dictate the lives of others in an unjust or unfair manner unless they should choose to follow it by their own free will, at which point they are free to join me in the beliefs I have set forth for myself.
What about the other people that might not believe in your god? Are they allowed freedom of religion, expression, and human rights, or are you oppressively forcing your "superior" god upon other people who may not be willing to accept him into your lifestyle?
http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/a-30-second-guide-to-how-gay-marriage-ruling-affects-you/

This is very relevant. Everyone should give this a quick read.

I am not for segregation, I am not for separate but equal. I am for tackling the legitimate issue with government, they think fixing a problem is to just let everyone in on the PRE-existing laws, instead of doing things the way they used to be done and create laws that apply properly to people they are meant to represent and protect.

Who is being protected, I might ask?

 

[smile72]

I am not for segregation, I am not for separate but equal. I am for tackling the legitimate issue with government, they think fixing a problem is to just let everyone in on the PRE-existing laws, instead of doing things the way they used to be done and create laws that apply properly to people they are meant to represent and protect.

Again separate but equal....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[Gahars]

I am not for segregation, I am not for separate but equal. I am for tackling the legitimate issue with government, they think fixing a problem is to just let everyone in on the PRE-existing laws, instead of doing things the way they used to be done and create laws that apply properly to people they are meant to represent and protect.

"I'm not saying 'Separate but equal' exactly, but I sure am thinking it loudly."

Or, just, you know, we could adapt the current legislation and regulations to fit the modern day as we've always done.

Did we have to create entirely new systems of voting when the 19th Amendment was passed and women were finally allowed to vote nationwide? Or redefine how marriage was performed for interracial unions? Both of these changes defied historical precedence, but they didn't require new systems to be constructed - the existing systems just became more inclusive. Why should this be any different?

Your understanding of law is weak, at best.

 

[weiff]

Who is being protected, I might ask?

Both groups would be protected by laws that are tailored to their specific wants and needs. Anyone choosing to violate those laws should be penalized appropriately.

I am sorry, but separate but equal leads you to bigger issues... how long before children revolt for adult rights? They are human, they deserve to be equal? What is to prevent this from spiraling further into chaos? I am alive, live in a state, pay taxes, I should be able to veto bills that go into congress... I want to equal to my politician "representative." Equality created separation, you cannot define a term using itself as a merit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_definition

If everything is same there is no point to laws at all.

 

[smile72]

Both groups would be protected by laws that are tailored to their specific wants and needs. Anyone choosing to violate those laws should be penalized appropriately.

I am sorry, but separate but equal leads you to bigger issues... how long before children revolt for adult rights? They are human, they deserve to be equal? What is to prevent this from spiraling further into chaos? I am alive, live in a state, pay taxes, I should be able to veto bills that go into congress... I want to equal to my politician "representative." Equality created separation, you cannot define a term using itself as a merit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_definition

If everything is same there is no point to laws at all.

Ah so there should be a different form of marriage for non whites. And a different form of marriage for interracial couples makes total sense. Go read my previous post. Click on the fourteenth amendment. READ IT ALL! Then come back and discuss.

Edit: It is impossible for you to do that we live in a republic where we elect representatives to represent the opinions of our districts or states in Congress...it's a pain in the ass for 535 people, think of how much worse it would be with 300 million plus.

 

[KingVamp]

I am not for segregation, I am not for separate but equal. I am for tackling the legitimate issue with government, they think fixing a problem is to just let everyone in on the PRE-existing laws, instead of doing things the way they used to be done and create laws that apply properly to people they are meant to represent and protect.

There's not much to change, such as ownership.

There are edits and revisions, no need for completely separate set of laws.

 

[Sicklyboy]

So I am going to break your post into bullets.

• Both groups would be protected by laws that are tailored to their specific wants and needs.
• Anyone choosing to violate those laws should be penalized appropriately.

I am sorry, but separate but equal leads you to bigger issues... how long before children revolt for adult rights?

• They are human, they deserve to be equal?

What is to prevent this from spiraling further into chaos?

• I am alive,
• live in a state,
• pay taxes,
• I should be able to veto bills that go into congress...
• I want to equal to my politician "representative."

Equality created separation, you cannot define a term using itself as a merit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_definition

If everything is same there is no point to laws at all.

-Protected from what? Heterosexuals being gay and homosexuals being straight? Seeing each other in public? Straights want to get married. Gays want to get married.
-As they are

-Yes, children are human, and do deserve to be equal. Let's think of child labor laws - they ARE protected against unfair labor and being taken advantage of, both of which could cause physical and mental harm to them because they do not lack the strength nor mental maturity to handle the tasks set upon adults. Otherwise, they have the same human rights as you, me, and your grandma.

-As are gays
-As are gays
-As do gays
-As should gays
-As do gays


Where's the problem exactly?

 

[weiff]

I am not too big to admit my view has faults. You have pushed me to the line where you have valid points. I agree with KingVamp, there is not need for a full law differentiation. An edit to the current law could be made to encompass the new form of union... however I can tell you right now, that it will only generate more complaints down the line.

To Sicklyboy, as stated earlier... I have no issue with homosexuals wanting rights or being considered equal. I just want them to be protected from the hate mongering that will continue to exist once they get lumped into a badly formed, multiply edited, poorly worded law. There needs to be a concession made properly to protect them efficiently. I do not believe this is the way to accomplish it.