6/20/2013 6:21 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/20/2013 6:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/20/2013 3:50:00 PM (view original):
Will you tell me about the time the Civil War was fought in a courtroom because seceding was illegal?
You were sort of implying that seceding was legal here.

Still not seeing your point.
I was?  Or was I making the point that the legalities of seceding weren't an issue for the seceding states?  And sort of mocking you for acting like it was?
6/20/2013 6:22 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/20/2013 6:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/20/2013 4:03:00 PM (view original):
Are you looking up "Civil War" on Wikipedia now?  I hope so.   You'll look a lot less stupid with your "legal" bullshit if you do.
And then you said this.

And then I actually took a second to look, just to make sure I wasn't missing something.

I wasn't.
Do you understand internet "quotes"?

I'll assume not.
6/20/2013 6:23 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/20/2013 6:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/20/2013 4:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/20/2013 4:14:00 PM (view original):
Did you even read the thread BEFORE you posted?

BL was claiming 11 states legalized gay marriage.  I pointed out that the Feds don't recognize it.   That sometimes states do dumb ****(like secede).   And the Feds "correct" the problem.  

How ******* stupid are you?  
Yikes. Again...a basic government class would do you some good.

The states have the power to regulate marriage, not the feds. The feds can't "correct" this, which is why DOMA is going to be tossed next week.

In the 1800's the states didn't have any legal basis for secession (like they do regarding their marriage laws) so they had to go to war to attempt it. Had it been legal, they would have done it without war.

and, LOL again. Secession isn't legal:

 the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".
Your quote within my post is the closest thing you had to a point.

It's completely irrelevant today since no one is going to war over gay marriage. DOMA will get tossed and states will maintain control over marriage laws.

And, full circle, gay marriage isn't unprecedented since 11 states allow it.
Pretty sure I implied that none of those 11 states would pick up arms to defend SSM.
6/20/2013 6:23 PM
You really are dumb, aren't you?
6/20/2013 6:26 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/20/2013 6:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/20/2013 6:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/20/2013 6:02:00 PM (view original):
Quote the post, you dumb ****.

If you can't understand things, that's on you.   No one else.  Just you.

Quote the post.
You never specifically said it was legal. OK, wow, you win??? You still haven't made a point. Unless your point was, "something happened 150 years ago that has exactly zero bearing on anything we are talking about today. So there." 
Yeah, that's how I recalled it.  You ran with something you made up in your tiny little head.

My point was, and still is, just because a state does something, the Feds don't have to recognize it. 

Put 1 and 1 together, you ******* rocket surgeon.
But they do.

If the states have the constitutional authority to do something and the Feds don't, the Feds have to go along with it. That applies to marriage.

Which is why DOMA gets tossed next week.


6/20/2013 6:29 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/20/2013 6:23:00 PM (view original):
You really are dumb, aren't you?
Not as dumb as you, apparently.
6/20/2013 9:16 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/20/2013 6:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/20/2013 6:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/20/2013 6:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/20/2013 6:02:00 PM (view original):
Quote the post, you dumb ****.

If you can't understand things, that's on you.   No one else.  Just you.

Quote the post.
You never specifically said it was legal. OK, wow, you win??? You still haven't made a point. Unless your point was, "something happened 150 years ago that has exactly zero bearing on anything we are talking about today. So there." 
Yeah, that's how I recalled it.  You ran with something you made up in your tiny little head.

My point was, and still is, just because a state does something, the Feds don't have to recognize it. 

Put 1 and 1 together, you ******* rocket surgeon.
But they do.

If the states have the constitutional authority to do something and the Feds don't, the Feds have to go along with it. That applies to marriage.

Which is why DOMA gets tossed next week.


If states have the right to define marriage, why is Prop 8 being challenged?

Hasn't the State of California defined marriage as "one man / one woman"?

How can you defend state's right's to define marriage as they see fit, but at the same time, say "except for California"?

Isn't that hypocritical?
6/20/2013 9:40 PM
No, California has the right to regulate marriage as it sees fit, but its laws still have to be legal under the US constitution.
6/20/2013 9:43 PM
Any why is opposite sex marriage unconstitutional?
6/20/2013 9:53 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/20/2013 9:43:00 PM (view original):
Any why is opposite sex marriage unconstitutional?
Wait, I misread your post. Opposite sex marriage isn't unconstitutional. Is that what you meant to say?
6/20/2013 9:57 PM
Why is defining marriage as opposite sex only unconstitutional?
6/20/2013 9:57 PM
I think he's asking why Prop 8 would be unconstitutional.  I'm fairly confident that it isn't.
6/20/2013 9:59 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/20/2013 9:57:00 PM (view original):
Why is defining marriage as opposite sex only unconstitutional?
I think the argument is that by taking away the right to marry from gay couples (they had the right in CA previously) prop 8 violates the 14th amendment.
6/20/2013 10:09 PM
I'm aware of the argument, I just think it's full of ****.  Prop 8 doesn't void existing marriages, although the wording would have suggested it could.  Given that it didn't, I don't see any reason why it is unconstitutional.
6/20/2013 10:17 PM
I doubt the judges will rule that it's unconstitutional. I've read prop 8 is likely to be tossed because the people defending the law don't have standing.
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.