Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic

tecwrg2
Posts: 237 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 2 3 94
Prospect
It's funny when the person who has been blathering on for 67 pages tries to insist that somebody else is failing to make their point.
5/31/2012 2:31 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
It takes two, or in this case 4ish, to tango.
5/31/2012 2:33 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
You're failing to understand my point.

"long been recognized" is just another way of saying "tradition allows".      Tradition allows free men to marry, presumably, to continue the human race as tradition has long dictated that parents should be married.    It just doesn't apply to SSM.   Tradition or existence. 
5/31/2012 2:36 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/31/2012 2:36:00 PM (view original):
You're failing to understand my point.

"long been recognized" is just another way of saying "tradition allows".      Tradition allows free men to marry, presumably, to continue the human race as tradition has long dictated that parents should be married.    It just doesn't apply to SSM.   Tradition or existence. 
Tradition allows free men to marry for the pursuit of happiness.  You need to read the entire sentence and you won't have to presume.

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men"
5/31/2012 2:39 PM
toddcommish
Posts: 5084 (0)
Hall of Famer
516 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
Well, the First Circuit says that it's up to the states,
"Many Americans believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and most Americans live in states where that is the law today," the First Circuit wrote. "One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage. Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest."
IOW, the Feds don't want anything to do with laws DEFINING marriage, but they'll protect the rights of the states to make their own calls.  MA was just being ********* about granting benefits (which is amusing because other states that don't recognize SSM are granting benefits).?
5/31/2012 2:42 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
The First Circuit asserts that the states have the right to define marriage.

Cueing jrd_x to insist that they don't.
5/31/2012 2:46 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
"Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest."

You may want to read that decision a little closer. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2018325737.html
5/31/2012 2:46 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 2:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/31/2012 2:36:00 PM (view original):
You're failing to understand my point.

"long been recognized" is just another way of saying "tradition allows".      Tradition allows free men to marry, presumably, to continue the human race as tradition has long dictated that parents should be married.    It just doesn't apply to SSM.   Tradition or existence. 
Tradition allows free men to marry for the pursuit of happiness.  You need to read the entire sentence and you won't have to presume.

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men"

And, traditionally, marriage is between one man, one woman. 

Don't use "tradition" as a ground for arguing SSM.

Get it now?

5/31/2012 2:46 PM
toddcommish
Posts: 5084 (0)
Hall of Famer
516 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
It also points out why the entire hullaballoo about "marriage" is bullshit.  It's pretty clear that SSM in Massachusetts was actually LESS legally useful than "domestic partnerships" in other states. 
5/31/2012 2:48 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
IOW, tradition and SSM are oil and water.
5/31/2012 2:50 PM
toddcommish
Posts: 5084 (0)
Hall of Famer
516 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 2:46:00 PM (view original):
"Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest."

You may want to read that decision a little closer. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2018325737.html
Yah, they're focusing on the BENEFITS, you brainless twit.

Think of it this way, if Federal Benefits were denied to married couples that were, say, Jewish, it wouldn't be permissible.  They're saying that IF THE STATE SAYS THEY'RE MARRIED, THE FEDS SHOULD GIVE THEM BENEFITS.  Period.

Nothing more.
5/31/2012 2:51 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/31/2012 2:46:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 2:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/31/2012 2:36:00 PM (view original):
You're failing to understand my point.

"long been recognized" is just another way of saying "tradition allows".      Tradition allows free men to marry, presumably, to continue the human race as tradition has long dictated that parents should be married.    It just doesn't apply to SSM.   Tradition or existence. 
Tradition allows free men to marry for the pursuit of happiness.  You need to read the entire sentence and you won't have to presume.

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men"

And, traditionally, marriage is between one man, one woman. 

Don't use "tradition" as a ground for arguing SSM.

Get it now?

Yes, traditionally marriage has been between a man and woman.  And the court has held that marriage is a "vital right essential to the pursuit of happiness."

Which is more important, maintaining a tradition or upholding a vital right essential to the pursuit of happiness?
5/31/2012 2:52 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by toddcommish on 5/31/2012 2:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 2:46:00 PM (view original):
"Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest."

You may want to read that decision a little closer. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2018325737.html
Yah, they're focusing on the BENEFITS, you brainless twit.

Think of it this way, if Federal Benefits were denied to married couples that were, say, Jewish, it wouldn't be permissible.  They're saying that IF THE STATE SAYS THEY'RE MARRIED, THE FEDS SHOULD GIVE THEM BENEFITS.  Period.

Nothing more.
But they aren't ruling that states have the right to deny same sex couples marriage.

Just that the Feds don't have a compelling argument for denying rights at the federal level of a legal marriage.
5/31/2012 2:53 PM
toddcommish
Posts: 5084 (0)
Hall of Famer
516 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
Posted by toddcommish on 5/31/2012 2:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 2:46:00 PM (view original):
"Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest."

You may want to read that decision a little closer. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2018325737.html
Yah, they're focusing on the BENEFITS, you brainless twit.

Think of it this way, if Federal Benefits were denied to married couples that were, say, Jewish, it wouldn't be permissible.  They're saying that IF THE STATE SAYS THEY'RE MARRIED, THE FEDS SHOULD GIVE THEM BENEFITS.  Period.

Nothing more.
BTW, if I didn't make it clear earlier, I think this is reasonable.  If they live in a state where, say, men can marry inflatable sex toys, the sex toys should be eligible for Federal benefits.
5/31/2012 2:53 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Also from today's ruling in Massachusetts:

"Traditions are the glue that holds society together, and many of our own traditions rest largely on belief and familiarity--not on benefits firmly provable in court.   The desire to retain them is strong and can be honestly held."
5/31/2012 2:54 PM
◂ Prev 1...79|80|81|82|83...462 Next ▸
Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 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.