It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional by Supreme Court

page: 5
33
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
pours shot of whiskey..

welcome to the misery,



now your partner can take half of what you own to...lol

I think I will go to law school now.. It is about to see a helluve of a boone...

The questions is now who gets custody of the dogs


The american economy really needs this.. the lawyers will have tons of cash to spend




posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by BuffDaddy
 


I think polygamy should be permitted, too.


Seems to be the logical conclusion. Was wondering if anyone would agree.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by BuffDaddy
 


Polygamy will never affect my life, if a female openly goes into a polygamous relationship that is her choice, the moment the people or government starts to define what is and isn't and what should or shouldn't for other people is when people become limited and discriminated against

who am i to believe i have the power over someone else, i believe in pure freedom, and equality



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by colbe

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
reply to post by colbe
 



No T no shade, we have discussed before but that is irrelevant to this conversation

even if it were, how does equality and abortion coincide? many say the 'Gay Agenda' is forcing our sexuality on people, but what of those forcing a dogma to deny us equal rights? or to dictate what people do with their own person?

i believe this is a conversation for another topic, one which i would be obliged to discuss with you

for now, let us celebrate the ruling of DOMA



Hi,

Same subject...discrimination against the "personhood and dignity" of another group that is denied, actually far
worse, this group of persons, are killed!!!

Nah, you run away Darth. Why is the "personhood and dignity" demanded of homosexuals while the
the same is denied of a human person in it's mother's womb? I will kill my unborn child because I have
the legal right to but the claim of discrimination against homosexuals must be corrected! Koo koo.

There is no such thing as homosexual marriage. God made marriage between a man and a woman.





i am not running girl, i said i would discuss anything with you in the appropriate topic, i don't want to derail this and turn it into an 'Abortion' and 'Religious' conversation, if you want to start one, please do, and i will join in your discussion



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
The end of Scalia's dissent is significant in my opinion. This is, like the Prop. 8 case, a matter of winning without realizing the cost of that win.


In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad.

A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution.We might have let the People decide.

But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice intoday’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Great, now every slave can get married!

This is truly a great day for us slaves.

Very generous of our masters.




posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darth_Prime

Originally posted by colbe

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
reply to post by colbe
 



No T no shade, we have discussed before but that is irrelevant to this conversation

even if it were, how does equality and abortion coincide? many say the 'Gay Agenda' is forcing our sexuality on people, but what of those forcing a dogma to deny us equal rights? or to dictate what people do with their own person?

i believe this is a conversation for another topic, one which i would be obliged to discuss with you

for now, let us celebrate the ruling of DOMA



Hi,

Same subject...discrimination against the "personhood and dignity" of another group that is denied, actually far
worse, this group of persons, are killed!!!

Nah, you run away Darth. Why is the "personhood and dignity" demanded of homosexuals while the
the same is denied of a human person in it's mother's womb? I will kill my unborn child because I have
the legal right to but the claim of discrimination against homosexuals must be corrected! Koo koo.

There is no such thing as homosexual marriage. God made marriage between a man and a woman.





i am not running girl, i said i would discuss anything with you in the appropriate topic, i don't want to derail this and turn it into an 'Abortion' and 'Religious' conversation, if you want to start one, please do, and i will join in your discussion


The words in the complaint and the ruling are "personhood and diginity."

I am not derailing anything just stating a fact Darth. Homosexuals sell their beliefs, further their agenda by saying (and straight liberals too who support gays), homosexuals are discriminated against BUT far, far worse, most Libs and homosexuals are fine with killing of the most innocent, the unborn. What of they being persons, what of their dignity?

You do not have an answer so you say I won't talk about it here, take this discussion to another thread.

Beyond hypocritical brother. What's it going take for you to see? I think, a personal revelation from God Himself. I wish and pray before God shows the world.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Can you elaborate more on what you mean?

I don't understand Scalia's claim that there was no standing. The refund was never given despite the ruling, so disagreement/injury/controversy what have you existed.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 


If you absolutely have to have this abortion/religion conversation then follow the rules and start a new thread on it. People are refusing to engage in this discussion with you because it is OFF TOPIC, not because you made a point that they cannot refute.

I will even participate in a thread if you need someone to argue with. Just please stop talking about it here as you have been asked several times to do.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   
What I don't get is that it's Unconstitutional at a Federal Level, but the US Govt is still allowed to deny same sex benefits for people living in those states that still ban same sex marriage.

It's a double standard endorsed by the Supreme Court. Justice for all, as long as you live in the right state.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
The end of Scalia's dissent is significant in my opinion. This is, like the Prop. 8 case, a matter of winning without realizing the cost of that win.


In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad.

A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution.We might have let the People decide.

But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice intoday’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent.



The entire Scalia dissent is significant, as it's based on personal feelings and political leanings.

Any judgement that the Supreme Court makes should be based in LAW, and in law alone. Personal feelings on the issues should never enter into a justice's decision on why they voted for or against a particular bill.

If a SCOTUS member can't be impartial on every issue before them, they should resign,
edit on 26-6-2013 by babybunnies because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by otherpotato
 

Dear otherpotato,

Scalia's position wasn't so much focused on the refund, but the fact that there weren't two parties to argue the case on either side. If I may feed you some more Scalia from his dissent?


The Court is eager—hungry—to tell everyone its view ofthe legal question at the heart of this case. Standing in the way is an obstacle, a technicality of little interest to anyone but the people of We the People, who created it as a barrier against judges’ intrusion into their lives. They gave judges, in Article III, only the “judicial Power,” a power to decide not abstract questions but real, concrete“Cases” and “Controversies.”

Yet the plaintiff and the Government agree entirely on what should happen in this lawsuit. They agree that the court below got it right; and they agreed in the court below that the court below that one got it right as well. What, then, are we doing here?


Windsor’s injury was cured by the judgment in her favor. And while, in ordinary circumstances, the United States is injured by a directive to pay a tax refund, this suit is far from ordinary. Whatever injury the United States has suffered will surely not be redressed by the action that it, as a litigant, asks us to take. The final sentence of the Solicitor General’s brief on the merits reads: “For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the court of appeals should be affirmed.” That will not cure the Government’s injury, but carve it into stone.

One could spend many fruitless afternoons ransacking our library for any other petitioner’s brief seeking an affirmance of the judgment against it. What the petitioner United States asks us to do in the case before us is exactly what the respondent Windsor asks us to do: not to provide relief from the judgment below but to say that that judgment was correct. And the same was true in the Court of Appeals: Neither party sought to undo the judgment for Windsor, and so that court should have dismissed the appeal (just as we should dismiss) for lack of jurisdiction.

Since both parties agreed with the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, the suit should have ended there. The further proceedings have been a contrivance, having no object in mind except to elevate a District Court judgment that has no precedential effect in other courts, to one that has precedential effect throughout the Second Circuit, and then (in this Court) precedential effect throughout the United States.

We have never before agreed to speak—to “say what the law is”—where there is no controversy before us. In the more than two centuries that this Court has existed as an institution, we have never suggested that we have the power to decide a question when every party agrees with both its nominal opponent and the court below on that question’s answer. The United States reluctantly conceded that at oral argument. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 19–20.


I hope that offers a little help. If not, let me know.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by DirtyLiberalHippie


That is wonderful news. It's about time. Now, we just need to push for legalizing gay marriage in every state. There is really no reason to not allow it.


Thank God each state has the right to make their own laws. You cannot force this through on a federal level to all states, that's unconstitutional. Currently only 12 states allow gay marriage - a huge minority. I don't feel like giving any more minorities special rights they do not deserve. It's gonna be a cold day in Hell thank God when all states get around to applying this - and we will all be dead by then. Yeah.. I'm laughing. Just think of the extra money the state has to put out as well as the IRS to make this happen and I'll tell you.. it's something I don't want my tax dollars going to.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Today, people are a little freer. In some states at least. And that gives me great happiness. The equal protection clause has done its job and has been upheld.

Peace.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 

Dear babybunnies,

I'm surprised. Scalia is the one arguing for the application of law. Read my post two down from yours. The Court is not allowed to rule on something that is not a "case or controversy." Scalia points out, fairly persuasively, that you can't have a controversy if both sides have agreed with each other over the last three levels of court decisions.

Scalia isn't the one that's going with biases and opinions. He's focusing on the law, just as you wanted.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
it is not a special right, only the same right you have, except you didn't have to sit by as other people voted on your life

can a state ban Heterosexual marriage?



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower


Did the opponents advise they would be appealing? Or is that not possible at the SCOTUS level?





No, there is no appeal from a SC ruling.. It is possible to ask the Supremes to reconsider but it is very rare for them to do so. But no doubt the godbotherers will try something.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join