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.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by BuffDaddy
I think polygamy should be permitted, too.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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.
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Did the opponents advise they would be appealing? Or is that not possible at the SCOTUS level?