| Author |
Topic:
Senator when you took your oath of office........... [Locked] |
Yukishiro1  Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Senator when you took your oath of office........... |
Thugoneous posted:
Yukishiro1 posted:
It isn't so much about taxes. It's more about shared property. Are you suggesting we do away with the idea that the law recognizes married couples' income and assets are held jointly?
I mean you could do that all by contract but in point of fact it won't happen and you'll have tons of (mostly female) people who end up totally screwed when their higher-earning "spouse" dumps them when they get old and not so hot and they get nothing at all.
Equality is a bitch.
It has nothing to do with equality.
|
vn_nnanji Title: Outpost Music Expert
Posts: 1,964
Registered: 2001-6-30 17:22:56
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Senator when you took your oath of office........... |
Vydor posted:
Nope, I wasn't breaking it down at all, just looking at it simply. She is telling the guy, she uses the bible to define marriage. The guys tells her to use the constitution , in which there is no definition. States define marriage differently, based on various views. It's not the constitution that defines it. His as a statement that was off the mark.
First you pretend you don't know the context...now you pretend you do. 
Which of course you obviously don't. Or...you simply invent enough to make your point.
He didn't tell her to use the constitution to define marriage. He told her to do her job. The Constitution is about the rights we enjoy as citizens. You cannot take these rights away without amending the Constitution. The Constitution does not address the issue so it is not her place to define marriage. It was her job to uphold the constitution.
And since you were so hot to know the context it was a Senate hearing regarding the constitutionality of a law against same sex marriage. His comment was clearly not "off the mark." I could not have been more on the mark. It's the Senator who is off base. Her religious views hold no place in lawmaking, particularly if it is in conflict with the Constitution.
Hence his comment that her job was to uphold the law of the land, not the "law" of her church.
The Church and State are separate for a reason.
You're one of them.
-----signature-----
|
Yukishiro1 Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Senator when you took your oath of office........... |
Bonzoboy1 posted:
marriage is a states rights issue
This seriously puzzles me. It's hard for me to think of anything LESS suited to being a states rights issue than marriage.
You really want a system where people are considered married in some states but in not in others? How would that even work? I'm married in Cali but if I move to Nevada and I can ditch my spouse with no consequences because I'm not considered married there because they don't recognize my marriage for whatever reason?
Marriage seems like one of the best candidates for uniform treatment.
|
vn_nnanji Title: Outpost Music Expert
Posts: 1,964
Registered: 2001-6-30 17:22:56
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Senator when you took your oath of office........... |
I support the OP's right to marry Cabby's Mom.
For like a weekend osmething.
-----signature-----
|
Scarne Title: Capo di Scientifico
Posts: 1,087
Registered: 2001-7-23 15:24:34
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Senator when you took your oath of office........... |
Yukishiro1 posted:
This seriously puzzles me. It's hard for me to think of anything LESS suited to being a states rights issue than marriage.
You really want a system where people are considered married in some states but in not in others? How would that even work? I'm married in Cali but if I move to Nevada and I can ditch my spouse with no consequences because I'm not considered married there because they don't recognize my marriage for whatever reason?
Marriage seems like one of the best candidates for uniform treatment.
Well, it can still be states rights like driver's licenses are. Different states have different requirements for driver's licenses, but if you go into a different state, your license is still valid even if the state you got it from has less strict requirements.
So it can be states rights, but even if gay people can't get married in one state, that state still needs to accept the validity of gay marriages from other states. 
-----signature-----
E Pluribus Unum
|
Vydor  Posts: 248
Registered: 2001-12-24 21:14:09
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Senator when you took your oath of office........... |
vn_nnanji posted:
Vydor posted:
Nope, I wasn't breaking it down at all, just looking at it simply. She is telling the guy, she uses the bible to define marriage. The guys tells her to use the constitution , in which there is no definition. States define marriage differently, based on various views. It's not the constitution that defines it. His as a statement that was off the mark.
First you pretend you don't know the context...now you pretend you do.
Which of course you obviously don't. Or...you simply invent enough to make your point.
He didn't tell her to use the constitution to define marriage. He told her to do her job. The Constitution is about the rights we enjoy as citizens. You cannot take these rights away without amending the Constitution. The Constitution does not address the issue so it is not her place to define marriage. It was her job to uphold the constitution.
And since you were so hot to know the context it was a Senate hearing regarding the constitutionality of a law against same sex marriage. His comment was clearly not "off the mark." I could not have been more on the mark. It's the Senator who is off base. Her religious views hold no place in lawmaking, particularly if it is in conflict with the Constitution.
Hence his comment that her job was to uphold the law of the land, not the "law" of her church.
The Church and State are separate for a reason.
You're one of them.
Sorry, but from what you posted, that was my take on it. He was telling her to use the constitution to define marriage. And like I've stated, unless I am wrong, each state can clearly define what marriage is and it be acceptable within the constitution. I do think there are states that forbid same sex marriage, and I am willing to be that some of the law makers in those states were persuaded by the bible to make their decision.
From my take on the conservation, the dude's response was clearly off the mark.
-----signature-----
Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence.
|
Scarne Title: Capo di Scientifico
Posts: 1,087
Registered: 2001-7-23 15:24:34
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Senator when you took your oath of office........... |
Vydor posted:
Sorry, but from what you posted, that was my take on it. He was telling her to use the constitution to define marriage. And like I've stated, unless I am wrong, each state can clearly define what marriage is and it be acceptable within the constitution. I do think there are states that forbid same sex marriage, and I am willing to be that some of the law makers in those states were persuaded by the bible to make their decision.
From my take on the conservation, the dude's response was clearly off the mark.
This was about DOMA where the federal government says it wasn't going to recognize gay marriages.
-----signature-----
E Pluribus Unum
|
Vydor Posts: 248
Registered: 2001-12-24 21:14:09
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Senator when you took your oath of office........... |
Scarne posted:
Vydor posted:
Sorry, but from what you posted, that was my take on it. He was telling her to use the constitution to define marriage. And like I've stated, unless I am wrong, each state can clearly define what marriage is and it be acceptable within the constitution. I do think there are states that forbid same sex marriage, and I am willing to be that some of the law makers in those states were persuaded by the bible to make their decision.
From my take on the conservation, the dude's response was clearly off the mark.
This was about DOMA where the federal government says it wasn't going to recognize gay marriages.
I guess I am confused, can states forbid same sex marriages?
-----signature-----
Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence.
|
Yukishiro1 Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Senator when you took your oath of office........... |
Scarne posted:
Well, it can still be states rights like driver's licenses are. Different states have different requirements for driver's licenses, but if you go into a different state, your license is still valid even if the state you got it from has less strict requirements.
So it can be states rights, but even if gay people can't get married in one state, that state still needs to accept the validity of gay marriages from other states.
Which makes it not really states rights. If a state doesn't have a right to refuse to recognize the marriage it doesn't really have any meaningful rights.
|
vn_nnanji Title: Outpost Music Expert
Posts: 1,964
Registered: 2001-6-30 17:22:56
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Senator when you took your oath of office........... |
Vydor posted:
Scarne posted:
Vydor posted:
Sorry, but from what you posted, that was my take on it. He was telling her to use the constitution to define marriage. And like I've stated, unless I am wrong, each state can clearly define what marriage is and it be acceptable within the constitution. I do think there are states that forbid same sex marriage, and I am willing to be that some of the law makers in those states were persuaded by the bible to make their decision.
From my take on the conservation, the dude's response was clearly off the mark.
This was about DOMA where the federal government says it wasn't going to recognize gay marriages.
I guess I am confused, can states forbid same sex marriages?
It wasn't a conversation. It was testimony in an official setting. Your take on it is wrong and blatantly self serving.
And I note you still have not answered the question, despite my answering yours.
-----signature-----
|
|
