Sad day in USA for both Parties (Page 5)

Ummm....No.   The population of the US is now just hitting the 300 million mark.  So Jim, I'm afraid you're still way off.  If you want to use your percentages, then there are 75 million or, rounding up, 100 million people who "are not christians" in the US.  That's quite a difference.

Yep...you're right. Not sure why I had the 3 billion figure in my head. So I ammend my comment to instead of saying "a billion" to "a sh*tload".

 Now that made me laugh!

That's what I'm here for.

Maybe I meant Brazilian.

Don,

I do not mean to be piling on you and I know you are used to taking on several discussions at once.  This reasoning brings up a point that I've raised before and never gotten a satisfactory response from ANYONE on this issue - so I'm not just trying to argue with you.

You seem to be a BIG proponent of States' rights in this issue.  (you already know where I'm going, don't you?)  You made the following statement. 

Forget about the religious and personal feelings about homosexuality.  There is a game being played with States rights and Federal rights on the two issues of gay marriage and abortion and it is not right.  Doesn't it seem hypocritical to argue in favor of states' rights on one issue and against them on the other issue? 

edited to add:  it is not necessarily you who is being hypocritical, I'm referrring to people I typically encounter who have a similar yet less informed opinion on these subjects than you.   Usually our discussion ends when I raise this issue.  It's very unsatisfactory but at least it gets me out of those discussions. 

Have we all forgotten about the DOMA law passed by Congress and signed by Bill Clinton?

DOMA states that states do not have to recognize another state's same-gendered marriage laws. This, of course, is in contradiction to the Constitution's full faith and credit clause.

I see arguments saying that banning same-gendered marriages does not violate any articles of the Constitution. I'm not a Constitutional scholar; I don't know if this is a valid argument or not.

What I do know is that there is more than one way to approach this; claiming breach of rights is not the only approach one could take. The other approach is for elected officials to simply expand marital rights to same-gendered couples. This will take a sea change but I think it's just a matter of time before a sense of fair play overtakes this country and we will see the expansion of marital rights.

I'm for states rights on both issues.

I like what just happened in Wisconsin regarding gay marriage, and I don't like what just happened in New Jersey on the same issue. But I recognize the right of each state to make there repective laws.

I think the brilliance of our system is that these "values" issues can and ought to be decided on in as local a level as possible. For marraige laws, that would be at the state level.

The problem with Roe vs Wade, is that it took that decision making out of the hands of the people where it rightly belongs. It is a flawed ruling that even it's supporters agree was a legal reach.

So if it is eventually overturned, then these decisions will go back to the people in each state. South Dakota just showed that the kind of abortion restriction that I personally want will not happen there. But exit polls there show that the people want some kind of restriction. They are not satisfied with the status quo of abortion on demand.

So if and when it it returned to the states, each state will find its way to some sort of stasis. In some states it will be completely restricted, in other states it will be completely allowed, and in others it will be somewhere along that spectrum.

I see states rights on values issues as a pressure release valve for our American society. Just as people now move to other states because of economic reasons, they could move because of social reasons. States rights on social/values issues seems like the best way to accomodate everyone's desires on these issues and still remain a united country.

Yea. Just reading some of the arguments from yesterday's partial birth abortion hearing makes me realize how hyper-detailed the legal arguments actually are.

We can chat here about our personal opinions on a subject. We can try a sway those opinions with strong arguments. But, thankfully, in the Supreme Court of our land the arguments need to get into deep legal technical detail.

However the partial birth abortion ruling comes down, I hope it is an airtight and sound legal decision, even if it goes against my own personal desires on the issue.

Not to be simplistic, but I guess one of the problems of being a nation, with a national framework for creating laws--the constitution--is that there needs to be a body to decide if laws created meet the standard of that framework. If a ruling in the '70s was so flawed, why has it not been overturned in the last 33 years despite lots of challenges?.

Don, there was a time not too long ago when Southern states had laws banning interracial marriage. South Carolina lifted their ban in 1998 and Alabama followed in 2000. SCOTUS declared these bans unconstitional in 1967.

According to your state rights argument/position, states with bans on interracial marriage should not have to recognize a marriage that took place in Michigan, for example. These Southern states argued for states rights and against the full faith and credit clause, just as you are. 

I think that's a straw man.

Those laws were based on race.  Proponents of gay marriage want to change the very definition of what a marriage is.  That's a different argument. 

Sez you. There are plenty of equal protection laws that include sexual orientation in the same manner as race.

Yea, but I think there are strong arguments that can be made as to why that ought not be applied to the definition of marriage. 

I was hoping you'd show up.  

That was a District Court ruling. Until SCOTUS rules on DOMA, it is a disputed matter and not settled law. The complaint was barred because "DOMA does not infringe on any of Plaintiffs fundamental rights and is a legitimate exercise of the power granted to Congress by the Full Faith and Credit Clause."

It seems to me that the DC argued that DOMA was legitimate because DOMA didn't infringe on their rights. Which is not the same as saying DOMA does not violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Again, I'm not a Constitutional scholar. Just taking a laypersons common sense view of the language.

Don, I hate to pile it on, but can you give me an argument that has nothing to do with the religious definiton of marriage?

It's the same argument, Don. I don't see how that's straw man argument.

Those laws were based upon what the citizens of those states felt was acceptable for their state. That's your argument.

Which brings me to my argument. There will come a day when the pendulum will swing back in favor of fair play and all these horrendous DOMA laws and amendments will be reversed by the people. I am optimistic and have confidence in the people of this country. Just as Prohibition was self-imposed then overturned, so too will be the DOMAs.

How long did it take to overturn Dred Scott? 

Was Dred Scott overturned?

My fuzzy recollection is that POTUS issued an executive order called the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 and that's what de facto killed Dred Scott - that and the forced subduing of the slave owning states.

Did SCOTUS get around to overrulling their own ruling? Curious just as a matter of historical accuracy?

EDIT: Found the answer to my questions: Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) was overturned by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery in 1865, and the Fourteenth Amendment, which granted citizenship to former slaves in 1868.

Yea, I can try Liz. But I need to check out of COJ pretty soon to take care of business. I'll try to be back later today.

The argument is a philosophical one based on Natural Law. And the gist of it is that the difference between a marriage consisting of one man and one woman, versus any other kind of relationship, rests with the notion that in a one man, one woman marriage, sexual intercourse actualizes the union, it's part of what actually defines the union, whereas in any other type of sexual relationship, the sexual act is instrumental to the relationship.

It's a philosophical argument that holds marriage as a two in one flesh union.

Except I don't see how the states could get around the 14th ammendment on those race based laws.