Sportello
Well-Known Member
That was clear.
Supreme Court
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
newfie
Well-Known Member
fixed it for you
moreluck
golden ticket member
White noise in the background.....hearing for the supreme court nominee...
Leahy (D-VT) asked the guy about no hearing for the Obama nominee of a year ago. The guy says he's not going to comment on something so political. Leahy says maybe you can't but I will and goes on to say how bad that was. These hearings are for people who like to hear themselves talk....Finestein too.
Leahy (D-VT) asked the guy about no hearing for the Obama nominee of a year ago. The guy says he's not going to comment on something so political. Leahy says maybe you can't but I will and goes on to say how bad that was. These hearings are for people who like to hear themselves talk....Finestein too.
oldngray
nowhere special
Feinstein had a fit because Gorsuch might be an originalist. She doesn't believe the Constitution means what it says.
newfie
Well-Known Member
its lazy legislation. they cant get anything through congress so they want activist judges legislating from the bench to bypass congress.
Sportello
Well-Known Member
Can you give me an example of a decision that supports your conclusion?
Sportello
Well-Known Member
Citation please, or you are a liar.
moreluck
golden ticket member
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Gays have right to marry, Mass. SJC says - The Boston Globe
In a historic and long-awaited decision, a deeply split Supreme Judicial Court yesterday ushered in a new era of gay rights, becoming the nation’s first state supreme court to rule that same-sex couples have the legal right to marry.
In the 4-3 decision, the court’s majority ruled that the centuries-old notion of marriage as limited to a man and a woman should be updated to define the institution as the exclusive, “voluntary union of two persons as spouses.”
Catatonic
Nine Lives
While I like and fully support the concept of the union as 2 people, it should be a Legal Union ... not marriage which is a religious concept.
Good example Baba.
moreluck
golden ticket member
My word for it is "fusion".
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
Religious belief has no place in public policy. Marriage is a legal contract.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
Agree 100%
Don't display your ignorance.
Google "marriage origins" to help with your ignorance.
Ignorance - lack of knowledge or information. (I helped you with that one)
Last edited:
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
I'm not concerned with the origin of marriage. As it stands in our society it is a legal contract. Ttku
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
Did you file the paperwork with the state? Do you files your taxes as married?
The argument that because of your religious beliefs someone else's legal union should be referred to as something other than marriage is ridiculous. One cannot claim they are for same sex unions but only if they don't get the word marriage. That's intellectually dishonest, you're either for equality or not.
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
How does this fit into your definition of your own Libertarianism?
Real question...
newfie
Well-Known Member
probably
Catatonic
Nine Lives
Never thought about it except in terms of "semantics".
Let religions/cultures have "marriage" and have the legal definition as a Legal Union (or some such term).
Same results and no sense of government intrusion into a social/religious/cultural institution.
A Libertarian still has to play politics.
As an aside - I was married in the eyes of the Lord but I never bothered with the government.
I only got legally married when my daughter was about 5 years old after it was pointed out to that if I were to die, my daughter would be able to get some SocSec help with living and school.
Last edited:
