Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, LsDoorMat said:

You must be an attorney, because the chaos that would ensue under that scenario  would be a lawyer's dream. 

Thomas and Alito can rail against same sex marriage all they want, they need an actual CASE brought before them, that the court at large agrees to hear, in order to change anything.

After Reagan got elected people said that Roe V Wade only had a short time to live. And here we are 40 years later and it's still here. 

You have birth certificates, marriages, and divorces so that it codifies the relationships and responsibilities between persons. It's the same reason you have title searches and deeds when you build a house. You just can't go into the woods, cut down some trees, and build a house there because nobody is using that land.  If you don't want to get married,  live together for sixty years or six days , you  are free to do so. But marriage should be available to those who want to seal their relationship as permanent. 

Not an attorney, but the whole problem is that the government has interjected itself into a religious institution - marriage.  Of course this has been going on for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

There will be a case over same-sex marriage and I am sure someone already has it ready to file.

Difference between now and Reagan is that the Supreme Court up until now, including during Reagan, was moderate to liberal.  They also believed in honoring precedents in almost all cases.  Newer SC justices have admitted they have no qualms about overturning precedents.  Also, they have no problems about basing decisions on their religious beliefs.  6 of the 9 justices will be Catholic, whereas Catholics are only 22% of population.

Trump and the GOPers have been running on a campaign to reverse Roe v. Wade and outlaw abortions for many, many years.  That is why the "Christian evangelicals" and the Catholics voted for him.  Same for same-sex marriages.

Incidentally, I am well aware of all the things based on marriage.  All of them can be replaced by a civil contract between two people.  People can get married at any institution other than a government one, but then they have to go to a government office and obtain a civil contract.  People who do not want to or cannot get "married" due to religious discrimination can just get the civil contract.

Clerks of court, judges, magistrates, etc. could not perform marriages, but they could issue a civil contract certificate between person A and person B.  No husband nor wife.  No mention of marriage.

All the current governmental/legal protections would be extended to those with a civil contract.

Never said that current marriages and all that involves would be nullified, only that going forward the government gets out of the marriage business.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, ElCid said:

Not an attorney, but the whole problem is that the government has interjected itself into a religious institution - marriage.  Of course this has been going on for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

There will be a case over same-sex marriage and I am sure someone already has it ready to file.

Difference between now and Reagan is that the Supreme Court up until now, including during Reagan, was moderate to liberal.  They also believed in honoring precedents in almost all cases.  Newer SC justices have admitted they have no qualms about overturning precedents.  Also, they have no problems about basing decisions on their religious beliefs.  6 of the 9 justices will be Catholic, whereas Catholics are only 22% of population.

Trump and the GOPers have been running on a campaign to reverse Roe v. Wade and outlaw abortions for many, many years.  That is why the "Christian evangelicals" and the Catholics voted for him.  Same for same-sex marriages.

Incidentally, I am well aware of all the things based on marriage.  All of them can be replaced by a civil contract between two people.  People can get married at any institution other than a government one, but then they have to go to a government office and obtain a civil contract.  People who do not want to or cannot get "married" due to religious discrimination can just get the civil contract.

Clerks of court, judges, magistrates, etc. could not perform marriages, but they could issue a civil contract certificate between person A and person B.  No husband nor wife.  No mention of marriage.

All the current governmental/legal protections would be extended to those with a civil contract.

Never said that current marriages and all that involves would be nullified, only that going forward the government gets out of the marriage business.

But marriage is NOT a religious institution.  It is a legal contract between two persons, which you - in this response - admit to yourself.  I was not married in a church. I was married by a clerk of the court in a Virginia courthouse. I'm just as married as somebody who did so in a church. So I have certain rights and responsibilities under the law towards my husband and he toward myself. If he gets cancer I just can't pack it up and say "You're on your own fella!" and believe me, without the contract of marriage, lots of people would do just that anytime things went south. It seems we are  hung up on semantics. 

I really don't see what we are arguing over. I dislike the idea of - yet again - gay marriage being illegal. Some people seem to look at the expansion of other peoples' rights as a contraction of their own, and I do not get that at all. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, LsDoorMat said:

But marriage is NOT a religious institution.  It is a legal contract between two persons, which you - in this response - admit to yourself.  I was not married in a church. I was married by a clerk of the court in a Virginia courthouse. I'm just as married as somebody who did so in a church. So I have certain rights and responsibilities under the law towards my husband and he toward myself. If he gets cancer I just can't pack it up and say "You're on your own fella!" and believe me, without the contract of marriage, lots of people would do just that anytime things went south. It seems we are  hung up on semantics. 

I really don't see what we are arguing over. I dislike the idea of - yet again - gay marriage being illegal. Some people seem to look at the expansion of other peoples' rights as a contraction of their own, and I do not get that at all. 

Well said and thanks for saving me the trouble.    Marriage as currently defined in the USA is a LEGAL contract etc.....     

The fact it has religious historical roots,  should have NO application to this current LEGAL process.        As an atheist,  religion should have no bearing on LEGAL due-process. 

It really is that simple,  or I should say I wish it was,   because, sadly,  there are too many Americans that wish to blend religion and legal-due-process.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LsDoorMat said:

But marriage is NOT a religious institution.  It is a legal contract between two persons, which you - in this response - admit to yourself.  I was not married in a church. I was married by a clerk of the court in a Virginia courthouse. I'm just as married as somebody who did so in a church. So I have certain rights and responsibilities under the law towards my husband and he toward myself. If he gets cancer I just can't pack it up and say "You're on your own fella!" and believe me, without the contract of marriage, lots of people would do just that anytime things went south. It seems we are  hung up on semantics. 

I really don't see what we are arguing over. I dislike the idea of - yet again - gay marriage being illegal. Some people seem to look at the expansion of other peoples' rights as a contraction of their own, and I do not get that at all. 

You are confused.  Marriage began as a religious rite and governments at some point decided to "protect" it and the participants.  You were "married by a clerk of court in a Virginia courthouse."  Same as me except it was in S.C. 

The "contract" you have with your husband is backed by governments.  

Incidentally, if your husband gets cancer, you can walk out the door.  It is done everyday.  Lots of people walk out the door everyday for lots of reasons without any repercussions.

What I am trying to get across is that governments should get out of the "marriage" business because marriage is a religious rite  in the United States.  That's why I propose a civil contract be required to provide the protections to participants and children.  A contract that does not have a husband or wife and does not mention "marriage."  No more marriage licenses; just civil contracts between two people.

The issue is that a minority in the US do not believe in same-sex marriage and they are determined to reverse the decision that permits it.  With 6 Catholic, very conservative justices on the Supreme Court they are likely to do so.  They will base their argument on "religious" grounds.  Therefore, clerks of courts can refuse to issue licenses or perform ceremonies and states will be allowed to prohibit same-sex marriages.  The SC will determine that states can regulate marriages pretty much as they please.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Well said and thanks for saving me the trouble.    Marriage as currently defined in the USA is a LEGAL contract etc.....     

The fact it has religious historical roots,  should have NO application to this current LEGAL process.        As an atheist,  religion should have no bearing on LEGAL due-process. 

It really is that simple,  or I should say I wish it was,   because, sadly,  there are too many Americans that wish to blend religion and legal-due-process.  

 

Actually you are supporting my argument for getting government out of the marriage business.  See my response to lsdoormat.

NOTE:  I am not advocating doing away with the legal protections and regulations that go with the contract part, just the religious ramifications.  If it is a stand alone civil contract between two people and not a husband and wife, everything stays the same - but no religious ramifications or protests.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, ElCid said:

You are confused.  Marriage began as a religious rite and governments at some point decided to "protect" it and the participants.  You were "married by a clerk of court in a Virginia courthouse."  Same as me except it was in S.C. 

The "contract" you have with your husband is backed by governments.  

Incidentally, if your husband gets cancer, you can walk out the door.  It is done everyday.  Lots of people walk out the door everyday for lots of reasons without any repercussions.

What I am trying to get across is that governments should get out of the "marriage" business because marriage is a religious rite  in the United States.  That's why I propose a civil contract be required to provide the protections to participants and children.  A contract that does not have a husband or wife and does not mention "marriage."  No more marriage licenses; just civil contracts between two people.

The issue is that a minority in the US do not believe in same-sex marriage and they are determined to reverse the decision that permits it.  With 6 Catholic, very conservative justices on the Supreme Court they are likely to do so.  They will base their argument on "religious" grounds.  Therefore, clerks of courts can refuse to issue licenses or perform ceremonies and states will be allowed to prohibit same-sex marriages.  The SC will determine that states can regulate marriages pretty much as they please.

BUT....I am responsible for the cost of his care. I just can't leave that behind. He and whoever he owes can take me to court and require that I pay. Sure, I can leave physically, but I can't leave fiscally.  That's the point. And I think you would have problems with this proposal of yours for the same reason that people need seven paragraphs to explain "Defund The Police".....Yeah, we SAY "Defund the Police" but what we really mean is.... seven paragraphs later people just remember your slogan. 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ElCid said:

Actually you are supporting my argument for getting government out of the marriage business.  See my response to lsdoormat.

NOTE:  I am not advocating doing away with the legal protections and regulations that go with the contract part, just the religious ramifications.  If it is a stand alone civil contract between two people and not a husband and wife, everything stays the same - but no religious ramifications or protests.

 

NOT.   Get religion out of the LEGAL marriage business.    This has been well explained in two posts by LSDoor.     

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, LsDoorMat said:

BUT....I am responsible for the cost of his care. I just can't leave that behind. He and whoever he owes can take me to court and require that I pay. Sure, I can leave physically, but I can't leave fiscally.  That's the point. And I think you would have problems with this proposal of yours for the same reason that people need seven paragraphs to explain "Defund The Police".....Yeah, we SAY "Defund the Police" but what we really mean is.... seven paragraphs later people just remember your slogan. 

No use continuing this discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

NOT.   Get religion out of the LEGAL marriage business.    This has been well explained in two posts by LSDoor.     

No use continuing this discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also against Barrett for fiscal reasons. The SC will have to hire a snake handler

and a speaking in tongues translator if she is confirmed. Those things don't come cheap.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Vautrin said:

I am also against Barrett for fiscal reasons. The SC will have to hire a snake handler

and a speaking in tongues translator if she is confirmed. Those things don't come cheap.

Also, will they have to delay proceedings while she contacts her husband to get his "superior" input?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ElCid said:

Also, will they have to delay proceedings while she contacts her husband to get his "superior" input?

Yeah, maybe the court will be expanding after all, if only by one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Handmaid's Tale protesters descend on Capitol Hill ahead of Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearing tomorrow where she will praise mentor Justice Scalia and say courts should not decide policy

Amy Coney Barrett will praise late mentor Justice Antonin Scalia in remarks at

A transcript of the remarks Amy Coney Barrett (inset) intends to deliver in the first day of her Senate confirmation hearing on Monday was released to the media on Sunday. Barrett, 48, will speak to the Republican-led panel about how the late Justice Antonin Scalia, whom she clerked for, shaped her philosophies about law and family. Sen Lindsey Graham, chair of the Judiciary Committee, predicted that Barrett will be confirmed by October 27 in an interview with Fox News on Sunday (left). It came as about a dozen women dressed as characters from The Handmaid's Tale staged a protest outside the Supreme Court on Sunday (right).

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2020 at 2:51 PM, jamesjazzguitar said:

Why do you care if there are no more abortions?    I guess you don't support freedom. 

Are you upset that plastic straws were banned by some states?     

I ask because to be more concerned that the government is imposing on individual rights by denying plastic straws,  but to actually push for that same government to have say over what a women does with her own body,,,  well it just doesn't make any sense.    

It does to me - you miss the holistic point - The fact that most people who get the abortions are low income (subsidized by the government) and immigrants! Abortion clinics feed an 'Industrial Complex' that we don't need in this country any longer. To add, the body parts are being sold! It's inhumane and disgusting. Also, regardless of religion people shouldn't get used to the idea that abortion is an option!!! Use protection or don't have sex like rabbits. Abortion is a disgusting thing and should only be used if VERY necessary like in the case of rape - Okay,? If your brain is on plastic straws I feel bad for you - I don't have a problem with plastic straw and they shouldn't be banned. I have a problem with plastic overall but I wasn't born in 1900 to change history - It's too late to convince everyone to go back to paper, metal, and glass!

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2020 at 2:46 PM, LsDoorMat said:

Oh, don't worry about us. Speaking of what IS constitutional. Adding four more seats to the Supreme Court. I think President Obama would look excellent in those black robes. And then we can add a few states. Let's start with DC and Puerto Rico.  Don't get too used to the powers that be. They'll be changing in January! 

In your dreams you treasonous traitor

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Cinemartian said:

It does to me - you miss the holistic point - The fact that most people who get the abortions are low income (subsidized by the government) and immigrants! Abortion clinics feed an 'Industrial Complex' that we don't need in this country any longer. To add, the body parts are being sold! It's inhumane and disgusting. Also, regardless of religion people shouldn't get used to the idea that abortion is an option!!! Use protection or don't have sex like rabbits. Abortion is a disgusting thing and should only be used if VERY necessary like in the case of rape - Okay,? If your brain is on plastic straws I feel bad for you - I don't have a problem with plastic straw and they shouldn't be banned. I have a problem with plastic overall but I wasn't born in 1900 to change history - It's too late to convince everyone to go back to paper, metal, and glass!

Clearly you don't support freedom.   That is sad.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Court packing:
Since 1969, Democratic presidents have appointed 4 Supreme Court justices,
 
Republicans have appointed 15
(4 of them by presidents who lost the popular vote).
 
(McConnell refused even to hold hearing on Obama's nominee.)
<_<
 
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"A 2010 People of Praise directory states that she held the title of “handmaid,” a leadership position for women in the community, according to a directory excerpt obtained by The Washington Post.

Also, while in law school, Barrett lived at the South Bend home of People of Praise’s influential co-founder Kevin Ranaghan and his wife, Dorothy, who together helped establish the group’s male-dominated hierarchy and view of gender roles."

So I guess that Barrett's testimony actually IS The  Handmaid's Tale???

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Cinemartian said:

It does to me - you miss the holistic point - The fact that most people who get the abortions are low income (subsidized by the government) and immigrants! Abortion clinics feed an 'Industrial Complex' that we don't need in this country any longer. To add, the body parts are being sold! It's inhumane and disgusting. Also, regardless of religion people shouldn't get used to the idea that abortion is an option!!! Use protection or don't have sex like rabbits. Abortion is a disgusting thing and should only be used if VERY necessary like in the case of rape - Okay,? If your brain is on plastic straws I feel bad for you - I don't have a problem with plastic straw and they shouldn't be banned. I have a problem with plastic overall but I wasn't born in 1900 to change history - It's too late to convince everyone to go back to paper, metal, and glass!

This is a contradictory, hypocritical post or at least very confused.  Not surprised though.

Why would abortion be OK for rape and not for other reasons?   While horrendous, technically rape is between two unrelated (95% of cases) people, just as any other pregnancy.  So, if abortion is OK for that, it morally, religiously and legally is OK for all other forms of pregnancy.

I don't know how old/young you are, but governments around the world have reversed some of the worst aspects of pollution (plastic straws) because they forced people to accept them and/or outlawed the products.  Not to mention poisons and myriad other dangerous products.  How can you be against plastic and for plastic straws - one of the most useless devices ever created.

Where is documentation showing most abortions are by low income or immigrants?

What "industrial complex" do abortions feed??????????

For me, the issue on abortions is that it is a "religious" objection and therefore the government should not be in the business of telling women what to do with their bodies.  It is up the woman - period.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ElCid said:

For me, the issue on abortions is that it is a "religious" objection and therefore the government should not be in the business of telling women what to do with their bodies.  It is up the woman - period.

Well said:     What I was wanting to discuss with the other poster was the legal issues but instead like most people do they just have to focus on their own personal POV and try to use government to impose that POV on others.      This is why I mentioned plastic straws;  Conservatives get in a huff when tree-huggers try to deny them their straws but are all for controlling what a women does with her own body.      AND these fools claim to be for freedom.

Of course people have a right to object to all sorts of things;  E.g.  the eating of meat,  same-sex-marriage,   drinking caffeine etc...     That is just being a human being.  Trying to use the government to ensure OTHERS don't do these sort of things,,,, well that makes one a fascist.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Public Opinion

The possibility that the Supreme Court will explicitly overturn Planned Parenthood v. Casey is low, but there is a chance a conservative-leaning Court could issue a ruling that gives states some leverage to require spousal notification before an abortion. A 2003 Gallup poll on the subject found public opinion had remained fairly steady in the decade since Casey, and that it was largely in favor of spousal notification. Seventy-two percent of respondents favored parental notification, with 67 percent of women agreeing that a woman should notify her husband before getting an abortion. Over time, the Supreme Court does tend to come in line with public opinion, and some believe the reasoning in Davis v. Davis could be a way to bridge the gap.

Conclusion

As the " donor" for a fertilized embryo, you have the legal right to prevent becoming a father against your will. But with regard to a fetus developing inside a women, you have no legal say over whether an abortion occurs or not. A variety of public interest advocacy groups have been formed to argue in favor of giving men a right in the abortion decision. The law is one-sided, they say, because a man can be forced to accept the legal obligations of paternity, but can't prevent a woman from aborting a baby when he wants it to be born. The law can change, and the debate rages on, with states like Ohio considering legislation that could potentially sidestep the Casey decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Republican/Catholic Supreme Court will eventually rule that abortion can be regulated by the states in any manner they see fit.  It is a state, not a federal, area.  Eventually the same for same-sex marriage, labor regulations, ad infinitum.  Guns will be excluded from most types of regulation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...