and DOMA is...

[NotreDame]

You made a claim, the linked case shows that your claim was not accurate. To try to wave it away because we were discussing the Supreme Court case (Windsor), and not this case, is a pathetic excuse. The fact is that the linked case shows that both the original trial judge and the Federal Appeals Court for the First Circuit disagree with you. In fact, none of the judges that heard the case agreed with your opinion.

Now, I'll agree that if it had been heard by the full Supreme Court (instead of Windsor) some of the justices likely would have agreed with you, so your opinion is not completely without merit. The fact remains, though, that based on the Windsor ruling, your opinion would have been a minority opinion and, particularly due to the states rights slant of the case, it may not have even been a 5-4 decision (basing this on the Prop. 8 ruling).

We are discussing the U.S. Supreme Court decision and my claim is in regards to the U.S. Supreme Court decision. This thread is not about the lower court decisions, so trying to refute my argument about a case nobody in this thread was ever discussing, until you interjected with it, is a pathetic exercise of refutation.

Furthermore, you can cite the number of people in disagreement with my opinion, judge, lawyer, layperson, it doesn't matter, because the number of people in disagreement with a position indicates nothing about the strength of the opinion, whether the opinion is true, likely true, accurate, or correct. So you can dispense with this argument by popularity.

 

[Maren]

We are discussing the U.S. Supreme Court decision and my claim is in regards to the U.S. Supreme Court decision. This thread is not about the lower court decisions, so trying to refute my argument about a case nobody in this thread was ever discussing, until you interjected with it, is a pathetic exercise of refutation.

Furthermore, you can cite the number of people in disagreement with my opinion, judge, lawyer, layperson, it doesn't matter, because the number of people in disagreement with a position indicates nothing about the strength of the opinion, whether the opinion is true, likely true, accurate, or correct. So you can dispense with this argument by popularity.

Except that you made a claim that wasn't covered by the Supreme Court decision. So it is a bit disingenuous that you are claiming that I can't disagree because it wasn't covered by the Supreme Court decision.

But maybe I'm wrong and you can show me where the decision in Windsor said, "The law itself does not interfere with any state power, none, and the motivation for the law does not change this fact."

 

[NotreDame]

Except that you made a claim that wasn't covered by the Supreme Court decision. So it is a bit disingenuous that you are claiming that I can't disagree because it wasn't covered by the Supreme Court decision.

But maybe I'm wrong and you can show me where the decision in Windsor said, "The law itself does not interfere with any state power, none, and the motivation for the law does not change this fact."

Actually, I did make a claim covered by the U.S. Supreme Court decision. J. Kennedy's decision is inundated with references, lines, sentences, and paragraphs describing Congress' conduct as one traditionally of "state power". His entire opinion is a federalism opinion tied to "equal protection principles" in the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause.

So, you need to get your facts straight before accusing me of being "disingenuous" because you do not know what you are talking about. I suggest you read the case because my comment is absolutely addressed by J. Kennedy's majority opinion.

Furthermore, I didn't say you couldn't disagree. I said it was rather pathetic to refute my comments by referencing and citing to cases which were not the subject of this thread until you referenced them. This exchange between you and I is quickly devolving, regrettably, into one of having to correct every error and mistake you make in a post.

But maybe I'm wrong and you can show me where the decision in Windsor said, "The law itself does not interfere with any state power, none, and the motivation for the law does not change this fact."

This makes no sense. Why would I do such a thing when my criticism of the majority opinion is DOMA section 3 doesn't interfere federalism, states' rights, or state authority to define marriage? It is rather conspicuous the majority decision makes the assertion DOMA section 3 does interfere with federalism and state authority to define marriage and I am asserting it doesn't!

Furthermore, upon careful reflection, my comment was made in regards to a poster's argument and not so much the decision itself. So it is my fault for allowing you to drag me into an argument about the Court's opinion, or any court's opinion, when my comment was not made in regards to necessarily any court decision but a poster's own argument.

 

[Cearbhall]

So, I'm confused. Does eating bananas make you gay?

Only if you try to eat it with an orifice that isn't your mouth, apparently.

 

[Kristen.NewCreation]

MOD HAT ON

This Thread is being closed for Staff Review.

Reminder for thread - stay on topic, and no flaming.

MOD HAT OFF
​

 

[Metal Minister]

Mod Hat On

AFTER REVIEW, THIS THREAD WILL REMAIN CLOSED DUE TO THE HIGH NUMBER OF REPORTS IT IS GENERATING.
Mod Hat Off