and DOMA is...

[craigerNY]

 

[Maren]

so people should use their ear for listening?

so if you see members of the Supreme Court walking down the street trying to eat bananas by sticking them in their ears, wouldn't you think that was abnormal or just that they are all mentally ill?

That spartacus1984 seems to have some type of obsession about people with bananas in their ears makes me think that perhaps he has some type of mental disability. That or maybe he is five years old? I know my kids at that age thought that was pretty funny. Kind of like this....

 

[imbadatmakingusernames]

many straight people stick their own fingers in their own ears, doesn't qualify them for a mental illness.

edit- it's called anal masturbation, many people do it. It's not a known factor for known mental illnesses

 

[Cearbhall]

Yes, there seems to be an echo in here...

 

[lupusFati]

Satan just walked in the front door

Better than the alternative.

 

[[serious]]

Better than the alternative.

Best new thing of the thread.

 

[lupusFati]

Best new thing of the thread.

Eh, I forgot to look at the page count. Silly me.

 

[[serious]]

Eh, I forgot to look at the page count. Silly me.

No need for apologies. I liked it.

 

[lupusFati]

No need for apologies. I liked it.

It's a bit hard for me to tell if you like something or not, but thanks I suppose. Any reason why you liked it? Just curious.

 

[craigerNY]

Cover your ears everyone.......it's about to get messy in here

 

[spartacus1984]

Cover your ears everyone.......it's about to get messy in here

you have to use cgi (Computer-generated imagery) and youtube cartoons and photoshop.

because you realise i am right.

yes and so if you see members of the Supreme Court walking down the street trying to eat bananas by sticking them in their ears, wouldn't you think that was abnormal or just that they are all mentally ill?

 

[SolomanVIII]

you have to use cgi (Computer-generated imagery) and youtube cartoons and photoshop.

because you realise i am right.

yes and so if you see members of the Supreme Court walking down the street trying to eat bananas by sticking them in their ears, wouldn't you think that was abnormal or just that they are all mentally ill?

How is babby formed? How is babby formed? How girl git pragnant?

 

[drew89]

How is babby formed? How is babby formed? How girl git pragnant?

This is the most intellectual post you have ever made.

 

[NotreDame]

Actually, your last paragraph isn't actually true, to the point Massachusetts was suing the federal government over DOMA Section 3. You have to remember, the state actually administers several federal programs, such as welfare and social security. As such, it was an issue for Massachusetts as they had to have to different classifications of marriage in their database (married per state law only and married per federal law) to determine eligibility for various benefits. With the Supreme Court overturning DOMA Section 3, Massachusetts can go back to only having one class of married couples and offer the same benefits to all married couples.

Actually, my last paragraph is true.

It is important to remember the state is administering "federal programs" and as a result, the state must comply with federal law when administering "federal programs." Now having "different classifications of marriage in their database", a state definition and a federal definition in their database, reinforces my claim DOMA does not interfere state power as the state of Massachusetts was permitted to adhere to its definition of marriage and allocate state benefits in accordance with their own legal definition of marriage.

So your comment above does not weaken my claim DOMA section 3 interferes with state power and a state having to create two databases for a federal and state definition of marriage only illuminates the fact DOMA section 3 did not interfere with state power to define marriage or any other state power.

 

[Cute Tink]

yes and so if you see members of the Supreme Court walking down the street trying to eat bananas by sticking them in their ears, wouldn't you think that was abnormal or just that they are all mentally ill?

The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

[[serious]]

you have to use cgi (Computer-generated imagery) and youtube cartoons and photoshop.

because you realise i am right.

yes and so if you see members of the Supreme Court walking down the street trying to eat bananas by sticking them in their ears, wouldn't you think that was abnormal or just that they are all mentally ill?

 

[Cearbhall]

Cover your ears everyone.......it's about to get messy in here

Partaaayy.

you have to use cgi (Computer-generated imagery) and youtube cartoons and photoshop.

because you realise i am right.

Thank you for being the reason this thread has fallen into madness. It's quite amusing.

The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

I am indeed becoming a bit concerned about Spartacus as the days drag on...

 

[Maren]

Actually, my last paragraph is true.

It is important to remember the state is administering "federal programs" and as a result, the state must comply with federal law when administering "federal programs." Now having "different classifications of marriage in their database", a state definition and a federal definition in their database, reinforces my claim DOMA does not interfere state power as the state of Massachusetts was permitted to adhere to its definition of marriage and allocate state benefits in accordance with their own legal definition of marriage.

So your comment above does not weaken my claim DOMA section 3 interferes with state power and a state having to create two databases for a federal and state definition of marriage only illuminates the fact DOMA section 3 did not interfere with state power to define marriage or any other state power.

Nice that you completely ignored the court case I linked. The courts that heard the case (both the original and the Court of Appeals) agreed with Massachusetts, that DOMA Section 3 was unconstitutional and, and it was in the process of being appealed to the Supreme Court when Windsor was decided. Given that the case, based on DOMA interfering with state powers, was decided for Massachusetts by the courts that heard it (it was being appealed by the House Republicans to the Supreme Court), it appears the law does not agree with you.

 

[NotreDame]

Nice that you completely ignored the court case I linked. The courts that heard the case (both the original and the Court of Appeals) agreed with Massachusetts, that DOMA Section 3 was unconstitutional and, and it was in the process of being appealed to the Supreme Court when Windsor was decided. Given that the case, based on DOMA interfering with state powers, was decided for Massachusetts by the courts that heard it (it was being appealed by the House Republicans to the Supreme Court), it appears the law does not agree with you.

The Court case you linked is irrelevant. We are discussing the U.S. Supreme Court case, which, I remind you, is superior to the court cases you linked. It would make sense for you to discuss the superior case.

Now, the law may be in disagreement with me but this does not mean my opinion is wrong. So you will quite simply need to conjure up a better argument to demonstrate I am wrong because you have not done it yet in either post.

 

[Maren]

The Court case you linked is irrelevant. We are discussing the U.S. Supreme Court case, which, I remind you, is superior to the court cases you linked. It would make sense for you to discuss the superior case.

Now, the law may be in disagreement with me but this does not mean my opinion is wrong. So you will quite simply need to conjure up a better argument to demonstrate I am wrong because you have not done it yet in either post.

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).