Cheney Daughter Remark (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 04:48:55 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign
  Cheney Daughter Remark (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Cheney Daughter Remark  (Read 33892 times)
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« on: October 17, 2004, 03:40:18 PM »
It's okay.



If I thought this was going to happen, I would hate the United States of America too!
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2004, 06:18:49 PM »
I don't actually think you hate the USA. You just trash us a lot.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2004, 06:43:30 PM »
I said:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You said:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.



...

I see no link between those two statements other than that they're both English. Please clarify.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2004, 07:24:37 PM »
The United States of America
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« Reply #4 on: October 18, 2004, 06:20:31 PM »
HAHAHAHA!

You haven't trashed America?! War for oil ring any bells?!
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« Reply #5 on: October 18, 2004, 06:43:59 PM »
You implied it was THE consideration
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2004, 01:43:32 PM »
« Edited: October 22, 2004, 01:48:31 PM by Philip »
The question is, what does "require" mean? At first sight this looks like it would only stop activist judges.

But if a state passes law instituting same sex unions, is that the legislature requiring that same sex marriages be recognized by law - or just a law making same sex marriages recognized by law?

It's an interesting question. I lean towards the latter.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« Reply #7 on: October 22, 2004, 02:30:22 PM »
Yes, it does require that marriage only be between a man and a woman. Almost everyone supports that.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« Reply #8 on: October 22, 2004, 04:33:53 PM »
Quote from: opebo on October 22, 2004, 02:48:58 PM
Quote from: Philip on October 22, 2004, 02:30:22 PM
Yes, it does require that marriage only be between a man and a woman. Almost everyone supports that.

Individual rights are meaningless if those rights are at the whim of the majority.  Saying 'everyone supports that' is not a good argument - of course the majority often supports horrors.  The vast majority of Germans supported gassing the Jews, or perhaps more to the point, the vast majority of Americans used to support banning interracial marriage.  For that matter a lot probably still do!

You don't have a right to have everyone else recognize your "marriage." Why don't you take a break and go protest some church?
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« Reply #9 on: October 22, 2004, 04:34:47 PM »
Quote from: elcorazon on October 22, 2004, 03:42:31 PM
so how do you interpret the language:

marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman .

Is that just superfluous language?  The next clause has to do with negating the requirement of recognizing civil unions and the like. 

If Massachusetts law now says couples of the same sex can marry.  This amendment negates that. [clause 1]

If Vermont allows civil unions, this amendment allows other states to decide if they want to recognize the Vermont civil unions.[clause 2]

That's my reading.  Did you go to law school J.J.?

That is correct. This is a good amendment.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« Reply #10 on: October 22, 2004, 04:39:37 PM »
What one State issues cannot be rejected by another State on the basis of being issued in that other State. It can be rejected on the basis that such an institution or license is not honored in the other.

If Missouri licenses a man to carry a concealed weapon, Kansas has every right to have its own standards and ban all guns. What it cannot do is issue its own concealed weapons license of identical or near identical qualification and reject his on the sole basis that it's from Missouri, Maryland, Virginia, or where ever.

The worry is not that the Constitution will force states to honor each other's same same marriages. The worry is that an activist judge will make an @$$ out of himself.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« Reply #11 on: October 22, 2004, 05:05:48 PM »
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

This would negate Massachusetts's gay marriage statutes, just as the 13th amendment negated any state laws to the contrary.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« Reply #12 on: October 22, 2004, 05:24:15 PM »
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude , except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

I could reword this:

Involuntary servitude shall exist in the United States, and any place subject to their jurisdiction, only as punishment for crime whereof the party shall been duly convicted.

Same relationship between,

Marriage in the United States shall not exist, except between a man and a woman.

And:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

Even though one is clearly worded better than the other, the legal provisions are the same.

I thought the Massachusetts Supreme Court ordered the legislature to rewrite the state's law. I'm not sure on that, though.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« Reply #13 on: October 22, 2004, 06:47:09 PM »
To take the issue completely out of judicial review.

By the way, are you for or opposed to this amendment?
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« Reply #14 on: October 22, 2004, 07:02:04 PM »
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why?
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« Reply #15 on: October 22, 2004, 07:27:31 PM »
Will jfern die? Hopefully.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« Reply #16 on: October 22, 2004, 07:46:58 PM »
Are you dead yet?
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« Reply #17 on: October 22, 2004, 10:22:40 PM »
Which of you support and oppose the amendment?
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« Reply #18 on: October 22, 2004, 10:27:33 PM »
To make it clear that judges can't review the matter
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« Reply #19 on: October 22, 2004, 10:49:08 PM »
I don't really get what you and elcorazon are arguing about.

Do either of you support this amendment?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.035 seconds with 14 queries.