Comments by Oyegi_Thamu
Page 1 of 9 | Next
Posted on November 19 at 6:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"This is what happens when the only publicity regarding judges is in the election pamphlet sent out a couple weeks before the election. Most people don't read it and don't know what the judicial Council recommends.... Most voters don't even bother to read the judge section because the council always recommends retention. Voters just go into the booth and fill in yes, yes, yes. It is not a very good system."
Exactly! Spot on comment.
Posted on November 16 at 8:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
MarieBarr, since you brought up marriages between whites & blacks. Such miscegenation marriages & anti-anti-miscegenation laws were also once considered illegal until the US Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that they were legal. It seams to me that to deny marraige to same-sex couples would be tantamount to denying marriage to interacial couples.
Posted on November 16 at 8:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Packers, slavery was once socially acceptable and legal "by the will of the people" until the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865. Racial segregation was legal until the Supreme Court ruled against it in 1954.
The 14th Amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
It seams denying 2 adults the right to marry soley because of the sexual orientation is a violation of their rights under the Constitution. So "just because" the majority have pushed their values on a minority is not much of a reason why same-sex marriage should not be legalized. Care to offer another reason?
Posted on November 16 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Brassmonkey, Superman wasn't exactly what I was thinking. Any other ideas?
Permafrost, the US Supreme Court ruled in Everson v. Board of Education, "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State."
In Brown v. Board of Ed, "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal" which is no state shall deny to any person the equal protection of the laws. I doubt that anything less than full marriage rights for same-sex couples and not create something else akin to marriage but not call it marriage, i.e. domestic partnerships, would pass Constitutional muster.
Anyways, I'm still waiting for someone to post 1 legitimate reason that is NOT based on any religious text or doctrine on why 2 men or 2 women shouldn't have the right to marry. If someone has such a reason, I'd like to read it. Anyone?
Posted on November 16 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Everything I've read in the media & boards like this, I haven't read 1 legitimate reason that is NOT based on any religious text or doctine on why 2 men or 2 women shouldn't have the right to marry. If someone has such a reason, I'd like to read it. Anyone?
Posted on November 15 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Congratulations Steve.
Posted on November 11 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The best way for the GOP to ensure Obama's re-election is to put Palin on the ticket again.
Posted on November 5 at 6:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Congratulations Woodie!!
On Salmon takes strong lead over Sattler in sprawling House District 6
Posted on November 4 at 7:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Congratulations to President-elect Obama!
On OBAMA WINS
Page 1 of 9 | Next
Posted on November 19 at 6:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
More good news for Alaska!
On Alaska Sen. Stevens’ defeat marks end of an era