|
Post by doomie 22 on Jan 10, 2010 13:22:03 GMT -5
wow. check out the last two paragraphs Nice answer, dude. At least you admit you have no argument.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Jan 10, 2010 20:33:54 GMT -5
Wouldn't not having a reason demonstrate irrationality?
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Jan 10, 2010 21:59:46 GMT -5
Choosing something because it is traditional or because it is natural is sentimental, not rational. Choosing to wait and observe is rational only if there are clear phenomena to be observed which themselves have a rational basis.
But then, rational isn't well-defined anyways.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jan 10, 2010 23:39:18 GMT -5
Wouldn't not having a reason demonstrate irrationality? irrational |iˈra sh ənl| adjective 1 not logical or reasonable. • not endowed with the power of reason. So yes, I'd say so.
|
|
|
Post by wackadoodle on Jan 11, 2010 0:28:08 GMT -5
I can't read about this story, it just makes me wanna piss myself knowing Scalia's just sitting at the Supreme court waiting for this case to reach him so he can put those faggots in their place. This country has disappointed me so much over the last few years that I have no problem believing their's enough bigots on the court for this to fail. If it does I seriously give up on this country and will try to enjoy Canada.
I keep telling myself cases are decided entirely by who has the better, more expensive lawyer and that our two guys were hired to argue who should be the most powerful man on the entire fucking planet for 4 years but it just doesn't help.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Jan 11, 2010 0:35:32 GMT -5
I can't read about this story, it just makes me wanna piss myself knowing Scalia's just sitting at the Supreme court waiting for this case to reach him so he can put those faggots in their place. This country has disappointed me so much over the last few years that I have no problem believing their's enough bigots on the court for this to fail. If it does I seriously give up on this country and will try to enjoy Canada. I keep telling myself cases are decided entirely by who has the better, more expensive lawyer and that our two guys were hired to argue who should be the most powerful man on the entire fucking planet for 4 years but it just doesn't help. But we have Ginsberg, Kennedy, Breyer, Stevens and (if she's anything like Souter) hopefully Sotomayor.
|
|
|
Post by kristine on Jan 11, 2010 1:51:49 GMT -5
it has to jump through many more hoops before it gets to the SC - you never know there might be a chance to get people like Scalia to retire....or drop dead.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jan 11, 2010 2:15:00 GMT -5
Fact check: I've been informed that since this is a Federal court, the decision made will affect the entire nation, not just California. T/F?
|
|
|
Post by Shano on Jan 11, 2010 3:35:47 GMT -5
Fact check: I've been informed that since this is a Federal court, the decision made will affect the entire nation, not just California. T/F? Not at all. The lower instances can decide on the merits of the case itself. They can declare Prop 8 unconstitutional for example but this will not set a precedent deciding any other case (though it might influence it). The federal supreme court, if they decide to take up the case when/if appealed to them, can decide the case narrowly (that is making a statement applicable only to the specific circumstances of that case and leaving other similar cases undecided), or broadly - creating a precedent that will act as an interpretation of the constitution and thus be decisive in any subsequent case on the issue on any level, be it federal or state.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Jan 11, 2010 10:55:24 GMT -5
Fact check: I've been informed that since this is a Federal court, the decision made will affect the entire nation, not just California. T/F? Well not until it reaches the Supreme Court and they rule on it. If, for example, it reaches the Supreme Court and they rule against Prop 8 it'll invalidate all laws on the books which ban gay marriage.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jan 11, 2010 12:58:50 GMT -5
That's what I thought. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Jan 11, 2010 13:14:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Jan 11, 2010 13:19:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Jan 11, 2010 14:20:07 GMT -5
Equal rights foundation? I'll bet they're opposed to gay marriage.
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Jan 11, 2010 17:36:05 GMT -5
Ok, so I'm sitting here staring at the ceiling waiting for my dinner to warm up, and I've had a thought that I hadn't seen raised in opposition to things such as prop 8.
We have what amounts to a national ban on gender discrimination correct? Wouldn't making the availability of marriage dependent on the genders of those involved amount to descrimination based on gender?
Am I blind, stupid or just really bored? This has to have been brought up somewhere, and really would lean toward 'this has already been decided if we want to claim we have equality in this country'.
|
|