In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1019
Online now 990 Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Yeah, that's my interpretation. I don't think you can make the same ruling on both cases, but everyone seems to think that DOMA and Prop 8 are both going down. My prediction would be that DOMA goes, but Prop 8 stays.
This post was edited by dexterstjacques 13 months ago
Well, I mean, that’s what it is. I doodoo and then listen to Katy Perry.
They're both going down, but I think for very different reasons. (And I don't think it would take that much to reconcile federalism concerns between the two cases, but there is definitely some tension there.)
Seems to me they'll likely rule no standing in Prop 8 case, and take DOMA down.
you dont have the moral highground to determine what the right side of history is
NYCTerp is now OCTerp
Maybe he doesn't, but that's an interesting point from someone whose argument essentially boils down to 'you guys are on the wrong side of thousands of years of history and tradition!'
This post was edited by terps99 13 months ago
Not so sure this is true. I think there is something in the DNA, or something affecting a fetus In utero, which causes same sex affinity. Some research has suggested this, but conclusive evidence is yet to be produced, BUT I believe it will.
Read these this from the link:
"...The constitutional guarantee that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of the laws that is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in like circumstances in their lives, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The concept of equal protection and equality in the United States is as old as the country itself...."
Are you saying gays and lesbians are not "persons?"
Definition of Equal Protection in the Legal Dictionary - by Free online English dictionary and encyclopedia. What is Equal Protection? Meaning of Equal Protection as a legal term. What does Equal Protection mean in law?
This post was edited by tagterp 13 months ago
He is pretty clearly saying every man has the right to marry a woman and every woman the right to marry a man, and therefore there is no violation. I'm not advocating his position.
Yeah, that's what he's saying. But that's pretty similar to the interracial marriage equal protection argument too. Heck, that was Virginia's main argument for why its laws against interracial marriage didn't violate equal protection: white people could marry their own race; colored people could married their own race; therefore, there is no violation.
Those choices are Constitutionally okay, but so is same sex marriage. This is very clear to me.
Denying certain groups of rights is something we should avoid at all costs, as once extinguished, rights are difficult to regain. This is why I support the work of the ACLU, which law group so often defends rights of the most despicable people. Rights are treasures to be guarded, all rights for all people. The ACLU defends us from ourselves as we can so easily be sucked into creating a tyranny of the majority.
Remember, one is not always in the majority, so respecting minority rights is to protect your own rights in the future.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by tagterp 13 months ago
Kirk and Carper out for gay marriage. That's now 48 Ds and 2 Rs, 50 votes to repeal DOMA if it came to that.
It is an unfortunate irony that the Supreme Court will strike down DOMA when it likely will ... now we're going to have people like NYCTerp05 spend the next few decades stupidly arguing that the "activist court" struck down "the will of the people," when the reality is that given changing demographics and changing sentiment, popular will alone will guarantee gay marriage in the very near future.
It's the reason that there was heavy debate among the gay-rights movement as to if/when to bring these issues to the Court. It is pretty clear that this was the much better move in the short-term, and also that the fight for equality shouldn't have to wait. Having said that, it is still unclear what would be the best way to guarantee long-term acceptance of gay rights (which is not to say that this should be a goal that overrides the fight for equality)...
Yeah, it's an interesting argument. We're almost certain to not get a broad endorsement of gay marriage from SCOTUS, but despite the avalanche of support from politicians after DADT repeal and Obama's change of heart, I don't see a legislative solution coming down the pike in the near future either. 50 votes, as we now know, means nothing in the Senate. And the House is more conservative than ever. I think a piecemeal, take what you can get approach from supporters of gay rights is probably still the best course. The toothpaste is out of the tube, and it's only a matter of time before full equality. It will require just a little more patience.
Obama spending 100mm to map the brain. Trying to find the gay gene?
I don't think one exists, but if found this could create huge problem for liberals on abortion
From Yahoo! News: President Obama is tired of turning left at Albuquerque when following the current brain map, so he proposed a new $100 million, long-term investment initiative Tuesday: the Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies, or BRAIN for short, so scientists may better understand our noggin' — and maybe even control our minds.
How so? Wouldn't that only help the liberal argument that being gay isn't just a matter of choice, and thus there are additional reasons we shouldn't discriminate against gay people?
current liberal position is unrestricted access to abortion. that position would obviously in conflict with their homosexual agenda if the gay gene could be tested for while the child is in the womb.
Eh, maybe. There are certainly some similar concerns that exist, especially in third-world countries, around these types of issues. For example, I know there has been some debate in places like India and China about the propriety of abortion when it became clear that girl fetuses were being aborted at a much higher rate than boy fetuses.
Having said that, I'm not sure why everything needs to be reduced to "liberals" vs. "conservatives." Are you somehow implying that a gay gene would cause "huge problems" for liberals because conservatives who don't like gays will be far more likely to abort fetuses with the gay gene? I'm not sure "liberals" come out looking the worst in that scenario...
This post was edited by terps99 12 months ago
Using that logic, "liberals" who really, really wanted to abort their child would just not map his/her genes to avoid knowing its future sexual orientation.
And pro-life conservatives who also don't like gays/gay sex would have...more...abortions?
Sex-selective abortion is a huuuuuuuge problem in China and India. Really, really sad.
"And I try to har-mo-nize with songs the lonesome sparrow sings...
There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden."
New here? Unfamiliar with NYCTroll05?
I don't think anyone would call Jeremy Irons a Tea Partier, but he IS a thinker. And if the answer to his question would result in a family saving a few billion dollars, I imagine a number of people would consider doing it.
Actually, it would tickle me to see "the rich" hang the government by its own rope.
Academy Award winning actor Jeremy Irons said Wednesday that while he doesn
That's almost certainly the dumbest argument I've ever heard.
This post was edited by tent84 12 months ago
Well, I'd like to know, COULD a man of 70 marry a man of 30? Most here are saying yes. So, what would prevent this "dumb" scenario from happening, if preservation of $3 billion or so was in the balance?
I jus think it would be nice if people would address the proposition instead of attacking the man. Ad hominem is way dumber than this hypothetical scenario.
A man cannot marry his son for the same damn reason a man cannot marry his daughter.
Calling a terrible argument a terrible argument is not ad hominem
LOL. Yes, he IS quite the thinker.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports