Twelvepole
|
posted on March 9, 2004 12:35:14 PM new
At the moment they are not in agreement...
Marriages conducted in MA will have to go through a long legal process to be recognized by 38 states... it will not be automatic.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND... 
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
|
reamond
|
posted on March 9, 2004 12:47:33 PM new
Yes it will be "automatic" in this sense-- a quick writ of mandamus from the local Federal court will cause the marriages to be recognized.
And I am willing to bet that even if appealed by the state, the marriages will be allowed to stand while the appeals are exhausted.
Again-- why do you think Bush has asked for a constitutional amendment if it was just a matter of these DOMAs being valid ? They aren't valid and will crumble like an old cracker when it hits the federal courts.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 9, 2004 12:53:03 PM new
Something like Seattle saying they would recognized gay marriages from other states, but their laws don't allow them to marry gays themself.
-----------
reamond - I'd be interested in hearing from you, why you think clinton signed DOMA into being in the first place if it had no worth/wouldn't hold up. Would he not have known our constitutional laws when he did so in 1996?
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
reamond
|
posted on March 9, 2004 12:58:57 PM new
It was a political move, just as Bush has done. All the fundy preachers beat their breasts on Sunday after these state DOMA laws pass. They feel empowered, and they vote.
The politicians can then blame the courts as these DOMA laws are stricken. These people aren't smart enough to figure out what the politicians are doing with this issue.
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 9, 2004 01:03:36 PM new
I am curious reamond, if it doesn't happen the way you seem to think it will play out... what say you then?
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 9, 2004 01:14:13 PM new
For me, it sounds like the ONLY way this can work at all is IF a constitutional amendment, stating a marriage is one man/woman is passed.
I don't believe our USSC can overturn an amendment, can they reamond? I thought the only way a constitutional amendment could be overturned was through another constitutional amendment.....like it was with prohibition.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
reamond
|
posted on March 9, 2004 01:29:17 PM new
The only way to overturn the Supreme Court is by a Constitutional amendment.
I don't believe our USSC can overturn an amendment, can they reamond?
Only if the amendment itself was unconstitutional, as example, it wasn't passed according to constitutional provisions.
But it gets more complicated than that.
The wording of the amendment would have to be carefully crafted so as it could not be too broadly interpreted or too narrowly interpreted by he USSC.
Remember, once passed the amendment will be interpreted sooner or later by the USSC.
The 14th amendment was interpreted more broadly than its contemporaries anticipated.
|
reamond
|
posted on March 9, 2004 01:40:29 PM new
I am curious reamond, if it doesn't happen the way you seem to think it will play out... what say you then?
I can't imagine it playing out any other way. Far better legal minds than myself have predicted how this will play out. It's not my opinion, it's legal scholars' opinions.
Again, why do you think Bush has called for a constitutional amendment regarding same sex marriage if these DOMA laws could somehow trumped the Federal Constitution?
But I am more interested in how the amendment would be worded.
What would happen if the amendment passed and a state allowed that in a same sex marriages one party would be stipulated as a male and the other a female as a matter of law regarding the marriage ?
You now have a state that has as a matter of law a male and a female marriage. The issue will end up right back in court and I don't know how it would turn out.
How do you change well settled law that states will recognize all marriages executed in other states, to states will recognize some marriages executed in other states?
It won't be easy. And it really isn't worth the effort to try.
|
Bear1949
|
posted on March 9, 2004 01:44:25 PM new
Helen, you're a majority of one that thinks that way.
The Democrats ran on 'Honesty' and I told 'em at the time they would never get anywhere. It was too radical for politics. The Republicans ran on 'Common Sense' and the returns showed that there were 8 million more people in the United States who had 'Common Sense' enough not to believe that there was 'Honesty' in politics." --Will Rogers
|
ebayauctionguy
|
posted on March 10, 2004 02:43:46 AM new
Anyone know where I can buy a 15 foot bed? Me and my future 7 wives plan to sleep in the same bed.
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 10, 2004 04:39:44 AM new
And it really isn't worth the effort to try
ahh but you see it is... and many Americans see this as a major issue right now.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
|
Reamond
|
posted on March 10, 2004 08:31:38 AM new
And just as many Americans see it as a non-issue.
And I suspect before long even less Americans will care about the issue. With only 21,000 jobs created last month and 2.8 million lost under Bush, and more lay-offs coming, gay marriage is fading fast as an issue.
|
kiara
|
posted on March 10, 2004 09:05:22 AM new
I agree with Reamond, there are far more important issues right at the moment.
This article has some stats or ratings.
As with Bush's father, much of the discontent pertains to the economy: It's the public's single most important election issue by a sizable margin, and 59 percent — a new high for this president — disapprove of the way he's handled it.
Of all the issues before the public, it's hardest to overstate the importance of the economy. Slightly more now say it's getting better than getting worse, a hopeful sign for the administration. But 60 percent say it's in bad shape, and 43 percent say most Americans have gotten worse off financially since Bush took office; only 17 percent say most are better off. And as noted, Bush's approval rating on the economy is at a career low.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Politics/bush_kerry_poll_040308.html
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 10, 2004 11:39:12 AM new
The amendment won't become a 'non issue' because this President will be re-elected and see to that.
---------
The economy is improving. People have always placed more confidence in a Republican president on defense issues - rather than in the dem party, even in times when the economy has been poor. History will repeat itself again, imo.
And ESPECIALLY THIS DEMs voting record on defense issues.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
reamond
|
posted on March 10, 2004 03:39:38 PM new
The economy is improving
Yes it is in China and India.
Kerry will get elected, Bush is finished.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 10, 2004 04:13:20 PM new
reamond - Here's a different view:
outsourcing reality:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brucebartlett/bb20040308.shtml
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 10, 2004 04:22 PM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 10, 2004 04:20:59 PM new
nor is the recovery broken either....
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040308-085142-2834r.htm
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 10, 2004 04:24:44 PM new
and.... 
on Kerry getting elected. I doubt it.
You are aware that these primaries showed the third LOWEST democratic voter turn out since they started keep count, aren't you?
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 10, 2004 04:57:13 PM new
Washington TIMES and townhall are *your* kind of news spinners, Linda...better than fox lately. LOLOL
|
reamond
|
posted on March 10, 2004 06:16:35 PM new
Latest Poll.
Kerry ahead. Never has an incumbant president won an election unless he was ahead in the polls in March.
Voter priorities:
1. ECONOMY
2. HEALTHCARE/DRUGS
3. EDUCATION
4 TERRORISM AT 9%
WSJ poll-- 80% blame Bush for the economy.
This election is Bush 1 all over again.
He was a war time president, and he kept saying that economic prosperity was just around the corner.
SOME RECOVERY !!
Puzzling through the Jobless Recovery -- Or Is It a Fundamental Shift?
On March 5, the U.S. Labor Department announced that the U.S. economy had created only 21,000 new jobs in February. Not only was this far below the 150,000 that economists had predicted, it wasn’t even enough to keep pace with the country’s population growth. The unemployment rate held steady at 5.6%, but only because many people have given up on finding jobs.
[ edited by reamond on Mar 10, 2004 06:26 PM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 11, 2004 08:17:50 AM new
some recovery
well.....Greenspan doesn't appear to me to think kerry's ideas are going to make it any better....might just make it worse.
Mar 11, 10:48 AM EST
Greenspan: Employment Will Begin to Grow
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
AP Economics Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) --
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Thursday that "employment will begin to increase more quickly before long," and that erecting protective trade barriers was not the answer to the nation's current worries about the loss of jobs to foreign competition.
Wading into an election-year issue, Greenspan told a House committee that current anxiety in America over the loss of U.S. jobs to low-wage countries was understandable, given the weak job growth the country has experienced since the 2001 recession and the two years of a jobless recovery since that time.
However, he said the nation had reason to be more optimistic that job growth will rebound in coming months.
"As our economy exhibits increasing signals of recovery, jobs loss continues to diminish," he said in testimony to the House Education and Workforce Committee. "In all likelihood, employment will begin to increase more quickly before long."
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GREENSPAN?SITE=FLPAP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 11, 2004 08:20 AM ]
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 11, 2004 08:24:53 AM new
We have created quite a conundrum in this country... we want cheaper goods and services but we also want higher wages...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
|
Reamond
|
posted on March 11, 2004 08:53:11 AM new
Which one of Kerry's ideas are protectionist ?
Greenspan was trying to calm a Republican Congress to stay away from protectionist legislation.
we want cheaper goods and services but we also want higher wages...
So as you see it the only way to have less expesive goods and services is to send the jobs over seas ?
There are ways to stem these problems without "protectionist" laws.
If we had a smart administration they would have negotiated better trading deals as well as given incentives to domestic production/employment.
I don't know where you are getting this "prosperity is just around the corner" routine. There is nothing that points in that direction. Greenspan has been saying it for two years. If Greenspan had any inkling that the economy was going to take off in the near term, he would have already raised interest rates.
Greenspan is holding out this hope because he has no more ammo in his stimulation arsenal. If he lowers interest rates any more, you'd have to pay the bank to house your money there.
Bush has proved that he is ill equiped to handle a modern economy and international affairs. His treasury secretary was right - the tax cut for the wealthy was a mistake and the deficit was a mistake.
Another shoe to drop will be if the reserve troops come home in June. Their jobs will be gone.
Bush can't steal two elections-- he's done.
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 11, 2004 09:50:45 AM new
Another shoe to drop will be if the reserve troops come home in June. Their jobs will be gone
wrong... those jobs are protected by law.
Only way would be the company is out of business, then they get a heck of a good deal on free schooling
If we had a smart administration they would have negotiated better trading deals as well as given incentives to domestic production/employment
You mean if Clinton had not signed NAFTA the way it came across his desk? Had not involved us with GATT?
This administration is stuck with trying to straighten that mess out...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
[ edited by Twelvepole on Mar 11, 2004 10:01 AM ]
|
Reamond
|
posted on March 11, 2004 11:11:38 AM new
wrong... those jobs are protected by law.
Guess again. These jobs are only protected from job loss directly related to service.
Employers can eleiminate the job of reservists. They must offer them other employment if a suitable job available.
The reservists are only protected when their service is used as a pretext for losing their job. They enjoy no special protection for jobs lost due to economic reasons.
You can blame the current problems on Clinton, Bush 1, or Reagan, even Nixon, but the bottom line is that the dolt currently in the White House can't handle the challenges.
He couldn't even beat Gore. Kerry will bury Bush at the polls.
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 11, 2004 11:49:29 AM new
The reservists are only protected when their service is used as a pretext for losing their job. They enjoy no special protection for jobs lost due to economic reasons
Well Duh anyone can loose their job for economic reasons, however anyone that has left a job for military service gets that job or an equal paying position for a set period of time.
Easy ot place the blame that others have arranged on the person in place now...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
|
reamond
|
posted on March 11, 2004 12:47:52 PM new
wrong... those jobs are protected by law.
Well, let's see... what did you assume I was talking about when I said the reservists would come home to no jobs if not for economic reasons ??
I think you might be a typical Bush voter. LMAO !!!
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 11, 2004 01:40:55 PM new
The point you are missing is that yes they do come home to jobs... not guaranteed for life but they will have a job with the same comjpany they left from... they won't be coming back to unemployment...
... and hell yes I will be voting for President Bush... no other viable candidate has stepped up.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
|
