It would take a lot to ruin my day nowFollow

I didn't say I thought they'd win. My initial reaction is ... probably not. But it is the 10th Amendment argument they are making, so whether or not you see it is a States' rights issue, Massachusetts is making it a States' rights issue.

What's really cool about it for me, intellectually, is that it muddies the conservative/liberal waters. Conservative and liberal justices may find themselves pulled in a direction they might not have expected because it's an argument appealing to conservative values to achieve a liberal result. I'm looking forward to reading the arguments and the opinion.

Edited, Jul 9th 2009 10:02am by Ahkuraj

This is some heavy bull.

Bottom line - Marriage is governed by the states. These federal marriage benefits gbaji spouts about are non-existant. Anyone who's spent anytime being married can tell you that more often than not, the feds penalize married people.

Oh ****. They've become as one.

Did you read the article? The entire lawsuit is directed at federal benefits which are being denied to same sex couples in Mass:



All of those agencies are federal agencies. All of those benefits are granted by the federal government. You know, the ones you say are "non-existent". If they're so non-existent and unimportant, then why is this lawsuit arguing that it's wrong for them to be denied them?


If they were talking about state granted benefits rather than federal, then they'd be suing the state, not the federal government. This is not about the "status" of marriage. It's not about social acceptance. It is absolutely and purely about federal benefit granted to a couple for qualifying for the legal status of marriage.

In other words, exactly what I've been arguing of and on was the key "fight" over gay marriage all along. To which most of you have insisted that it's not about those benefits. They aren't important. No one really cares about it. It's about "freedom" and "social acceptance", and all that other stuff.

No. It's about demanding that they receive federal benefits. In this particular case, it's about demanding that the citizens of every other state in the union, who do not live in Mass, and who did not vote to change the criteria for said benefits be forced to pay for them for the citizens of Mass anyway.

Look. If Mass wants to extend those benefits to gay couples, that's great. It's their right. And it's not being denied to them. But it's their choice to pay for it on their own. Demanding the federal government to do so is not only silly, but unfair to everyone else as well...


It would be like a state legally changing the definition of "interstate" to include local surface streets and then insisting that federal tax dollars earmarked for interstate highway construction be used to pay for those streets. It's pretty obvious to everyone that this is absurd. Yet, when it's a contentious social issue at hand, people's normal tendency for wielding common sense seems to fly out the window...

Smexa sounds like a medication to treat a yeast infection.

I really don't think we should get in to what Smexa sounds like.

Last bit before I'm out for the weekend:



That's not actually how our system of checks and balances works though. The legislative branch writes the laws. Period. The executive branch has freedom to operate, but must do so within the confines of those laws. And has veto power. The judicial branch has the power to rule on the laws as it pertains to the Constitution (in this context anyway).

Thus, all three branches have some say in the creation, interpretation, and implementation of laws. It's not a violation of separation of powers because the executive had the chance to veto it and the judiciary has the chance to rule it unconstitutional. It's not like congress gets to just make up rules for the executive branch to follow. The president and his cabinet makes up their own rules. They just can't violate a law passed by Congress.


It would be a violation of our system of checks and balances if congress had *no* power to tell the executive what it could and could not do. The trick is that it has to actually write a binding law and vote on it. The president can just write an executive order, but it only affects his own branch of government. There's nothing wrong with this.

No. It's not. And the fact that you (and most posters here) don't understand why is one of the most frustrating aspects of debating politics on this board.

There isn't anyone who doesn't understand your factually false argument. We all understand you're provably incorrect point. I think you'd be wise to consider that perhaps your frustration stems more from how trivial it is for everyone else to recognize this and their complete lack of desire to pretend otherwise. It's not "frustrating" and there is no lack of "understanding".

You are wrong, by any possible measure. You are wrong in terms of law, you are wrong in terms of ethics, you are wrong in terms of logic, you are wrong, even, and this is the most amusing part, in your understanding of the libertarian argument against the expansion of government benefits to a new demographic.

While everyone understands your point, you are the sole human being on the planet who finds any veracity or value in it whatsoever. Perhaps your frustration really stems from this? Perhaps, just perhaps, you find it somewhat frustrating having this critical thinking learning disability of yours where you simply have no way to determine valid ideas from fantasy.

The good news is that you'll be forever incapable of identifying this as the source of the frustration, so you'll be able to go on through your life being easily manipulated and used by nearly anyone who cares to. I'll think of you when your health care contributions are taxed in 2010 and how you supported every position that led directly to it. Then I'll laugh.

Have a good weekend.



Edited, Jul 11th 2009 10:14am by Smasharoo

Pomposity in responding to Gbajism is no crime.

Of course they should get benefits, you twit. That doesn't mean that is the primary reason or focus. But go on with your little fantasy world, with your "Obvious" truths that you are so smart to see. If you ever want to actually address the real world, instead of your mishmash of misdirection and fantasy let me know.

Hay guise, did you know marriage was created and has it's benefits to promote the grown and stuffs of couples who can naturally produce children?

I'll go get Alma.