What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

ScottM said:
Jeff Sessions has to be the biggest idiot in the Senate ... and that says a lot.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that if Patrick Leahy asked for documents about a Bush 43 appointee and was denied access to 1600 documents from his time working under Bush 41 and suggested the democrats may boycott the appointment hearings, you'd consider Leahy one of the biggest idiots? It seems like a reasonable request to at least have a chance for somoene to review the documents before someone gets a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the United Sates.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Shirtless Guy said:
Are you saying that if Patrick Leahy asked for documents about a Bush 43 appointee and was denied access to 1600 documents from his time working under Bush 41 and suggested the democrats may boycott the appointment hearings, you'd consider Leahy one of the biggest idiots? It seems like a reasonable request to at least have a chance for somoene to review the documents before someone gets a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the United Sates.
Click to expand...

No, Sessions' repeated attempts to pin down Kagan on military recruiting at HLS bordered on the absurd. There's a reason, or may three, he never made it to the federal bench, and it seemed to be in full glory today.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Priceless said:
This will end of before the SCOTUS eventually.

U.S. Judge Rules Federal Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
Click to expand...
I know this is thread drift, but I'm going to say it anyway: I'm about ready for the government to say that "marriage" is exclusively a religious institution, which can be defined by religious organizations however they see fit (and if the Catholic church, or whoever else, doesn't want to marry same-sex couples then that's their prerogative, separation of church and state works both ways), and the government will only perform/recognize "civil unions" (or whatever name you prefer) that cover all the tax stuff and health care benefits and whatever else. You can go to a member of the clergy, and s/he can perform a "marriage" that includes a "civil union", or you can go to a judge/Elvis impersonator/whoever, and s/he can perform a "civil union" that does exactly the same things as a "marriage" in the eyes of the government. It's infuriating that so much of what people arguing about boils down to terminology.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

jmh said:
I know this is thread drift, but I'm going to say it anyway: I'm about ready for the government to say that "marriage" is exclusively a religious institution, which can be defined by religious organizations however they see fit (and if the Catholic church, or whoever else, doesn't want to marry same-sex couples then that's their prerogative, separation of church and state works both ways), and the government will only perform/recognize "civil unions" (or whatever name you prefer) that cover all the tax stuff and health care benefits and whatever else. You can go to a member of the clergy, and s/he can perform a "marriage" that includes a "civil union", or you can go to a judge/Elvis impersonator/whoever, and s/he can perform a "civil union" that does exactly the same things as a "marriage" in the eyes of the government. It's infuriating that so much of what people arguing about boils down to terminology.
Click to expand...

I, too, have been saying this for years.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Sounds fine to me. Gay marriage is one of the issues I couldn't care less about to be honest.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

French Rage said:
Same here.
Click to expand...

Me too. As long as they can't be denied any civil benefits, I don't care whether some church thinks they're married. The Mormons are just going to dig up our bones and retro-bless us all anyway. :p
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

If you really want the feds out of the "marriage business", you'll need to start revising the US Code provisions dealing with taxation (e.g., married filing, inheritance, etc.), social security benefits, VA benefits, etc. that seem to encourage or at least benefit the institution.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

The problem with your solutions, as Scott points out, is the government has already gotten involved in the marriage "business." Writing the government out of marriage isn't realistic so the question is left: How do you define marriage legally?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Priceless said:
The problem with your solutions, as Scott points out, is the government has already gotten involved in the marriage "business." Writing the government out of marriage isn't realistic so the question is left: How do you define marriage legally?
Click to expand...

You don't.

You take all the marriage laws and using Microsoft Word you do the following.

Ctrl-H
Find What: Marriage
Replace with: Civil Union

Done.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

ScoobyDoo said:
You don't.

You take all the marriage laws and using Microsoft Word you do the following.

Ctrl-H
Find What: Marriage
Replace with: Civil Union

Done.
Click to expand...

OK...that's what we do in Fantasy Land. This is the real world.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

ScoobyDoo said:
You don't.

You take all the marriage laws and using Microsoft Word you do the following.

Ctrl-H
Find What: Marriage
Replace with: Civil Union

Done.
Click to expand...

Don't tell me you work for Senator Dodd ... :mad: ;) A "better" solution might be to expand the definition of "marriage" and include "civil union", "life partner contracts", "mail order brides", etc. The institution of marriage is thoroughly engrained in US society, for better or worse. I suspect it is a creature of evolution as society changes, since arranged marriages, doweries, etc. are no longer the "norm". However, I tend to agree that the feds really have no business being in that business.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Priceless said:
How do you define marriage legally?
Click to expand...
Marriage - an agreement between two people to be together until one of them decides s/he wants to **** somebody else.

Also: something nobody should enter into without a prenuptual agreement.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Oh for the good old days when a woman couldn't leave her husband no matter what he did to her because the children would starve. :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top