Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

5 Bumps

Be careful what you wish for...

For those of you jumping up and down happy that the courts threw out the DOMA (Defense Of Marriage Act), you should be keeping in mind that a court applying the same state's rights arguments as this judge did, can very easily overturn Roe V. Wade AND rule ObamaCare unconstitutional!!!

What are your thoughts?!

 
LoriKeet

Asked by LoriKeet at 12:36 PM on Jul. 9, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 45 (194,908 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (31)
  • You are ignoring part of the ruling to see what YOU want.....it isn't meant to be seperated

    You are assigning more emotion to the word "discrimination" than exists in that ruling. There is no moral judgment there, all it says is the local court agrees that the fed cannot dictate one group of people over another for a state to use its funds for. Nice as it may be if this ruling is upheld by the SCOTUS (yeah, that's going to happen in an election year), if they uphold it with the wording as it stands it will absolutely work counter to the arguments that exist in holding up RvW and the argument against AZ.
    NotPanicking

    Answer by NotPanicking at 2:24 PM on Jul. 9, 2010

  • Well, I'm fairly certain that Obamacare WILL be overturned on constitutionality, it's just a matter of WHEN more than IF it gets challenged. As far as Roe v Wade, as much as I would like to see that one overturned, I doubt that would happen. Although I do think that that one needs to be revisited simply because of the medical advances that have been made in the intervening decades since it was passed. JMHO
    29again

    Answer by 29again at 12:51 PM on Jul. 9, 2010

  • Both issues are invasion of privacy that the government has no RIGHTS to force upon us. What I DO with my PREGNANCY is between ME and my DOCTOR NOT the GOVERNMENT.............WHO I marry has NOTHING to do with any GOVERNMENT LAW or OFFICIAL either..


    They are infringing on a lot pf people's FREEDOMS ...LIFE LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS....

    sweet-a-kins

    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 12:52 PM on Jul. 9, 2010

  • I see this ruling as a good thing even though I am against gay marriage. Kicking it to the states is fabulous! This ruling strengthens the positions of the 30 something states that have defined marriage as between a man and a woman. So yes, you should be careful what you wish for!
    yourspecialkid

    Answer by yourspecialkid at 4:17 PM on Jul. 9, 2010

  • the states rights issue was NOT the sole point of unconstitutionality, as I understand it.
    autodidact

    Answer by autodidact at 12:43 PM on Jul. 9, 2010

  • Unfortunately in our society any left wing nut or right wing nut Judge can do just so. Our whole system is so screwed up. If a state on the West takes something like this to court it will soon enough get to the radical 9th circut and be trashed. If the same thing were to go through the more moderate 5th circut to the South it would go the other way. All these over paid lawyers have to do is keep appealing until they get the outcome they desire.
    itsmesteph11

    Answer by itsmesteph11 at 12:45 PM on Jul. 9, 2010

  • Lori, what you posted says its about the FEDERAL law being DISCRIMINATORY.....therefore ILLEGAL

    And what you posted about life, liberty and happiness is irrelevant. Read it all - they ruled based on 2 things - 10th amendment and use of federal/state joint funds. Both of those issues are involved in the AZ challenge, and this ruling is the EXACT opposite of the one you want if you oppose the AZ law. Not that it really matters. It's great that the court ruled, but they don't count. This is nothing more than a stop to the SCOTUS, the only court that will matter here. Guaranteed some bible banger has already filed an appeal, and it will be tied up again. Don't for a second believe that if the SCOTUS even agrees to hear the case (they aren't required to), AZ and RvW won't be in the back of their mind.
    NotPanicking

    Answer by NotPanicking at 1:03 PM on Jul. 9, 2010

  • LOL Lori~I don't think she gets the whole State Rights vs Federal Government....
    grlygrlz2

    Answer by grlygrlz2 at 2:40 PM on Jul. 9, 2010

  • The Health care legislation is also not the federal govt engaging in discrimination...
    ------
    The HCR is financially discriminatory, it is discriminatory in allowing certain policies in some states and not others (Gator-Aid, for ex.) it will also be age discriminatory. This bill is so unconstitutional that I'm surprised it was even allowed to stand long enough to be voted on!!!!
    29again

    Answer by 29again at 4:04 PM on Jul. 9, 2010

  • I didnt say anything about morality, I said discrimination. Don't assign feelings to my words.

    Then use them correctly. The only way this could apply to DOMA and NOT to other 10th amendment cases where the fed dictates how state funds are used is if you are giving it a moral value which doesn't exist. So either you're understanding it incorrectly or you have to admit this ruling, if upheld by the SCOTUS, has to potential to impact a lot more than just DOMA, and not in ways that people who claim to support it will agree with, especially if they are party liners.
    NotPanicking

    Answer by NotPanicking at 2:30 PM on Jul. 9, 2010

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN