\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) http://bigstory.ap.o...y-marriage-case "Because no right to same-gender marriage emanates from the Constitution, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico should not be compelled to recognize such unions," he wrote in the 21-page ruling. "Instead, Puerto Rico, acting through its legislature, remains free to shape its own marriage policy." Perez-Gimenez questioned the actions of more than two dozen judges on the U.S. mainland who have struck down state same-sex marriage bans following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as U.S. vs. Windsor. That ruling struck down a federal provision that denied several tax, health and veterans benefits to legally married gay couples, though it did not declare gay marriage legal nationwide. Perez-Gimenez wondered in his ruling whether laws prohibiting polygamy and incestuous relations will be questioned now, saying that traditional marriage is essential to society itself. "Ultimately the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage," he said. "Those are the well-tested, well-proven principles on which we have relied for centuries." Edited October 23, 2014 by \GoBillsInDallas/
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 "Ultimately the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage," he said. "Those are the well-tested, well-proven principles on which we have relied for centuries." Yes, because everyone will turn gay!
DC Tom Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 http://bigstory.ap.o...y-marriage-case "Because no right to same-gender marriage emanates from the Constitution, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico should not be compelled to recognize such unions," he wrote in the 21-page ruling. "Instead, Puerto Rico, acting through its legislature, remains free to shape its own marriage policy." Perez-Gimenez questioned the actions of more than two dozen judges on the U.S. mainland who have struck down state same-sex marriage bans following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as U.S. vs. Windsor. That ruling struck down a federal provision that denied several tax, health and veterans benefits to legally married gay couples, though it did not declare gay marriage legal nationwide. Perez-Gimenez wondered in his ruling whether laws prohibiting polygamy and incestuous relations will be questioned now, saying that traditional marriage is essential to society itself. "Ultimately the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage," he said. "Those are the well-tested, well-proven principles on which we have relied for centuries." PR should absolutely be compelled to recognize such marriages granted in other states. That is in the Constitution. But true, they should not be required to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples themselves. That determination is a right vested in the states exclusively, and within the bounds of the Constitution each state should be free to legislate on the matter as they see fit.
LeviF Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 PR should absolutely be compelled to recognize such marriages granted in other states. That is in the Constitution. In PR's case it's actually a federal statute applied to them by judicial decision, since they aren't a state. Congress seems to lump them in with states nowadays, though.
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 PR should absolutely be compelled to recognize such marriages granted in other states. Other states?? You are such a retard
4merper4mer Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 Fun fact on Puerto Rico...it translates to "Rich Port". Having had many different types of wine I would agree to an extent, but I hardly think it defines them. I would think "Fiero de Neumatico" had to be a candidate.
Azalin Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 I would think "Fiero de Neumatico" had to be a candidate. or perhaps 'agua del fuego'?
4merper4mer Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 or perhaps 'agua del fuego'? Hoyo de mierda?
LeviF Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 Other states?? You are such a retard To be fair, what he said was far less retarded on a substantive level than your analysis of the judge's reasoning.
DC Tom Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 To be fair, what he said was far less retarded on a substantive level than your analysis of the judge's reasoning. It was honest oversight in implying PR was a state. Though I'd still guess they'd be bound by full faith and credit.
LeviF Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 (edited) It was honest oversight in implying PR was a state. Though I'd still guess they'd be bound by full faith and credit. With regard to full faith and credit they might as well be a state. Like I said, they're bound to it by statute (even after they became a "Commonwealth" or whatever they are now) thanks to the Court of Appeals. My point was largely that the Constitution doesn't address the issue (PR and full faith and credit) directly. Edited October 24, 2014 by LeviF91
DC Tom Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 My point was largely that the Constitution doesn't address the issue (PR and full faith and credit) directly. Which really should have been obvious to me, but...well, long day.
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 It was honest oversight in implying PR was a state. Though I'd still guess they'd be bound by full faith and credit. Wow! Oversight? You are admitting a wrong...
Jim in Anchorage Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 PR should absolutely be compelled to recognize such marriages granted in other states. That is in the Constitution. But true, they should not be required to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples themselves. That determination is a right vested in the states exclusively, and within the bounds of the Constitution each state should be free to legislate on the matter as they see fit. I can't wait to hear you explain this. If it's in the constitution that a state must recognize a marriage licenses from out of state, why can they decide to not recognize a out of state pistol permit?
Cinga Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 I can't wait to hear you explain this. If it's in the constitution that a state must recognize a marriage licenses from out of state, why can they decide to not recognize a out of state pistol permit? Don't hold your breath.... It's a simple case of selective enforcement of perceived rights vs Constitutional Rights...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 I can't wait to hear you explain this. If it's in the constitution that a state must recognize a marriage licenses from out of state, why can they decide to not recognize a out of state pistol permit? Just a stab @ it. Wording of the 2nd. How "well regulated" gets interpreted.
Cinga Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 Just a stab @ it. Wording of the 2nd. How "well regulated" gets interpreted. that is in the same sentence as the "shall not be infringed" part....
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) that is in the same sentence as the "shall not be infringed" part.... Here's the full text. Take careful note of the commas. We could go round and round all day. Dig up how it has been interpreted by The Court through the years: II "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Edited October 25, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois
Jim in Anchorage Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 Just a stab @ it. Wording of the 2nd. How "well regulated" gets interpreted. nice way to completely miss my point.I am not interested in debating the 2nd here. I am saying why is it considered that a marriage license issued in any state or territory must be as per the constitution [according to DC Tom] recognized as valid in any other state or territory but a gun license has no such constitutional protection?
Recommended Posts