Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If some states have health care and others do not, people will move. People move for jobs. Jobs no longer help pay health care. Pay has dropped. Not very many people can afford health care on their own.Being that the majority of the country disapproves of ObamaCare I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. You assume that people would move to states with government funded health care, but again, in order to do that the cost of living would rise and the quality of the care probably wouldn't be that good, as evidenced in countries that have universal health care.
Hawaii and Tennessee had universal care for a time and we had RomneyCare back in MA. Nobody was flocking to those states for the health care. HI and TN ended up disabling theirs because it was too expensive and the cost of health insurance in MA has skyrocketed.
So how come people weren't storming down the doors of Hawaii, Tennessee, and Massachusetts? In fact, people have been leaving Mass.
A Boston judge has fired the latest salvo in the battle for gay marriage, ruling Thursday that a federal ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional because it violates states' rights. U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of gay couples' right to marry, the AP reports, challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on the ground that it interferes with a states right to define marriage.
Same-sex unions have been legal in Massachusetts since 2004, but the state argued that DOMA discriminated against gay married couples by denying them access to the same benefits as heterosexual married couples. Tauro agreed, ruling on two separate challenges to the law that the act forced Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.
"The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment," Tauro wrote in a ruling. "For that reason, the statute is invalid."
In a second case, filed by Gays & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro ruled that DOMA also violates the Constitution's equal protection clause.
The lawsuit challenges only the portion of the law that prevents the federal government from affording pension and other benefits to same-sex couples.
Boston judge: Federal ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, calls statute discriminatory, 'invalid'
It's a federal directive. d'oh!!!
your ignorance is showing. you're starting to sound like hboats arguing a federal program is not really a federal program, even though it is an ICE program: http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/124167-why-we-should-all-be-friends-of-the-court-when-hboats-sues-fox-news-and-talk-radio.html
It was a federal directive to prevent the Federal Government from usurping State marriage laws.
read what the court said. This is like the Massachusetts G?ay Marriage ruling. I lived with and was friends with many progressives and gay activists who misread the Marshall ruling. They initially thought it would lead to a Vermont style partnership thing. They might have been influenced by being Deaniacs. I disagreed immediately.
I pointed out the Separate but equal argument. Marshall said either remake laws and the State Constitution or gay marriage is a right between two individuals. No separate but equal.
What does this ruling say? Pay attention. Read the ruling, then argue over whether it is san argument that can be used in the health care debate.
If some states have health care and others do not, people will move. People move for jobs. Jobs no longer help pay health care. Pay has dropped. Not very many people can afford health care on their own.Being that the majority of the country disapproves of ObamaCare I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. You assume that people would move to states with government funded health care, but again, in order to do that the cost of living would rise and the quality of the care probably wouldn't be that good, as evidenced in countries that have universal health care.
Hawaii and Tennessee had universal care for a time and we had RomneyCare back in MA. Nobody was flocking to those states for the health care. HI and TN ended up disabling theirs because it was too expensive and the cost of health insurance in MA has skyrocketed.
So how come people weren't storming down the doors of Hawaii, Tennessee, and Massachusetts? In fact, people have been leaving Mass.
If some states have health care and others do not, people will move. People move for jobs. Jobs no longer help pay health care. Pay has dropped. Not very many people can afford health care on their own.
So how come people weren't storming down the doors of Hawaii, Tennessee, and Massachusetts? In fact, people have been leaving Mass.
Not true. Massachusetts' population has grown by four percent since 2000.
Massachusetts QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau
EDIT - Tennessee's population has grown by 10 percent over the same period and Hawaii's has grown by seven percent (using data from the same census tool linked above).
It was a federal directive to prevent the Federal Government from usurping State marriage laws.
read what the court said. This is like the Massachusetts G?ay Marriage ruling. I lived with and was friends with many progressives and gay activists who misread the Marshall ruling. They initially thought it would lead to a Vermont style partnership thing. They might have been influenced by being Deaniacs. I disagreed immediately.
I pointed out the Separate but equal argument. Marshall said either remake laws and the State Constitution or gay marriage is a right between two individuals. No separate but equal.
What does this ruling say? Pay attention. Read the ruling, then argue over whether it is san argument that can be used in the health care debate.
DOMA was specifically enacted to prevent the Federal government from forcing marriage laws on the states and explicitly allows the states to enact their own marriage laws. How does DOMA violate states rights? And don't tell me to read the ruling. Answer the question.
Judge Tauro says, DOMA makes the state of MA discriminate against it's own citizens who are legally married. If a state can legal recognize gay marriages, it has got to treat all marriages equally in other areas of the law.It was a federal directive to prevent the Federal Government from usurping State marriage laws.
read what the court said. This is like the Massachusetts G?ay Marriage ruling. I lived with and was friends with many progressives and gay activists who misread the Marshall ruling. They initially thought it would lead to a Vermont style partnership thing. They might have been influenced by being Deaniacs. I disagreed immediately.
I pointed out the Separate but equal argument. Marshall said either remake laws and the State Constitution or gay marriage is a right between two individuals. No separate but equal.
What does this ruling say? Pay attention. Read the ruling, then argue over whether it is san argument that can be used in the health care debate.
DOMA was specifically enacted to prevent the Federal government from forcing marriage laws on the states and explicitly allows the states to enact their own marriage laws. How does DOMA violate states rights? And don't tell me to read the ruling. Answer the question.
Don't read the ruling? The thread is about the ruling you idiot..
Judge Tauro says, DOMA makes the state of MA discriminate against it's own citizens who are legally married. If a state can legal recognize gay marriages, it has got to treat all marriages equally in other areas of the law.read what the court said. This is like the Massachusetts G?ay Marriage ruling. I lived with and was friends with many progressives and gay activists who misread the Marshall ruling. They initially thought it would lead to a Vermont style partnership thing. They might have been influenced by being Deaniacs. I disagreed immediately.
I pointed out the Separate but equal argument. Marshall said either remake laws and the State Constitution or gay marriage is a right between two individuals. No separate but equal.
What does this ruling say? Pay attention. Read the ruling, then argue over whether it is san argument that can be used in the health care debate.
DOMA was specifically enacted to prevent the Federal government from forcing marriage laws on the states and explicitly allows the states to enact their own marriage laws. How does DOMA violate states rights? And don't tell me to read the ruling. Answer the question.
The judge was not ruling on the legality of DOMA in states where there is no gay marriage. He was arguing in MA. Maybe DOMA can be rewritten, but I sort of doubt it.
DOMA forces MA to discriminate against gay married couples.
then there is this other decision:In a ruling in a separate case filed by Gays & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro ruled the act violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
"Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification the Constitution clearly will not permit," Tauro wrote.
Read more: Federal gay marriage ban is ruled unconstitutional - Sacramento News - Local and Breaking Sacramento News | Sacramento Bee
Don't read the ruling? The thread is about the ruling you idiot..
Yes. You started a thread on the ruling. And I am asking you to actually do some work and articulate what you think the issue is.
But then I should have remembered that you tend not to discuss anything.
DOMA violates states rights? How so? It was written specifically to protect states rights.
DOMA violates states rights? How so? It was written specifically to protect states rights.
That is a stretch, in my opinion.
Don't read the ruling? The thread is about the ruling you idiot..
Yes. You started a thread on the ruling. And I am asking you to actually do some work and articulate what you think the issue is.
But then I should have remembered that you tend not to discuss anything.
I didn't start this thread, and I told you -- the judge laid out the reasoning. Your argument must be against the judge's.
The issues are laid out in the arguments in the court case.
Legally Gay married couples were denied MEDICAID because of DOMA. Two competing interests. You claim to support the rights of the states to determine marraige, yet you also support the federal government telling states who they can give marriage benefits to.
Surprising how most of the traditional states rights supporters are silent on this one?
Section 3 of DOMA has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in Mass because it violates the equal protection clause of the 5th amendment.
http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/2010-07-08-gill-district-court-decision.pdf
Apparently the same judge also handed down a decision in a separate case that DOMA violates states rights under the 10th amendment.
DOMA decision in Mass AG case
DOMA violates states rights? How so? It was written specifically to protect states rights.
That is a stretch, in my opinion.
Way back when I told people this day would come. Not when DOMA was passed, but when Margaret Marshall became a Profile in Courage.
avatar, is spinning it's wheels. the disconnect is now glaring. very little room left for the state's rights arguments they anti gays held onto so dearly. heads in the sand have now been pulled out. watch for a huge change in position from the anti gays.
Profile in Courage ... 11/18/2003
Yes. You started a thread on the ruling. And I am asking you to actually do some work and articulate what you think the issue is.
But then I should have remembered that you tend not to discuss anything.
I didn't start this thread, and I told you -- the judge laid out the reasoning. Your argument must be against the judge's.
The issues are laid out in the arguments in the court case.
Legally Gay married couples were denied MEDICAID because of DOMA. Two competing interests. You claim to support the rights of the states to determine marraige, yet you also support the federal government telling states who they can give marriage benefits to.
That is a stretch, in my opinion.
Way back when I told people this day would come. Not when DOMA was passed, but when Margaret Marshall became a Profile in Courage.
avatar, is spinning it's wheels. the disconnect is now glaring. very little room left for the state's rights arguments they anti gays held onto so dearly. heads in the sand have now been pulled out. watch for a huge change in position from the anti gays.
Profile in Courage ... 11/18/2003
I didn't start this thread, and I told you -- the judge laid out the reasoning. Your argument must be against the judge's.
The issues are laid out in the arguments in the court case.
Legally Gay married couples were denied MEDICAID because of DOMA. Two competing interests. You claim to support the rights of the states to determine marraige, yet you also support the federal government telling states who they can give marriage benefits to.
How were they denied Medicaid? Is medicaid eligibility detirmined by marriage in Massachusetts
DOMA violates states rights? How so? It was written specifically to protect states rights.
