Was it necessary to repeal DADT?

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

We have about the same here.

i suppose it will depend but I have to say there isn't a real strong argument to prevent it.

Even then is it not somewhat akin to bringing up the rape scenario as justifying all abortions, thereby expressing the 1/10 of one percent should be setting the norm?

It would only apply to the marriages performed in same sex state who move to the non same sex state. It would not affect anyone married in the latter.

The only way to escape it from being a near non sequitor would be for several states to have the majority of its citizenry VOTE FOR same sex marriage.

In which case once again, God bless the Republic.

[sandie]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

Jason the problem is with applying this to DADT, which is a governmental policy decision.

For same sex marriage to be legal it will require affirmation by a majority of the citizens of the state which recognizes it.

Big difference policy vs legislation.

And if the majority of citizens approve, then what can you say except God Bless the Republic.

It still won't affect what I preach.

But, what about the courts that keep over-turning the will of the people?

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

This will have the end as Loving v. Virginia.

In Loving, Virgina passed a law with the express intent of bypassing the equal protection clause. Also naming a legal act commited in another jurisdiction as being illegal and punishable in Virginia.

I can differentiate. :-)

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

This post grinds it all down to the simplicity of the argument. Dan's Romans post is brilliant and a theological masterpiece. Yet, when we drill to the center of this, it's as simple as you final instruction (the bolded).

Yes, James succinctly addressed the equal protection under the law arguments I made here and here ...

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=206

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=207

[Truthseeker]

DADT is just an open door to same sex marriage.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by sandie

But, what about the courts that keep over-turning the will of the people?

Isolated issues are not ruled by the will of the people. We are not a democracy, but a representative republic.

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by sandie

But, what about the courts that keep over-turning the will of the people?

They don't usually. More often it is the will of the people expressed in unconstitutional terms. :-)

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

DADT is just an open door to same sex marriage.

1. DADT was repealed thus it cannot open any door.

2. Same sex marriage is already allowed in various states.

Same-sex marriages are currently granted by five of the 50 states, the federal district, and one Indian tribe:
In Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., marriages for same-sex couples are legal and currently performed.
The Coquille Indian Tribe in Oregon also grants same-sex marriage.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by DAII

Yes, James succinctly addressed the equal protection under the law arguments I made here and here ...

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=206

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=207

Yes, you did as well. Great stuff.

Jason is a "friend" and I've tried to answer his points one at a time, but it was a waste of time and all I get out of it is being accused of "promoting sin". I go away from this thinking, "With friends like that........".

And your Romans post was tremendous. Thanks for that.

[sandie]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

They don't usually. More often it is the will of the people expressed in unconstitutional terms. :-)

So, if it isn't "worded" just right, the will of the people gets overturned?
Didn't the courts in California and in another state over turn the will of the people recently?
I can't imagine any kind of wording being sufficient enough for some judges.
These laws aren't beng written by nimcompoops....aren't lawyers writing these ballots?