Not looking forward to that one!
I don't want to raise them in a bubble, that's the point!
Not looking forward to that one!
I don't want to raise them in a bubble, that's the point!
Very petty and selfish
i'm sure there are parents out there who don't want to have to explain to their children why others calls them names and accuse the parents of immorality, but it's the burden parents must bear i guess.
If the end result is that the appearance of giving control to the states ends up a sham, with power ultimately being consolidated back to the federal level (which I'm reasonably comfortable will be the ultimate result of this) - yes, I disagree that it's a good thing. However, I also disagree with the original passage of DOMA as well - the government (legislative, judicial, or executive) should never have become involved to begin with.
No, I meant inference ... the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former.
SCOTUS is guilty of judicial activism by reading something into the Constitution that isn't there.
INFER vs. IMPLY
The best way to remember the difference between these two words is to think in terms of the model used by communications theorists. Communication consists of a message, a sender, and a receiver. The sender can imply, but the receiver can only infer. The error that usually occurs is that the word infer is mistakenly used for imply.
As the sender I can "imply" but only the receiver can "infer"
Actually, they didn't read something into the constitution.
They read something out of the constitution. The power of the federal government to define what marriage is.
The constitution doesn't reserve that right to the federal government anywhere, and therefore it is reserved to the states and to the people.
Correct. And your statement was, I believe, designed with the specific intent of the receiver inferring something that was not (IMHO) in evidence.
So you're saying that it's unconstitutional for Congress to legislate anything that's not specifically spelled out in the Constitution? Specifically, things that cross state lines? You know, all of that stuff they do based on that - what's it called - commerce clause?
Hey, I'd agree with that - if it were applied even-handedly across the board - but it's not.
Admittedly, the commerce clause has been abused but it's also hypocritical to complain about abuse of power and then advocate for more abuse of power "to even up the score" as it were.
