Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Shame on North Dakota

March 31, 2013

Carrie Evans, Baltimore, Md. Gov. Dalrymple: I was hoping against odds (as I often try to do with North Dakota) that you would veto the bills that restrict women’s access to abortion....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(95)

JackAaah

Apr-08-13 11:51 AM

I am willing to compromise....don't ban the assault weapon, but mandate that it only shoots slugs made of high density abortion pills....I feel we can come together on this if we try.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Apr-07-13 9:56 PM

billgrr, the namexxx enabler

substantive indeed

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

namexxx

Apr-07-13 11:27 AM

So you're in favor of arming every half-wit hoople in the state with a military-style assault weapon -- but you want severe restrictions on a pill?

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Apr-07-13 12:55 AM

It is only called the abortion pill by knuckleheads like you. Do you actually know how the pill works. doubtful. At least not until now, when you finally look it up.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Apr-06-13 9:24 AM

Still doing clean-up, billgrr? Remember to change out your mop head...

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

subman

Apr-05-13 1:43 PM

page 114 US 45 For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization;

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Apr-05-13 12:45 PM

Just as you are "surrrreee that your interpretation supercedes all others," right, centerish?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Apr-05-13 12:03 PM

Following a review of the entire case of Murphy and the numerous court rulings, I did not find a specific statement as you referenced. It talks about the specific case which was a divorce settlement between three people. Wife #1, Husband #1, wife #2, and an incomplete divorce. The court references the couple in the property dispute (actually references both couples) as a married couple. But, It is a case that is a 125years+ old and does not address specifically the definition of marriage other than it is a contract. But, I am surrrreee that your interpretation supercedes all others. :-)

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

namexxx

Apr-05-13 11:05 AM

Here's a motto for you:

One man -- One screen name.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

subman

Apr-05-13 9:31 AM

it doesn't matter what the case was about... SCOTUS stated that marriage was between"one man and one woman" that defines marriage period. not one dog and one cat or any other definition of 2 parties.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JackAaah

Apr-05-13 9:28 AM

billyG's """How does that old Republican saying go?...."do as I say, not as I do"."""

While I feel I must agree with you somewhat, I feel our Democrat Party motto of "Take what others have, not what I have" tops the Republican one...and does help us move forword...

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Apr-05-13 8:06 AM

Donald Trump wants to marry himself. We better get on that.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

namexxx

Apr-04-13 4:43 PM

Repeat posting is called "trolling."

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Apr-04-13 1:46 PM

Actually, DOMA was proposed by Congress in 1996 and was sponsored by six Republicans and two democrats. It was signed by Clinton and he has since stated publicly that it was a big mistake to sign the bill. Oh, well. Now as to the other cases cited from the late 1800's, Murphy was related to bigamy and voter registration while Maynard was related to a divorce situation in Oregon where the wife never left Ohio and the husband was in Oregon. Just for clarification. The also stated: "Marriage is something more than a mere contract, though founded upon the agreement of the parties." You will notice they said two parties, not specifically a man/woman.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

subman

Apr-04-13 12:30 PM

Clinton came up with Doma but prior In 1855 Murphy v. Ramsey, SCOTUS defined marriage as "The union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony."

In Maynard v. Hill, SCOTUS spoke of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Apr-04-13 12:13 PM

I have a radical proposition. Deny all couples, gay or straight, any federal benefits. Problem solved.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Apr-04-13 12:02 PM

Your insulting tone didn't do anything in the way of educating others, did it?

No, I posted the info.

One of my first points remains true: "Constitutions and court decisions are made by humans." As far as the 9 justices and their decision, we'll have to wait for it.

And you check your own roots. Mine are what I was born with.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Apr-04-13 11:33 AM

Oh, as to your "in the dark" comment, did you not learn something from looking it up yourself? I already knew the application to this material. But, obviously, you did not. Now you do. Applause.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Apr-04-13 11:31 AM

Are you sure the roots aren't? The law states most of the time that you can challenge things if you are not getting the benefits that others are. Certainly the 1100 or more Federal benefits denied to legally married couples fits that category. Remember that there are states that have married gay couples and some still are marrying couples. Their (the married gay couples) remedy is through the equal protection clause. Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Apr-04-13 11:08 AM

Not so blonde.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Apr-04-13 11:07 AM

I would surmise that it's the Defense of Marriage Act that is coming under fire as the one that allegedly denies equal protection to SSM proponents.

From wikipedia: "The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that restricts federal marriage benefits and required inter-state marriage recognition to only opposite-sex marriages in the United States. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns."

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Apr-04-13 10:46 AM

Excerpt from WA Post article...

"The court could (a) rule all same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional or (b) rule Prop 8 unconstitutional but remain agnostic on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans generally or (c) rule that you can’t offer civil unions without offering marriage rights too, while leaving marriage bans elsewhere untouched but affecting states like NJ that offers unions but not marriage, or (d) rule that Hollingsworth and ProtectMarriage**** lack standing, uphold the lower court ruling overturning Proposition 8, and take no stand on constitutionality or (e) rule that Hollingsworth and ProtectMarriage**** have standing, and that Proposition 8 and/or same-sex marriage bans generally are constitutional, reversing the lower court and setting a precedent that states can constitutionally ban same-sex unions."

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Apr-04-13 10:46 AM

So SSM proponents are trying their case before the Supreme Court based on equal protection under the law? I found this article at WA Post, which seemed very thorough.

washingtonpost . com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/26/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-supreme-courts-same-sex-marriage-cases/

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Apr-04-13 10:35 AM

more "Equal protection" specifically under "classifications based on gender"

"Although many cases regarding classifications based on gender have involved discriminatory actions against women, some men have successfully brought cases alleging Sex Discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. For example, in Hill v. Ross, 183 F.3d 586 (7th Cir. 1999), the Seventh Circuit determined that a school's decision not to hire a male university professor solely on the grounds of his gender could be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and federal statutory law. In Hill, a university department refused to hire either of two male candidates because it wished to maintain a certain proportion of women on its faculty. The court reversed a Summary Judgment granted by the district court because an issue of material fact existed as to whether prior instances of discrimination based on sex necessitated the university's policy."

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Apr-04-13 10:26 AM

So, yeah, I did the heavy lifting this time, 'cuz centerish prefers to be in the dark.

"Equal protection under the law" has traditionally been tried in courts to prove inequity in treatment under existing law. One case in OK: females aged 18-20 could buy 3.2 beer, while males had to wait until age 21. "The state defended the statute by introducing traffic statistics that suggested that men were more likely than women to be arrested for drunk driving before age twenty-one. The Court agreed that enhanced traffic safety was an "important" government interest but disagreed that the gender line drawn by the state would "substantially" serve this interest."

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 95 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web