prole Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 1/2 the time his shit will pass. ...and fuck things up worse 100% of the time. How does that work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 6, 2009 Author Share Posted November 6, 2009 (edited) There are a lot of differences. For one other states don't have to recognize civil unions but they do have to recognize marriage, due to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Similarly, the U.S. won't nationalize a foreign citizen for entering into a civil union with a U.S. citizen the way they would if they were married. There's probably other differences too. This is false. States do not have to, nor do they generally (unless a specific statute has been passed) recognize same sex marriages performed in other states that allow them. This is exactly the same as with civil unions. Quite to the contrary, the majority of states have passed Defense of Marriage Acts which explicitly prohibit the recognition of marriages performed elsewhere. Similarly, the U.S. does not recognize same sex marriages performed in other countries where it is legal, either for immigration or any other purposes. For example, U.S. law prohibits gays (married or not) in other countries from adopting U.S. citizens...whether or not the adopting couples are married as allowed by the laws of those countries. Similarly, gay marriages performed in other countries where it is legal do not afford any immigration advantage into the U.S., as straight marriage would. It is obviously true that the voting public can view 'marriage' in a very different light from 'civil unions', but, as I claimed, there is no substantive legal difference when civil unions are crafted (as they are in Washington) to mirror all of the enumerated rights of marriage. The public is often swayed by emotional, false arguments promulgated by the religious right differentiating 'marriage' from 'civil unions', the most notorious (and probably effective) of which is the false notion that churches will be forced to marry gays against their doctrine. This is, of course, nonsense, as churches may refuse to marry any couple without any real justification whatsoever. Edited November 6, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 6, 2009 Author Share Posted November 6, 2009 (edited) And, BTW, if you post in spray, you're a sprayer, by definition. Contrary to OW's bullshit, and given Darryl's fuck you response, I'd say he's solidly mired in the mudhole with the rest of us, not floating ethereallly above it. Edited November 6, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 6, 2009 Author Share Posted November 6, 2009 (edited) There are a lot of differences. For one other states don't have to recognize civil unions but they do have to recognize marriage, due to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Similarly, the U.S. won't nationalize a foreign citizen for entering into a civil union with a U.S. citizen the way they would if they were married. There's probably other differences too. Since when the fuck did Pete start getting all lawyery on us? Stick the spray for gods sake! Lotsa noise coming out of this airbag, but it still hasn't come up with a single practical difference between a full-rights included civil union and 'marriage...other than the name. And dickhead one more practical difference is that gay people in Washington are going to continue to feel like their civil liberties are being infringed upon until they can actually be married. Meaning another referendum for them to loose. Look...you're not being that bright isn't really my problem, but my claim and challenge to you was to come up with a substantive (legal) difference between marriage and civil unions, assuming, of course, that civil unions mirror the rights of marriage. So far, all Dickheads and Fuckyous aside, you've failed. In addition, I neither claimed nor implied that Maine's referendum was equal to Washington's...obviously, one used the word 'marriage', the other purposefully did not. In observing that the 'M' word has an emotional impact, you've superbly mastered the obvious. As for gays still feeling discriminated against because they can't 'marry'...again, no shit, Sherlock. Give the boi a gold star for being awake. Edited November 6, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 6, 2009 Author Share Posted November 6, 2009 Jebus, full power to the fucking shields today, Scotty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 6, 2009 Author Share Posted November 6, 2009 (edited) Not that this is relevant to the argument, but Berdinka fucks livestock. Edited November 6, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 6, 2009 Author Share Posted November 6, 2009 While Billcoe films him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dberdinka Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 touche Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete_H Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 There are a lot of differences. For one other states don't have to recognize civil unions but they do have to recognize marriage, due to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Similarly, the U.S. won't nationalize a foreign citizen for entering into a civil union with a U.S. citizen the way they would if they were married. There's probably other differences too. This is false. States do not have to, nor do they generally (unless a specific statute has been passed) recognize same sex marriages performed in other states that allow them. I guess you're right in the sense that it depends on the state. Defense of Marriage Act is some buuuuullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 6, 2009 Author Share Posted November 6, 2009 (edited) OK, I recognize that I've been pissing off even people in Africa who I've never met today. Apologies all around. I'll buy you all beers at SausageFest. No I won't, but... ...I'm going to try to make it up to you by providing this informative post on the same sex marriage, state by state. It has not been updated since our recent election, but it's a very good representation of the cluster fuck we have today. You'll notice that most states have passed a Defense of Marriage Act, but don't let that fool you. That happened mostly in the late 90s...even our own state passed such a law, and now look where we are. Times and attitudes are changing fast. Hopefully, the upcoming generation will clean up some of this mess. Same Sex Marriage, State by State Edited November 6, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 clearly ttk is off his meds again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 6, 2009 Author Share Posted November 6, 2009 Dude, even livestock won't fuck you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 you guys really need a vacation somewhere, say the emuclaw pet reserve and wildlife sanctuary it's totaly obvious shit - boys who wanna kiss boys n' bitches wanna tongue bitches and leave all their shit to onna'nother when they die of heart-attacks in their strap-ons have just as much of a human right to do that as some stupid cracker and his whore - the gov's role should be very minimal, mostly just interested int he tax, inheritance and child issues associated with it i'm glad the measure passed - if the result of our byzanitine federalized legal system is that our fair state atracts a lot more queers n' their dollars, what numbnut fiscal conservative could argue? hey, if we get more queers, does that mean we get more leavenworths? i can cave on a whole lot more gays issues if so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 totally! OMFG what i wouldn't do for a faux Chamonix!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 I hear there is faux Scottish stack climbing in Renton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 I hear there is faux Scottish stack climbing in Renton. That's REI's secret remodel plan for the tower at the flagship store, they're just waiting on the biologist who'll oversee the petrel flock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 I hear REI is moving their flagship store to Renton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 Yeah, they're turning the current store into a Quiznos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 I heard that Oathkeepers is planning to locate their West Coast office here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 a dark cloud is descending on seattle. the beasts are coming for us. http://radar.weather.gov/radar.php?product=NCR&rid=ATX&loop=yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 I heard that Oathkeepers is planning to locate their West Coast office here. Great. Fairweather won't have to pay so much postage to get his decoder rings and commemorative plates shipped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 I heard that Oathkeepers is planning to locate their West Coast office here. So, reading over their website, I assume they support an armed Black Panthers and Earth First, oppose property forfeiture in drug offenses, will actively oppose "free speech zones" where protesters are confined to designated areas, and will actively work to overturn the Patriot Act's warrantless searches? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 7, 2009 Author Share Posted November 7, 2009 (edited) Finally, a principled group dedicated to Not Doing Something. Their meeting minutes must be easy as hell to record. From the OKerz blog: "For 8 years of Bush you brave outspoken souls don't say peep. This man tosses aside the Constitution and he's given a second term. Suddenly you get Constitution religion with the election of Obama...." Edited November 7, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 I just wanna ask, why are those women holding large red sausage-like things in their hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.