A couple of important same sex marriage rulings

[tvashtarkatena]

linky Edited July 12, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[rob]

Now they're gonna get married? Poor bastards. Haven't they suffered enough?

[archenemy]

yeah, but everyone deserves the joy of divorce.

[sobo]

yeah, but everyone deserves the joy of divorce.

Yup, and I should know...

[Nitrox]

I didn't think liberals wanted more integration of church and state.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

The more you post, the dumber you get.

 

Try learning something about the topics you comment on sometime.

 

You won't, I know, but Jesus, get the basics right, at least.

Edited July 13, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[rob]

[tvashtarkatena]

Prior to the passage of the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA), the feds deferred to the states regarding the legitimacy of marriage. Marriage laws vary widely state by state; if you were legally married in any particular state, the feds respected that marriage as valid. By way of example, if you were married at 14 in Alabama (still legal) and moved to a state where 16 was the minimum age, the marriage was considered valid and the couple protected from statutory rape prosecution.

 

DOMA attempted to change that 230+ year tradition by denying same sex marriage rights, even if those marriages are performed in states that allow them. Fortunately for those interested in equality and fairness, DOMA is being struck down in court bit by bit. Contrary to the misconceptions promulgated by its shrill supporters, this represents a return to the status quo, not some new 'gay' world order.

 

There are over 1000 rights conferred to people who are married; visitation rights, property transference and ownership, tax considerations, parental, and on and on. Contrary to social conservative rhetoric about 'special rights', the movement to legalize same sex marriage seeks only to confer the exact same rights long afforded to hetero married couples to all committed couples who wish to enter into a marriage contract.

 

Also, the idea that churches will be 'forced' to marry same sex couples is part of an intentional misinformation campaign to whip up support from the religious right. The idea is as ridiculous as an atheist ex catholic such as myself, 'forcing' the Catholic church to marry me. Marriage is a secular contract; the state recognizes no religious component to it with regards to the rights or legal status conferred. Same sex marriage laws do nothing to erode an individual church's requirements for religious marriage within its congregation.

Edited July 13, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

Its interesting how the arguments against same sex marriage (and in support of DOMA) so unsuccessfully employed in these recent court cases mimmic, almost exactly, those used to deny mixed race couples the right to marry prior to the 60s.

[rob]

I support the separation of church and state -- ban marriage for everyone!!!

[Nitrox]

The more you post, the dumber you get.

 

Try learning something about the topics you comment on sometime.

 

You won't, I know, but Jesus, get the basics right, at least.

 

You and your buddies are trying your damnedest to force the gays into government sponsored religious ceremonies. Seams strange and illogical. If I had to guess I'd say its probably because the ACLU and the vocal minority of gays that want to get "married" don't think they could get enough support to revoke the unions performed by the state for straight couples.

 

I know Rob is joking but I don't think there should be state sanctioned marriage. Last I checked marriage has always been "in the eyes of god". Straights and gays should get the same civil union unless performed in a church, which the state should stay out of.

 

Anyway, congrats on your victory...I guess.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Does anyone here know what idea this idiot is trying to convey?

[Nitrox]

I don't want to be a total wet blanket, if this means you can finally have your soul mate I'm happy for you.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

linky

 

GEE! THANKS FOR THESE VERY INTERESTING LATE-BREAKING DEVELOPMENTS!

 

[Nitrox]

linky

 

GEE! THANKS FOR THESE VERY INTERESTING LATE-BREAKING DEVELOPMENTS!

 

Read it twice, I bet you'll learn something new.

 

Over a thousand federal statutes create rights and protections that vary depending on whether a person is married or not.

 

 

[JayB]

Does anyone here know what idea this idiot is trying to convey?

 

Seems like he's arguing for getting the state out of the business of annointing "marriages" all together. Man and woman, two chicks, two dudes - everybody gets the same piece of paper. If you want your marriage blessed by whatever cult/deity/collective that's your business, not the state's.

 

[AlpineK]

I'm pretty sure Nitrox wants marriage to

[img:center]http://i27.tinypic.com/1052qky.gif[/img]

 

 

In a church no less

[tvashtarkatena]

Does anyone here know what idea this idiot is trying to convey?

 

Seems like he's arguing for getting the state out of the business of annointing "marriages" all together. Man and woman, two chicks, two dudes - everybody gets the same piece of paper. If you want your marriage blessed by whatever cult/deity/collective that's your business, not the state's.

 

You've apparently contracted Nitrox's disorder.

 

'Marriage' IS a civil contract. Hence, you know, the term 'marriage license'. Religiosity is optional...and the state already doesn't give a shit about that component, other than to authorize church members (as it does secular folks) to perform the ceremony.

 

Religion is irrelevant to both the court cases posted and this discussion in general. I would guess TrailerMan brought it up due to confusion and/or the undeniable urge to counter with something, anything, whenever I post.

 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

Don't get me wrong, I actively encourage his postings LOL.

 

The 'I'm not a bigot, but blacks have no sense of personal responsibility for their actions' post was priceless.

Edited July 14, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

'Marriage' IS a civil contract. Hence, you know, the term 'marriage license'. Religiosity is optional...and the state already doesn't give a shit about that component, other than to authorize church members (as it does secular folks) to perform the ceremony.

 

WRONG. In WA state if you are married in a church, the church is required to see your marriage license before performing the ceremony.

 

 

[rob]

 

'Marriage' IS a civil contract. Hence, you know, the term 'marriage license'. Religiosity is optional...and the state already doesn't give a shit about that component, other than to authorize church members (as it does secular folks) to perform the ceremony.

 

WRONG. In WA state if you are married in a church, the church is required to see your marriage license before performing the ceremony.

 

 

Exactly! The civil aspect comes first. The "religious" aspect is the optional part. The civil contract is the requirement.

Edited July 14, 2010 by rob

[AlpineK]

Umm whoever has the authority to marry you church priest, Judge, or Bozo De Clown. has to see your marriage license.

 

The wedding is just a ceremony conducted by anyone with the authority.

 

If you're against gay marriage then

 

• Don't get one
  
• Only pick a priest or whatever who doesn't perform gay marriages
   
  

 

Otherwise STFU

[kevbone]

 

If you're against gay marriage then

 

• Don't get one
  
• Only pick a priest or whatever who doesn't perform gay marriages
   
  

 

Otherwise STFU

 

:tup:

[rob]

I wonder why republiturds get so crazy when they think about gays and lesbians being able to marry? Why do they give a fuck?

 

For that matter, why do republiturds give a fuck about most of the shit they whine over? I thought they were all about liberty and keeping government out of their lives.

 

Instead, they REALLY are all about whining like fucking crybabies and trying to dictate what people should and shouldn't do with their personal lives.

 

Bunch of cockless puritans.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

'Marriage' IS a civil contract. Hence, you know, the term 'marriage license'. Religiosity is optional...and the state already doesn't give a shit about that component, other than to authorize church members (as it does secular folks) to perform the ceremony.

 

WRONG. In WA state if you are married in a church, the church is required to see your marriage license before performing the ceremony.

 

 

Exactly! The civil aspect comes first. The "religious" aspect is the optional part. The civil contract is the requirement.

 

Exactly. The state forces rules on the religious organizations. Of course, they'd never do that regarding same-sex partners. Never. Nope.