Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
oh but according to wingy you are gay, or at least have homo tendancies. im not a bigot either just because i dont agree gays should be married. i do agree they should have protections just as married couples do. i am not against gay people nor do i hate them.
That is what it will come down to – like it or not.
You are 100% correct - and until now, there was not a case where the core of the matter was at issue. That's why people are so hyped up over this particular case, because it is structured in such a way that that is the exact question the Supreme Court will be forced to examine. And it has been a long time coming.
I didn't say because it isn't relevant to the conversation one way or the other. You can derive from that whatever you'd like. But I'll answer yours when you answer mine. *chuckling*
Flawed how? The fact remains, married couples do receive these benefits. As long as that is the case, those benefits need to be equally available. They're not.
You linked me to a list of "benefits" which are not benefits nor are they federal responsibilities.. For example, it says that unmarried couples do not receive domestic abuse protection.. That is 100% false.. a flat out lie.. Not only do they receive abuse protection, (because EVERYONE that resides in a household together does), but thats also not a federal responsiblity to dictate the definition and laws in regards to domestic abuse. Every state in the nation has domestic abuse laws and I know for a FACT that many of them, Ohio for sure, would protect an unmarried couple from domestic abuse, but every state would at minimum classify it as assault.
Listing a law that exists, and then claiming it doesnt, and then claiming that the non existant of that existant law isnt a "benefit"..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsy
And while your "they needed better lawyers" response is a nice, flippant dismissal, it's just that - a dismissal. There are hundreds of examples of similar cases where, if the couple had been heterosexual and thus able to be married, there would have been no issue to begin with.
I suspect that no matter what is presented to you, you will find a way to dismiss it no matter the relevance, because it does not fit in with your own stance. That makes debate with you an utter waste of time. *shrugs*
As an UNMARRIED heterosexual, I can tell you first hand that the individuals needed better lawyers. With the right legal document, NO ONE can overrule the wishes of two individuals who have signed a legal document.. NO ONE..
I'm not married but you can bet that my "spouse" will inherit all of my assets, and vice versa.. Claiming that we arent "married" doesnt provide an estate the power to overrule a will and trusts setup to transfer assets..
I didn't say because it isn't relevant to the conversation one way or the other. You can derive from that whatever you'd like. But I'll answer yours when you answer mine. *chuckling*
oh but according to wingy you are gay, or at least have homo tendancies. im not a bigot either just because i dont agree gays should be married. i do agree they should have protections just as married couples do. i am not against gay people nor do i hate them.
Then I guess you should be for the removal of the word "marriage" from the law. If you're so worried about the damn word "marriage", then this is the best compromise: Straight and gay people alike can get "civil unions" in order to gain the legal benefits. You can get "married" in a church, but it won't have legal benefits until you get a "civil union" with the government.
Really, the only difference is what word is used, so long as equal rights are recognized.
I don't know how people say they care about the 'sanctity of marriage' anyway, when they don't do anything about the high divorce rate, marriages to strangers done by Elvis impersonators in Vegas. No, but gays getting to use the word "marriage" in a legal sense, that boils their blood!
So, ONE judge gets to nullify the will of the people of California.
Outrageous.
This is liberal judicial activism at it's core.
Sanrene, the meds are not working. You need to increase your doseage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can derive from that whatever you'd like. But I'll answer yours when 
