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.
Who is being forced into marrying someone of the same sex?
Don't be stupid! Ask the OP, he/she is the one who put that phrase into the conversation, by putting it in the thread title.
What's next? A bi-sexual man with cancer, and the judge forces the state to recognize the man's male lover and female wife, as all three being married?
And that is it in a nutshell, it's being "FORCED" on the people. It's why this gay agenda is seeing so much hostility and push back.
Why not FORCE the state to recognize same-sex unions, or domestic partnerships? Why force a cultural and societal change against the will of the people?
Is this the function of the courts, to force the people to adopt personal ideological and social preferences of the judge?
No one is forcing you into a same sex marriage, just that they are legal.
Just like bacon being legal doesn't mean people hold Jews and Muslims down in order to force feed it to them.
Actually, they are. My partner and I live in Colorado, where there are Civil Unions that grant all the rights of marriage at the state level. We got legally married in California, so we get all the Federal benefits of marriage, and Colorado grants us the Civil Union benefits based on our marriage license from California.
I would think the couple in Indiana could go get married in a state where it's legal and then the surviving partner would get the SS benefit because it's a Federal benefit, not state. The Federal government now recognizes same sex marriage in any state as long as you get married in a state where it's legal. It doesn't matter to the Feds that you live in a state where it isn't legal. You just don't get any state benefits of marriage.
The issue is the couple was legally married in MA, but if the woman dies in IL, the death certificate will not list a spouse, so then they will have to jump through all sort of legal hoops and potentially lawsuits to get the federal benefits she is entitled to, because IL won't recognize the MA marriage as valid. Essentially IL is going to submit paperwork to the Feds stating that these women are not legally married, and then they will have to sort it out in the courts...
I don't understand why they can't at least acknowledge that there is a federally recognized marriage involved, just not a state one...
I'm not sure why Indiana doesn't just ignore the judge. At some point, someone will just do that, since these judges just try to impose their own personal views on everyone.
Actually, they are. My partner and I live in Colorado, where there are Civil Unions that grant all the rights of marriage at the state level. We got legally married in California, so we get all the Federal benefits of marriage, and Colorado grants us the Civil Union benefits based on our marriage license from California.
I would think the couple in Indiana could go get married in a state where it's legal and then the surviving partner would get the SS benefit because it's a Federal benefit, not state. The Federal government now recognizes same sex marriage in any state as long as you get married in a state where it's legal. It doesn't matter to the Feds that you live in a state where it isn't legal. You just don't get any state benefits of marriage.
According to the social security department you will only get survivors benefits if you are living in a state that recognizes SSM.
Quote:
These instructions allow for payment of claims when the NH
was married in a state that permits same-sex marriage, and is domiciled at the time of application, or while the claim is pending a final determination, in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage.
No one is forcing you into a same sex marriage, just that they are legal.
Just like bacon being legal doesn't mean people hold Jews and Muslims down in order to force feed it to them.
Where do you guys get this from, where in the story, and where in this thread is anyone saying the court is forcing a person into a same-sex marriage? Try to stay on topic will ya, huh?
Don't be stupid! Ask the OP, he/she is the one who put that phrase into the conversation, by putting it in the thread title.
What's next? A bi-sexual man with cancer, and the judge forces the state to recognize the man's male lover and female wife, as all three being married?
Considering that no one can marry more than one person legally, no. But if I am legally married in state A, then I should be legally married in state B.
The funny thing is this patch work of recognition actually allows for a person to be married to 2 people. I can marry a woman where legal, then come home to Mississippi where that marriage is not recognized and marry a man. Federally there would be a big mess though, since the feds would only recognize the first marriage.
What about the bi-sexual who would like a man and a woman spouse, who recognizes their three person marriage? Oh, the tyranny, and bigotry, the violation of the equality of their civil rights!!!
Guess we need a progressive judge to decide three people can be married, or we are a land of haters.
Where do you guys get this from, where in the story, and where in this thread is anyone saying the court is forcing a person into a same-sex marriage? Try to stay on topic will ya, huh?
How else, as you say, is it being forced onto you then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
And that is it in a nutshell, it's being "FORCED" on the people. It's why this gay agenda is seeing so much hostility and push back.
Your poor communication is not other people's fault.
Considering that no one can marry more than one person legally, no. But if I am legally married in state A, then I should be legally married in state B.
The funny thing is this patch work of recognition actually allows for a person to be married to 2 people. I can marry a woman where legal, then come home to Mississippi where that marriage is not recognized and marry a man. Federally there would be a big mess though, since the feds would only recognize the first marriage.
Only bigots like you refuse to acknowledge a three person union.
What's it going to hurt? No one will force you to marry a man and a woman, so what's the problem?
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.
