Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-30-2013, 11:20 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,094 posts, read 26,017,688 times
Reputation: 6128

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
marriage is one that will never be overturned or enacted as the FEDERAL govt relies on those marriage licenses to proclaim that a couple IS actually married.
That is not a reason to suppose that they will not be overturned.

Keep in mind that if this were done, it would not invalidate any marriage contract, it would only ensure that the term "marriage" would not be recognized by the government as a descriptor for the contract, and that no special benefits would accrue to people in a contract of commitment, beyond what they willing include in their own contract.

Also, it appears by your use of language, that you support the Full Faith and Credit clause as written in the U.S. Constitution.

If so, then you should likewise honor the choice of a state to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, just as Harrier is able to honor the choice of a state to allow the definition of a marriage to include same sex couples, a definition that Harrier notes that California has never made state law.

 
Old 06-30-2013, 11:21 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 6,273,675 times
Reputation: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionsgators View Post
haha. I will be dead by then.
we won't miss you.

Quote:
I can move around until then to avoid the huge tax increases the gays are causing.
Proof of this claim? Seeing as you make up your own definitions, I'm sure you made up your own definition of what a "tax increase" is.
 
Old 06-30-2013, 11:23 PM
 
6,073 posts, read 4,754,520 times
Reputation: 2635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
we won't miss you.



Proof of this claim? Seeing as you make up your own definitions, I'm sure you made up your own definition of what a "tax increase" is.
federal benefits aren't free darlin.
 
Old 06-30-2013, 11:28 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 6,273,675 times
Reputation: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
That is not a reason to suppose that they will not be overturned.
Yes it is. Federal Govt determines a lot of statuses based on if a person or persons are married. Everything from estate law, to IRS an Social Security benefits. A other laws are dependent on that small piece of paper. Like the law that covers that immediate family (spouses) are able to make medical decisions on behalf of their spouse. Immigration issues - a US citizen who married a foreign national is able to sponsor their spouse, and help them become US Citizens.

Keep in mind that if this were done, it would not invalidate any marriage contract, it would only ensure that the term "marriage" would not be recognized by the government as a descriptor for the contract, and that no special benefits would accrue to people in a contract of commitment, beyond what they willing include in their own contract.

Quote:
Also, it appears by your use of language, that you support the Full Faith and Credit clause as written in the U.S. Constitution.
Yes I do. Which is why those states who do not recognize of the marriage of same sex couples of other states, will be facing legal challenges in the very near future. Now that there is precedent on the Federal Law

Quote:
If so, then you should likewise honor the choice of a state to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, just as Harrier is able to honor the choice of a state to allow the definition of a marriage to include same sex couples, a definition that Harrier notes that California has never made.
YOu fail again. FFCC is between states; not individuals. I live in state that had its prophate overturned. So I recognize that marriage is between man/woman, woman/woman or man/man
 
Old 06-30-2013, 11:32 PM
 
596 posts, read 730,409 times
Reputation: 1409
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew View Post
I would have more respect for homolovers if they knew how to tell the truth.
Wow. Are you actually proud of having this level of blatant ignorance?
 
Old 06-30-2013, 11:33 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 6,273,675 times
Reputation: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionsgators View Post
federal benefits aren't free darlin.

Wrong
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
 
Old 07-01-2013, 03:22 AM
 
3,550 posts, read 2,557,721 times
Reputation: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
No, but they can raise one. And having a child is by far the easier bit.
and what does that have to do with interracial marriage?
 
Old 07-01-2013, 03:27 AM
 
3,550 posts, read 2,557,721 times
Reputation: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by wehotex View Post
I read a poll that said that 81% of jews support marriage equality. Guess you're one of the 19%?
according to Jewish tradition 4/5 Jews were not worthy of leaving Egypt and were killed there.
I guess another Jewish tradition of the final redemption will pattern itself after the first is coming true.
 
Old 07-01-2013, 03:32 AM
 
3,550 posts, read 2,557,721 times
Reputation: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
fundamental to our very existence and survival. , doesn't mean procreation. There are many infertile couples that get married.

So since senior citizens and infertile couples can't have children, your "biological" criteria claim fails.
please explain fundamental to our very existence and survival in the context of forced sterilization?
the right to marry was based on procreation.
 
Old 07-01-2013, 03:36 AM
 
5,150 posts, read 7,766,757 times
Reputation: 1443
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiseguy View Post
laws are not enacted by the supreme court.. they are upheld or struck down as they apply to the constitution...with regards to common law
if "the people" or "legislators" enact a law that goes against the constitution.. it can be struck down making the law null an void...
I always have to wonder when I hear these conservatives saying.. "these judges are legislating from the bench" I wonder if they even understand how the separate branches of government actually work...
the supreme court did not make gay marriage the law of the land... they only struck down the laws barring it from being the law of the land...
You confused me by throwing in common law here. New common law is case law and case law includes SCOTUS. The do not generate new statutes but certainly they form case law.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top