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.
Good points. Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states. But if some guy wants to be married to two women of legal age is that the governments business to say they cannot?
if Alabama were to not agree with Utah's polygamy - to not let a UT "threesome" move to AL and be conferred the same rights they had in UT - then why should Alabama have to give them UT rights?
The illegals is one reason I asked this. The bill doesn't say citizen (or even adult/age, FWIW) - it merely says Individual.
If NY is going to give illegals the right to vote in local elections...what is to keep the NY Legislature from giving them the right to marry and thus obtain whatever rights and privileges are available to married people in NY?
And we know that CA is pretty radically - to most other stats at least - conferring as many "benefits" on illegals as they can get away with.
Why wouldn't any of the - IMO radical - states that actually issue illegal aliens driver's licenses not also issue them marriage licenses?
And the states that DON'T do something as stupid as welcome a lawbreaker into a government office and NOT arrest them but instead give them a privilege ... well, they have to recognize and approve of that law-breaking.
Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.) last week voted against federal legislation that would require states to recognize same-sex marriages. Three days later, the congressman attended his son’s same-sex wedding.
“Congressman and Mrs. Thompson were thrilled to attend and celebrate their son’s marriage on Friday night as he began this new chapter in his life. The Thompsons are very happy to welcome their new son-in-law into their family,” Thompson’s press secretary, Maddison Stone, told The Washington Post late Monday in an email.
Obviously, then, gay marriage was already legal.
So why was there a "respect for marriage act" in the US legislature?...... There shouldn't have been.
But it sure makes a good anti-GOP headline, doesn't it?
i have disagreed with the politics and moral decisions of many of our family members over the years. do our different ways of living our lives mean we don't love each other? of course not!
it is a rubbish, perhaps even cruel, take that family members must be aligned on all values and personal choices in order to love and support each other.
if Alabama were to not agree with Utah's polygamy - to not let a UT "threesome" move to AL and be conferred the same rights they had in UT - then why should Alabama have to give them UT rights?
What rights? As it stands many states have common law marriages. Two people cohabitate for a certain amount of time and they are considered married under the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyebee Teepee
The illegals is one reason I asked this. The bill doesn't say citizen (or even adult/age, FWIW) - it merely says Individual.
If NY is going to give illegals the right to vote in local elections...what is to keep the NY Legislature from giving them the right to marry and thus obtain whatever rights and privileges are available to married people in NY?
I am pretty sure illegals can get married in all 50 states now. People can come from a foreign county and get married here. Americans get married in foreign countries all the time. I don't believe one's legal status has any baring on getting a marriage license. Feel free to show me different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyebee Teepee
And we know that CA is pretty radically - to most other stats at least - conferring as many "benefits" on illegals as they can get away with.
Why wouldn't any of the - IMO radical - states that actually issue illegal aliens driver's licenses not also issue them marriage licenses?
And the states that DON'T do something as stupid as welcome a lawbreaker into a government office and NOT arrest them but inste
ad give them a privilege ... well, they have to recognize and approve of that law-breaking.
I am sure now people here illegally get married every day in California and elsewhere. I am not sure where you are getting that is not the case now.
can't find a video, but here's the Official transcript (scroll past the Bill for the debate). And I'm reminded that of the 60 minutes of debate, half was controlled by Dems.
Only 3 R's spoke - Jordan, Johnson from Louisiana (a constitutional lawyer) and Chip Roy (a member of Judiciary).
So, Mr Thompson has not given his position on the matter in the debate.
Once you get past the bombast from the R's over "this is just because the Dems can't discuss their record", the argument is essentially - "this was never debated, and it's not needed. The SCOTUS ruling on Dobbs was clear that it was just about abortion. Thomas' concurrence doesn't say overturn them, it says reconsider them and there may be other Constitutional reasons to uphold them."
Obviously, then, gay marriage was already legal.
So why was there a "respect for marriage act" in the US legislature?...... There shouldn't have been.
But it sure makes a good anti-GOP headline, doesn't it?
Because there has been chatter that the SCOTUS will overturn that law using the same states rights argument.
Actually if you read my link to reason.com it might actually benefit the GOP. Right now one big fear of the left is gay marriage being overturned. Justice Thomas made a comment to that effect. Taking that off the table with this act would relax some swing voters in November.
can't find a video, but here's the Official transcript (scroll past the Bill for the debate). And I'm reminded that of the 60 minutes of debate, half was controlled by Dems.
Only 3 R's spoke - Jordan, Johnson from Louisiana (a constitutional lawyer) and Chip Roy (a member of Judiciary).
So, Mr Thompson has not given his position on the matter in the debate.
Once you get past the bombast from the R's over "this is just because the Dems can't discuss their record", the argument is essentially - "this was never debated, and it's not needed. The SCOTUS ruling on Dobbs was clear that it was just about abortion. Thomas' concurrence doesn't say overturn them, it says reconsider them and there may be other Constitutional reasons to uphold them."
With my own time constraints I read what Jordan said. He just thinks the bill is unnecessary and poltical. Justice Thomas spooked the left with his comments. No he did not call for them to be overturned but wanted to consider that possibility. And if the same standard is used same sex marriage would go down like R v W. That is why this bill came up now. If the dems lose control of the house this bill won't have a chance in the future. And sure its political theater also.
so He voted against the legislation that would REQUIRE STATES to recognize same sex marriage SO WHAT. First it's once again States rights VS Federal. Let the State make the decision. Second regardless of your child's orientation and your personal beliefs a decent person will still love that child and want to be there for such a special part of their life. Thats part of being a caring parent.
Not really hypocritical, hypocritical is screaming climate change and flying in a private jet and living in a 10000 sq foot mansion. I'ts telling the masses tosocial distance and wear masks and then going to parties while not masking up. It's you cant' have a gun to protect yourself but I have armed security....
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.
