It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Syriusly]

Hmmm since not a single hetero married person here agrees with your 'reasonable viewpoint'- and frankly no one agree's with your 'modest proposal'- that you think there is much if any support for your concept of ending legal marriage, just so you can get your revenge on homosexuals- is just as idiotic as everything else you post here

You've stalked all the participants and can tell who are married or not?

Hell, then you must have the winning lottery numbers!

Ladies and gentlemen, THE AMAZING SYRIOUSLY -GAY MENTALIST

A poll reflects how the attitudes of society are changing.

Just as society once considered mixed race marriages 'abnormal' and such couples were shunned by society- so to will some bigots shun homosexuals.

But attitudes change over time- and bigots like Boss are the ones that end up being shunned.

Yet, when asked by parents, would you prefer that your child be straight or gay, it's likely the overwhelming majority would say straight.

You are a long way from gay being accepted as normal.

Most times that answer is because of bigots & their discrimination that they wouldn't want their children to experience. Of course there are the douches that would 'disown' their kids if they are gay, & couldn't 'prefer' anything else anyways.

No, it's because straight is normal and productive, both near time and far into the future. Male/female couplings are likely to create offspring. Same sex couplings never do.

Normal people want to provide for the survival of the species, abnormal don't give a flying fuck if the species continues.

That is why most would want a straight child......

So you want to marry Kate Upton's titties also?

 

[Pop23]

Yet, when asked by parents, would you prefer that your child be straight or gay, it's likely the overwhelming majority would say straight.

You are a long way from gay being accepted as normal.

Most times that answer is because of bigots & their discrimination that they wouldn't want their children to experience. Of course there are the douches that would 'disown' their kids if they are gay, & couldn't 'prefer' anything else anyways.

No, it's because straight is normal and productive, both near time and far into the future. Male/female couplings are likely to create offspring. Same sex couplings never do.

Normal people want to provide for the survival of the species, abnormal don't give a flying fuck if the species continues.

That is why most would want a straight child......

?

Do you actually think many people, heterosexual or homosexual, consider the continuance of the species when they get in relationships or have sex or are preparing to have children?

Yes, but only heterosexuals actually have to consider it. We actually have skin in the game.

How incredibly stupid and ignorant.

No human has to consider the 'continuance' of the species- and frankly most babies born are not conceived in order to further the species but because a man and a woman have sex which accidentally results in children.

Anyone who is fertile- male or female- can pass on his or her genes- with or without marriage.

Only opposite sex couples have to take offspring into consideration during their unique, and ultimately important sex act.

And unlike you homosexuals, we indeed are concerned about the continuation of our species.

 

[Pop23]

You've stalked all the participants and can tell who are married or not?

Hell, then you must have the winning lottery numbers!

Ladies and gentlemen, THE AMAZING SYRIOUSLY -GAY MENTALIST

A poll reflects how the attitudes of society are changing.

Just as society once considered mixed race marriages 'abnormal' and such couples were shunned by society- so to will some bigots shun homosexuals.

But attitudes change over time- and bigots like Boss are the ones that end up being shunned.

Yet, when asked by parents, would you prefer that your child be straight or gay, it's likely the overwhelming majority would say straight.

You are a long way from gay being accepted as normal.

Most times that answer is because of bigots & their discrimination that they wouldn't want their children to experience. Of course there are the douches that would 'disown' their kids if they are gay, & couldn't 'prefer' anything else anyways.

No, it's because straight is normal and productive, both near time and far into the future. Male/female couplings are likely to create offspring. Same sex couplings never do.

Normal people want to provide for the survival of the species, abnormal don't give a flying fuck if the species continues.

That is why most would want a straight child......

So you want to marry Kate Upton's titties also?

And she my "Mr. Happy"

I'm sure if she saw mine, she would agree.

Good lord you are lame.

 

[Pop23]

Holding the contracts? What the hell does that mean and what does it have to do with endorsing, sanctioning or supporting marriage? There would be civil union contracts and any two people could apply for them. That's not "retaining marriage" in my view.

What keeps being brought to my attention is that it doesn't interfere with your little pretend gay thing you call marriage or any of your newly bestowed fundamental rights from SCOTUS. I think that's a good thing since I believe in passing laws that will withstand constitutional scrutiny. If you're okay with it and I'm okay with it, why are we arguing?

It means they would still recognize gay marriages as the legally binding union they are. Now legal in all 50 states, including Alabama should they pass that law.

They recognize whatever legally binding union they are required to. What other choice do you think they have?

I don't believe they have a choice. You're the one claiming they do not have to recognize same-sex marriage since there is nothing they hold.

I'm pointing out the lunacy of that since the state will in fact be holding the marriage contracts.

There will be no "marriage" contracts. There will be domestic civil union contracts..

Except that of course nothing you are saying is going to happen.

To quote the silliest Sally on the board:

Says you!

 

[Boss]

If you can get enough people to agree to do away with civil marriage...

It's not a matter of "do away with" ...we can't do away with civil domestic unions even if we wanted to... those are going to happen.

Of course, your own state has had a proposed bill which would have ended licenses for marriage while retaining marriage.

What do you mean by "retain marriage?" How does the state retain something it doesn't have the capacity to hold?

We've already covered this ground. The state can't defy federal laws or the Constitution. They are obligated by law to uphold the law. So, yes... they have to recognize any domestic partnership regardless of what it is called along with the accompanying license or contract from another state. That is legal jurisprudence they are obligated to do no matter what their policy is on marriage licensing.

This is what you are calling "retaining marriage" and the State of Alabama has no control over it. However, they DO control marriage licensing.

By retain marriage I mean that every law in Alabama regarding marriage, from taxes to power of attorney to inheritance and anything in between, would remain.

Again... What other choice does the State have? Of course the legislation they pass will adhere to federal laws and the Constitution. Why would they pass anything in defiance of that? How could they do it and get away with it?

Because the State of Alabama is operating within the Constitution and federal law, does not mean they endorse or sanction gay marriage in an official capacity. They do not recognize it because there is nothing for them to recognize. They MUST recognize federal laws and the Constitution.

The only change would be that in order to become married in Alabama one would need to file the proper paperwork with the proper government office rather than obtaining a marriage license. Alabama would still authorize marriages in the state.

No, they would not authorize "marriages" of any kind. That's the point of eliminating the licenses. This eliminates state sanction of gay marriage. If you don't think it changes anything but paperwork and formalities.. good! Sounds like a winner of a plan to me... you're okay with it and I'm okay with it. Why are we arguing?

You speak as though Alabama does not have any laws pertaining to marriage, as though it's all federal. Instead, at least under the bill that was proposed and you have talked about previously, Alabama would still have the same marriage laws it does now had the bill passed, excepting that the manner of entering into a marriage in the state would have changed.

It still would have been Alabama authorizing the same types of marriages it had before the bill. In fact, I'm nearly certain you have had a portion of the bill quoted to you which specifically stated that the participants would be authorized by the state to enter into a marriage. The point of eliminating the licenses seemed to be to avoid Kim Davis like situations where a state employee has a problem issuing a license they must issue as part of their job. You are still promoting this idea that only activities which the state licenses are authorized or endorsed by the state, despite the variety of laws, privileges, and benefits afforded to married couples which would remain even without the licenses, despite the state recognizing unlicensed common law marriages.

That is why this argument continues. You continue to make these bizzare claims about licensing being the only way for states to sanction something, implying that the state will just follow federal law regarding marriage as though there are no state laws regarding marriage, and ignoring that the bill itself stated that no other marriage laws would be changed. It seems like yet more of your personal definition or meaning of words; licensing is the only way by which a state can authorize an activity.

The problem here is, you've taken something completely out of context and you refuse to realize it. The state still has to recognize contract law. They still have to uphold the Constitution. State agencies and courts still have to accept your out-of-state device regardless of what it's called as a matter of legal jurisprudence. They do not have any choice in that matter.

We are hung up on the contextual meaning of "recognize" here. When I am using this term, I mean "sanction" or "endorse" or "authorize" or "license" gay marriage. You know, to 'recognize' in an official capacity. You are using a broader context of the word to mean "acknowledge existence of." Now, I can't do a thing in the world for your atrophied brain. If you don't comprehend context, that's your problem.

Licensing IS state sanctioning. There is no other way to put it. It is the official state sanctioning, endorsing and authorizing of a particular thing. Alabama will not be doing it anymore. You can complete a form and get a civil union contract. The state doesn't care what you do with that... if you want to call it a "marriage" contract, that's your business, the state isn't calling it anything other than a civil union contract. Nothing else changes because nothing else needs to change.

 

[Montrovant]

If you can get enough people to agree to do away with civil marriage...

It's not a matter of "do away with" ...we can't do away with civil domestic unions even if we wanted to... those are going to happen.

Of course, your own state has had a proposed bill which would have ended licenses for marriage while retaining marriage.

What do you mean by "retain marriage?" How does the state retain something it doesn't have the capacity to hold?

We've already covered this ground. The state can't defy federal laws or the Constitution. They are obligated by law to uphold the law. So, yes... they have to recognize any domestic partnership regardless of what it is called along with the accompanying license or contract from another state. That is legal jurisprudence they are obligated to do no matter what their policy is on marriage licensing.

This is what you are calling "retaining marriage" and the State of Alabama has no control over it. However, they DO control marriage licensing.

By retain marriage I mean that every law in Alabama regarding marriage, from taxes to power of attorney to inheritance and anything in between, would remain.

Again... What other choice does the State have? Of course the legislation they pass will adhere to federal laws and the Constitution. Why would they pass anything in defiance of that? How could they do it and get away with it?

Because the State of Alabama is operating within the Constitution and federal law, does not mean they endorse or sanction gay marriage in an official capacity. They do not recognize it because there is nothing for them to recognize. They MUST recognize federal laws and the Constitution.

The only change would be that in order to become married in Alabama one would need to file the proper paperwork with the proper government office rather than obtaining a marriage license. Alabama would still authorize marriages in the state.

No, they would not authorize "marriages" of any kind. That's the point of eliminating the licenses. This eliminates state sanction of gay marriage. If you don't think it changes anything but paperwork and formalities.. good! Sounds like a winner of a plan to me... you're okay with it and I'm okay with it. Why are we arguing?

You speak as though Alabama does not have any laws pertaining to marriage, as though it's all federal. Instead, at least under the bill that was proposed and you have talked about previously, Alabama would still have the same marriage laws it does now had the bill passed, excepting that the manner of entering into a marriage in the state would have changed.

It still would have been Alabama authorizing the same types of marriages it had before the bill. In fact, I'm nearly certain you have had a portion of the bill quoted to you which specifically stated that the participants would be authorized by the state to enter into a marriage. The point of eliminating the licenses seemed to be to avoid Kim Davis like situations where a state employee has a problem issuing a license they must issue as part of their job. You are still promoting this idea that only activities which the state licenses are authorized or endorsed by the state, despite the variety of laws, privileges, and benefits afforded to married couples which would remain even without the licenses, despite the state recognizing unlicensed common law marriages.

That is why this argument continues. You continue to make these bizzare claims about licensing being the only way for states to sanction something, implying that the state will just follow federal law regarding marriage as though there are no state laws regarding marriage, and ignoring that the bill itself stated that no other marriage laws would be changed. It seems like yet more of your personal definition or meaning of words; licensing is the only way by which a state can authorize an activity.

The problem here is, you've taken something completely out of context and you refuse to realize it. The state still has to recognize contract law. They still have to uphold the Constitution. State agencies and courts still have to accept your out-of-state device regardless of what it's called as a matter of legal jurisprudence. They do not have any choice in that matter.

We are hung up on the contextual meaning of "recognize" here. When I am using this term, I mean "sanction" or "endorse" or "authorize" or "license" gay marriage. You know, to 'recognize' in an official capacity. You are using a broader context of the word to mean "acknowledge existence of." Now, I can't do a thing in the world for your atrophied brain. If you don't comprehend context, that's your problem.

Licensing IS state sanctioning. There is no other way to put it. It is the official state sanctioning, endorsing and authorizing of a particular thing. Alabama will not be doing it anymore. You can complete a form and get a civil union contract. The state doesn't care what you do with that... if you want to call it a "marriage" contract, that's your business, the state isn't calling it anything other than a civil union contract. Nothing else changes because nothing else needs to change.

You don't seem to understand. Under the bill that was proposed, Alabama would still be authorizing marriages. It would not simply be Alabama recognizing out of state marriages. Couples would still get civil marriages in Alabama. They would not get contracts which they could name what they want, they would get state authorized civil marriages.

Perhaps some future bill will change that, but the bill that has already been proposed and ended up not being passed because it needed a super-majority or something like that would have had the state continuing to provide civil marriages.

If you can show where the bill would have changed civil marriages into civil unions, please do.

 

[Seawytch]

Alabama would in fact hold the marriage contracts. So yes, they have the capacity to hold them and would be holding them should that law pass.

Amazingly, you still don't know this despite it being brought to your attention repeatedly.

Holding the contracts? What the hell does that mean and what does it have to do with endorsing, sanctioning or supporting marriage? There would be civil union contracts and any two people could apply for them. That's not "retaining marriage" in my view.

What keeps being brought to my attention is that it doesn't interfere with your little pretend gay thing you call marriage or any of your newly bestowed fundamental rights from SCOTUS. I think that's a good thing since I believe in passing laws that will withstand constitutional scrutiny. If you're okay with it and I'm okay with it, why are we arguing?

It means they would still recognize gay marriages as the legally binding union they are. Now legal in all 50 states, including Alabama should they pass that law.

They recognize whatever legally binding union they are required to. What other choice do you think they have?

I don't believe they have a choice. You're the one claiming they do not have to recognize same-sex marriage since there is nothing they hold.

I'm pointing out the lunacy of that since the state will in fact be holding the marriage contracts.

There will be no "marriage" contracts. There will be domestic civil union contracts. Is that what you mean the state will "hold" (whatever the significance of that is)? They also "hold" rapists and child molesters, does that mean the state is sanctioning, condoning and endorsing rape and child molesting? It must... they are holding them!

There will be no state sanctioning of marriages. No gay ones, no straight ones, no civil ones, no contracted ones, no "held" ones, no pretend ones or real ones. You can dismiss it as nothing more than a simple clerical detail in paperwork but it's a significant detail. You can think it's meaningless, loony, pointless, whatever... I don't care. In fact, I think that is a good thing. It means you don't have any objections.

If you're okay with this and I'm okay with this, why are we continuing to argue? You don't think it does what I claim? Okay... fine... again, I don't care. You're entitled to your opinion. I think it removes the state from sanctioning marriages. I also think it will ultimately be the solution many states adopt. Marriage, as a state-sanctioned institution is going bye-bye.

Your backwards assed state would still have to abide by Full Faith and Credit. You would STILL have married couples, gay and straight, living in Alabama.

 

[playtime]

A poll reflects how the attitudes of society are changing.

Just as society once considered mixed race marriages 'abnormal' and such couples were shunned by society- so to will some bigots shun homosexuals.

But attitudes change over time- and bigots like Boss are the ones that end up being shunned.

Yet, when asked by parents, would you prefer that your child be straight or gay, it's likely the overwhelming majority would say straight.

You are a long way from gay being accepted as normal.

Most times that answer is because of bigots & their discrimination that they wouldn't want their children to experience. Of course there are the douches that would 'disown' their kids if they are gay, & couldn't 'prefer' anything else anyways.

No, it's because straight is normal and productive, both near time and far into the future. Male/female couplings are likely to create offspring. Same sex couplings never do.

Normal people want to provide for the survival of the species, abnormal don't give a flying fuck if the species continues.

That is why most would want a straight child......

?

Do you actually think many people, heterosexual or homosexual, consider the continuance of the species when they get in relationships or have sex or are preparing to have children?

Yes, but only heterosexuals actually have to consider it. We actually have skin in the game.

LOL- some may welcome the fact that isn't a consideration... ie sterile heteros.

 

[playtime]

I'm not anti gay. I love gay people. They are some of the sweetest people I know. I'm in a creative field and have worked with gay people my entire professional life. They are funny, intelligent, very creative and colorful. That's not to say they all are, I don't want to stereotype gays, there are some belligerent assholes like you.

Sorry bigot, but nobody that "loves gay people" throws the faggot word around like you do.

Pshh.. I know gay people who use the word faggot. Is it like the "N" word with blacks, only gays can use it? That would be typical of the double standards you hypocrites promote.

Like I said before, you need to grow some thicker skin if you're going to be a weirdo.

I'm sure some do... but it's still different when *you* say it. You aren't being facetious when you do it.

 

[Syriusly]

If you can get enough people to agree to do away with civil marriage...

It's not a matter of "do away with" ...we can't do away with civil domestic unions even if we wanted to... those are going to happen.

Of course, your own state has had a proposed bill which would have ended licenses for marriage while retaining marriage.

What do you mean by "retain marriage?" How does the state retain something it doesn't have the capacity to hold?

We've already covered this ground. The state can't defy federal laws or the Constitution. They are obligated by law to uphold the law. So, yes... they have to recognize any domestic partnership regardless of what it is called along with the accompanying license or contract from another state. That is legal jurisprudence they are obligated to do no matter what their policy is on marriage licensing.

This is what you are calling "retaining marriage" and the State of Alabama has no control over it. However, they DO control marriage licensing.

By retain marriage I mean that every law in Alabama regarding marriage, from taxes to power of attorney to inheritance and anything in between, would remain.

Again... What other choice does the State have? Of course the legislation they pass will adhere to federal laws and the Constitution. Why would they pass anything in defiance of that? How could they do it and get away with it?

Because the State of Alabama is operating within the Constitution and federal law, does not mean they endorse or sanction gay marriage in an official capacity. They do not recognize it because there is nothing for them to recognize. They MUST recognize federal laws and the Constitution.

The only change would be that in order to become married in Alabama one would need to file the proper paperwork with the proper government office rather than obtaining a marriage license. Alabama would still authorize marriages in the state.

No, they would not authorize "marriages" of any kind. That's the point of eliminating the licenses. This eliminates state sanction of gay marriage. If you don't think it changes anything but paperwork and formalities.. good! Sounds like a winner of a plan to me... you're okay with it and I'm okay with it. Why are we arguing?

You speak as though Alabama does not have any laws pertaining to marriage, as though it's all federal. Instead, at least under the bill that was proposed and you have talked about previously, Alabama would still have the same marriage laws it does now had the bill passed, excepting that the manner of entering into a marriage in the state would have changed.

It still would have been Alabama authorizing the same types of marriages it had before the bill. In fact, I'm nearly certain you have had a portion of the bill quoted to you which specifically stated that the participants would be authorized by the state to enter into a marriage. The point of eliminating the licenses seemed to be to avoid Kim Davis like situations where a state employee has a problem issuing a license they must issue as part of their job. You are still promoting this idea that only activities which the state licenses are authorized or endorsed by the state, despite the variety of laws, privileges, and benefits afforded to married couples which would remain even without the licenses, despite the state recognizing unlicensed common law marriages.

That is why this argument continues. You continue to make these bizzare claims about licensing being the only way for states to sanction something, implying that the state will just follow federal law regarding marriage as though there are no state laws regarding marriage, and ignoring that the bill itself stated that no other marriage laws would be changed. It seems like yet more of your personal definition or meaning of words; licensing is the only way by which a state can authorize an activity.

The problem here is, you've taken something completely out of context and you refuse to realize it..

Says Boss- quoting Boss- citing Boss.

The problem here is with Boss's bizarre fantasy of the world.

 

[playtime]

Yet, when asked by parents, would you prefer that your child be straight or gay, it's likely the overwhelming majority would say straight.

You are a long way from gay being accepted as normal.

Most times that answer is because of bigots & their discrimination that they wouldn't want their children to experience. Of course there are the douches that would 'disown' their kids if they are gay, & couldn't 'prefer' anything else anyways.

No, it's because straight is normal and productive, both near time and far into the future. Male/female couplings are likely to create offspring. Same sex couplings never do.

Normal people want to provide for the survival of the species, abnormal don't give a flying fuck if the species continues.

That is why most would want a straight child......

?

Do you actually think many people, heterosexual or homosexual, consider the continuance of the species when they get in relationships or have sex or are preparing to have children?

Yes, but only heterosexuals actually have to consider it. We actually have skin in the game.

How incredibly stupid and ignorant.

No human has to consider the 'continuance' of the species- and frankly most babies born are not conceived in order to further the species but because a man and a woman have sex which accidentally results in children.

Anyone who is fertile- male or female- can pass on his or her genes- with or without marriage.

There's too many people on this freakin' planet as it is.

 

[Syriusly]

A poll reflects how the attitudes of society are changing.

Just as society once considered mixed race marriages 'abnormal' and such couples were shunned by society- so to will some bigots shun homosexuals.

But attitudes change over time- and bigots like Boss are the ones that end up being shunned.

Yet, when asked by parents, would you prefer that your child be straight or gay, it's likely the overwhelming majority would say straight.

You are a long way from gay being accepted as normal.

Most times that answer is because of bigots & their discrimination that they wouldn't want their children to experience. Of course there are the douches that would 'disown' their kids if they are gay, & couldn't 'prefer' anything else anyways.

No, it's because straight is normal and productive, both near time and far into the future. Male/female couplings are likely to create offspring. Same sex couplings never do.

Normal people want to provide for the survival of the species, abnormal don't give a flying fuck if the species continues.

That is why most would want a straight child......

So you want to marry Kate Upton's titties also?

And she my "Mr. Happy"

I'm sure if she saw mine, she would agree.

Good lord you are lame.

So why exactly do you want to marry Kate Upton's titties- and not the rest of her?

 

[playtime]

And unlike you homosexuals, we indeed are concerned about the continuation of our species.

LOL- not to worry:

Worldometers - real time world statistics

 

[Syriusly]

Most times that answer is because of bigots & their discrimination that they wouldn't want their children to experience. Of course there are the douches that would 'disown' their kids if they are gay, & couldn't 'prefer' anything else anyways.

No, it's because straight is normal and productive, both near time and far into the future. Male/female couplings are likely to create offspring. Same sex couplings never do.

Normal people want to provide for the survival of the species, abnormal don't give a flying fuck if the species continues.

That is why most would want a straight child......

?

Do you actually think many people, heterosexual or homosexual, consider the continuance of the species when they get in relationships or have sex or are preparing to have children?

Yes, but only heterosexuals actually have to consider it. We actually have skin in the game.

How incredibly stupid and ignorant.

No human has to consider the 'continuance' of the species- and frankly most babies born are not conceived in order to further the species but because a man and a woman have sex which accidentally results in children.

Anyone who is fertile- male or female- can pass on his or her genes- with or without marriage.

And unlike you homosexuals, we indeed are concerned about the continuation of our species.

LOL- Boss- unlike you people with teeny tiny dicks, the rest of us heterosexuals, have children because we want to enjoy having children.

My wife and I never thought "Hey we should have children for the continuation of our species!"- but I guess those of you with teeny tiny little dicks need that kind of motivation to extract enough sperm from your teeny tiny little nutsacks to manage to impregnate a woman.

 

[Seawytch]

No, it's because straight is normal and productive, both near time and far into the future. Male/female couplings are likely to create offspring. Same sex couplings never do.

Normal people want to provide for the survival of the species, abnormal don't give a flying fuck if the species continues.

That is why most would want a straight child......

?

Do you actually think many people, heterosexual or homosexual, consider the continuance of the species when they get in relationships or have sex or are preparing to have children?

Yes, but only heterosexuals actually have to consider it. We actually have skin in the game.

How incredibly stupid and ignorant.

No human has to consider the 'continuance' of the species- and frankly most babies born are not conceived in order to further the species but because a man and a woman have sex which accidentally results in children.

Anyone who is fertile- male or female- can pass on his or her genes- with or without marriage.

And unlike you homosexuals, we indeed are concerned about the continuation of our species.

LOL- Boss- unlike you people with teeny tiny dicks, the rest of us heterosexuals, have children because we want to enjoy having children.

My wife and I never thought "Hey we should have children for the continuation of our species!"- but I guess those of you with teeny tiny little dicks need that kind of motivation to extract enough sperm from your teeny tiny little nutsacks to manage to impregnate a woman.

Not to mention the fact that gays have always existed and still the species perpetuates.

 

[Boss]

You don't seem to understand. Under the bill that was proposed, Alabama would still be authorizing marriages.

No, they specifically would not be.

 

[Boss]

Couples would still get civil marriages in Alabama.

Couples all over the world are still going to get civil marriages no matter WHAT Alabama does.

 

[Boss]

..they would get state authorized civil marriages.

No, they would get state-authorized contracts of civil union. If they want to "marry" that is up to them. The state makes no distinction, nor does it recognize such on the part of the individuals. It is simply a contract between two parties as far as Alabama is concerned.

 

[Boss]

If you can show where the bill would have changed civil marriages into civil unions, please do.

The text of the bill is available but you have this trouble understanding context so it won't do you much good to read it. You are interpreting Alabama's obligation under the Constitution and federal laws as "state recognition" and that's not the same meaning I am talking about.

We've been over it a thousand times. You say it only changes from a license to a contract... fine. That's all it has to do. That simple action removes the state from sanctioning or endorsing the act. If you don't think it does... fine. I believe that's what it does. Are we just going to argue over that? What difference does it make?

 

[Boss]

Your backwards assed state would still have to abide by Full Faith and Credit. You would STILL have married couples, gay and straight, living in Alabama.

GREAT! Just so long as they don't start wearing mullets and waving rebel flags around!