Kentucky Bill Passes: Gay Marriage & Normal Marriage Licenses Now Different

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And where, pray tell, does Kentucky make a legal distinction between same sex and opposite sex marriage?

See, there's this thing called "reading the OP before you start babbling ignorantly". You should look into it.

Well, see....the piece in the OP says there is a distinction between the two types of marriage certificates.

That's not what I asked. I asked for the legal distinction. Not the font on a certificate.

There is no 'gay marriage' in Kentucky law. There is merely marriage.

Correct.

But for the state to seek to change the wording on a legal, sanctioned state document, in bad faith, for no other reason than to disadvantage a particular class of persons, solely because of who they are, certainly warrants a legal challenge.

 

[Skylar]

How about getting rid of marriage licensing altogether? Why in a supposedly free country do we need permission from the government to get married?

It has nothing to do with 'permission' from the government to get married.

Marriage is contract law, written by the states and administered by state courts. In order for marriage contracts to be valid and enforceable, they must comport with that contract law – hence the license.

Marriage contract law concerns such issues as property rights, spousal rights and responsibilities, child custody, and dissolution of the marriage contract.

Indeed, this is fundamental in understanding why prohibiting same-sex couples access to marriage law is un-Constitutional, as persons eligible to enter into a marriage contract, they're being denied the benefit of that marriage contract for no other reason than who they are.

All of those things can be handled privately without the state's involvement.

IF we could have a legislative mulligan, that is exactly the best way to handle this. Civil unions for all of us who want it - and protection for that contract through interstate commerce.

Voiding all marriage certificates in the nation just to keep gays from being allowed to marry seems a bit of an overreaction, wouldn't you say?

Here's a much simpler solution: simply recognize same sex marriages as being as legally valid as opposite sex marriages. Which is exactly what we do now.

It simpler and works just as well.

 

[Skylar]

Ah, shit-stain.....don't you know that civility pays?

There is no 'separate but equal' in Kentucky. As there is no distinction in the law. The law treats same sex marriage and opposite sex marriage as marriage. All the same laws apply in the same ways.

If they didn't, there would be an issue.

See how that works, boy?

I'll type slowly now, honey chunks:

Well, see....the piece in the OP says there is a distinction between the two types of marriage certificates.

Again, my little dipshit.....there is no distinction in the way that Kentucky treats the marriages under the law. Kentucky doesn't even recognize tnat 'same sex marriage' even exists. Merely 'marriage'. Which includes both opposite sex and same sex couples.

Without being treated differently under the law, your 'separate but equal' narrative is just more meaningless gibberish.

See how that works, boy?

 

[Si modo]

Voiding all marriage certificates in the nation just to keep gays from being allowed to marry seems a bit of an overreaction, wouldn't you say?

Who said we should do that?

Oh, you did.

Pardon my interruption of your argument with yourself.

 

[Skylar]

Voiding all marriage certificates in the nation just to keep gays from being allowed to marry seems a bit of an overreaction, wouldn't you say?

Who said we should do that?

This poor sod:

IF we could have a legislative mulligan, that is exactly the best way to handle this. Civil unions for all of us who want it - and protection for that contract through interstate commerce.

No, sweetie....that's not the best way to handle it. The best way is what we have. Marriage for same sex couples and opposite sex couples. There's no need for a 'legal mulligan' voiding of all marriage certificates. Simply recognizing same sex couples as part of the union is simpler and works just as well.

Which is probably why the Supreme Court did it.

See how that works, boy?

 

[Si modo]

Ah, shit-stain.....don't you know that civility pays?

There is no 'separate but equal' in Kentucky. As there is no distinction in the law. The law treats same sex marriage and opposite sex marriage as marriage. All the same laws apply in the same ways.

If they didn't, there would be an issue.

See how that works, boy?

I'll type slowly now, honey chunks:

Well, see....the piece in the OP says there is a distinction between the two types of marriage certificates.

Again, my little dipshit.....there is no distinction in the way that Kentucky treats the marriages under the law. Kentucky doesn't even recognize tnat 'same sex marriage' even exists. Merely 'marriage'. Which includes both opposite sex and same sex couples.

Without being treated differently under the law, your 'separate but equal' narrative is just more meaningless gibberish.

See how that works, boy?

But, the licenses are different.

Although they - the documents - are equal under the law, they are separate documents - separated based on same sex.

Separate but equal.

You're getting awfully angry. I'm not the only one who has tried to explain this to you in this thread.

I suspect you're a moronic troll at this point.

 

[Si modo]

Voiding all marriage certificates in the nation just to keep gays from being allowed to marry seems a bit of an overreaction, wouldn't you say?

Who said we should do that?

This poor sod:

IF we could have a legislative mulligan, that is exactly the best way to handle this. Civil unions for all of us who want it - and protection for that contract through interstate commerce.

No, sweetie....that's not the best way to handle it. The best way is what we have. Marriage for same sex couples and opposite sex couples. There's no need for a 'legal mulligan' voiding of all marriage certificates. Simply recognizing same sex couples as part of the union is simpler and works just as well.

Which is probably why the Supreme Court did it.

See how that works, boy?

^^^^Moron doesn't know what "IF" means.

Please continue arguing with yourself.

 

[Skylar]

And where, pray tell, does Kentucky make a legal distinction between same sex and opposite sex marriage?

See, there's this thing called "reading the OP before you start babbling ignorantly". You should look into it.

Well, see....the piece in the OP says there is a distinction between the two types of marriage certificates.

That's not what I asked. I asked for the legal distinction. Not the font on a certificate.

There is no 'gay marriage' in Kentucky law. There is merely marriage.

Correct.

But for the state to seek to change the wording on a legal, sanctioned state document, in bad faith, for no other reason than to disadvantage a particular class of persons, solely because of who they are, certainly warrants a legal challenge.

Oh, there will be a legal challenge. But the judge in the case already indicated that if the documents are just as valid that minor cosmetic differences aren't that big a deal.

And there have been no changes to the validity of marriages certificates issued to same sex couples. Or the way that their marriages are treated under the law.

Its gonna be a hard sell.

 

[Skylar]

Ah, shit-stain.....don't you know that civility pays?

There is no 'separate but equal' in Kentucky. As there is no distinction in the law. The law treats same sex marriage and opposite sex marriage as marriage. All the same laws apply in the same ways.

If they didn't, there would be an issue.

See how that works, boy?

I'll type slowly now, honey chunks:

Well, see....the piece in the OP says there is a distinction between the two types of marriage certificates.

Again, my little dipshit.....there is no distinction in the way that Kentucky treats the marriages under the law. Kentucky doesn't even recognize tnat 'same sex marriage' even exists. Merely 'marriage'. Which includes both opposite sex and same sex couples.

Without being treated differently under the law, your 'separate but equal' narrative is just more meaningless gibberish.

See how that works, boy?

But, the licenses are different.

Although they - the documents - are equal under the law, they are separate documents - separated based on same sex.

There is no 'separation'. They use the same facilities, the same courts, the same statutes, the same laws. The State of Kentucky doesn't even recognize the existence of 'same sex marriage' in their law. There is merely 'marriage'.

Everyone using the exact same law.

See how that works, boy?

 

[Si modo]

Ah, shit-stain.....don't you know that civility pays?

There is no 'separate but equal' in Kentucky. As there is no distinction in the law. The law treats same sex marriage and opposite sex marriage as marriage. All the same laws apply in the same ways.

If they didn't, there would be an issue.

See how that works, boy?

I'll type slowly now, honey chunks:

Well, see....the piece in the OP says there is a distinction between the two types of marriage certificates.

Again, my little dipshit.....there is no distinction in the way that Kentucky treats the marriages under the law. Kentucky doesn't even recognize tnat 'same sex marriage' even exists. Merely 'marriage'. Which includes both opposite sex and same sex couples.

Without being treated differently under the law, your 'separate but equal' narrative is just more meaningless gibberish.

See how that works, boy?

But, the licenses are different.

Although they - the documents - are equal under the law, they are separate documents - separated based on same sex.

There is no 'separation'. They use the same facilities, the same courts, the same statutes, the same laws. The State of Kentucky doesn't even recognize the existence of 'same sex marriage' in their law. There is merely 'marriage'.

Everyone using the exact same law.

See how that works, boy?

 

[Skylar]

Voiding all marriage certificates in the nation just to keep gays from being allowed to marry seems a bit of an overreaction, wouldn't you say?

Who said we should do that?

This poor sod:

IF we could have a legislative mulligan, that is exactly the best way to handle this. Civil unions for all of us who want it - and protection for that contract through interstate commerce.

No, sweetie....that's not the best way to handle it. The best way is what we have. Marriage for same sex couples and opposite sex couples. There's no need for a 'legal mulligan' voiding of all marriage certificates. Simply recognizing same sex couples as part of the union is simpler and works just as well.

Which is probably why the Supreme Court did it.

See how that works, boy?

^^^^Moron doesn't know what "IF" means.

Please continue arguing with yourself.

And our resident dipshit abandons his entire argument. So much for your 'best way to handle it'.

As I said, the best way to handle it is exactly how we have: merely recognize same sex couples as part of the union. And every issue is solved simply and without any absurd 'legal mulligan' that voids all marriage certificates as you insist is 'the best way'.

 

[Si modo]

Voiding all marriage certificates in the nation just to keep gays from being allowed to marry seems a bit of an overreaction, wouldn't you say?

Who said we should do that?

This poor sod:

IF we could have a legislative mulligan, that is exactly the best way to handle this. Civil unions for all of us who want it - and protection for that contract through interstate commerce.

No, sweetie....that's not the best way to handle it. The best way is what we have. Marriage for same sex couples and opposite sex couples. There's no need for a 'legal mulligan' voiding of all marriage certificates. Simply recognizing same sex couples as part of the union is simpler and works just as well.

Which is probably why the Supreme Court did it.

See how that works, boy?

^^^^Moron doesn't know what "IF" means.

Please continue arguing with yourself.

And our resident dipshit abandons his entire argument. So much for your 'best way to handle it'.

As I said, the best way to handle it is exactly how we have: merely recognize same sex couples as part of the union. And every issue is solved simply and without any absurd 'legal mulligan' that voids all marriage certificates as you insist is 'the best way'.

I just don't feel comfortable interrupting your argument with yourself.

But, your anger is entertaining.

 

[Skylar]

Voiding all marriage certificates in the nation just to keep gays from being allowed to marry seems a bit of an overreaction, wouldn't you say?

Who said we should do that?

This poor sod:

IF we could have a legislative mulligan, that is exactly the best way to handle this. Civil unions for all of us who want it - and protection for that contract through interstate commerce.

No, sweetie....that's not the best way to handle it. The best way is what we have. Marriage for same sex couples and opposite sex couples. There's no need for a 'legal mulligan' voiding of all marriage certificates. Simply recognizing same sex couples as part of the union is simpler and works just as well.

Which is probably why the Supreme Court did it.

See how that works, boy?

^^^^Moron doesn't know what "IF" means.

Please continue arguing with yourself.

And our resident dipshit abandons his entire argument. So much for your 'best way to handle it'.

As I said, the best way to handle it is exactly how we have: merely recognize same sex couples as part of the union. And every issue is solved simply and without any absurd 'legal mulligan' that voids all marriage certificates as you insist is 'the best way'.

I just don't feel comfortable interrupting your argument with yourself.

But, your anger is entertaining.

Laughing.......with you predictably abandoning your entire 'legal mulligan' nonsense, is there any claim I can't run you off of?

 

[Si modo]

Who said we should do that?

This poor sod:

IF we could have a legislative mulligan, that is exactly the best way to handle this. Civil unions for all of us who want it - and protection for that contract through interstate commerce.

No, sweetie....that's not the best way to handle it. The best way is what we have. Marriage for same sex couples and opposite sex couples. There's no need for a 'legal mulligan' voiding of all marriage certificates. Simply recognizing same sex couples as part of the union is simpler and works just as well.

Which is probably why the Supreme Court did it.

See how that works, boy?

^^^^Moron doesn't know what "IF" means.

Please continue arguing with yourself.

And our resident dipshit abandons his entire argument. So much for your 'best way to handle it'.

As I said, the best way to handle it is exactly how we have: merely recognize same sex couples as part of the union. And every issue is solved simply and without any absurd 'legal mulligan' that voids all marriage certificates as you insist is 'the best way'.

I just don't feel comfortable interrupting your argument with yourself.

But, your anger is entertaining.

Laughing.......with you predictably abandoning your entire 'legal mulligan' nonsense, is there any claim I can't run you off of?

Oh my. Need a tampon?

 

[Skylar]

This poor sod:

No, sweetie....that's not the best way to handle it. The best way is what we have. Marriage for same sex couples and opposite sex couples. There's no need for a 'legal mulligan' voiding of all marriage certificates. Simply recognizing same sex couples as part of the union is simpler and works just as well.

Which is probably why the Supreme Court did it.

See how that works, boy?

^^^^Moron doesn't know what "IF" means.

Please continue arguing with yourself.

And our resident dipshit abandons his entire argument. So much for your 'best way to handle it'.

As I said, the best way to handle it is exactly how we have: merely recognize same sex couples as part of the union. And every issue is solved simply and without any absurd 'legal mulligan' that voids all marriage certificates as you insist is 'the best way'.

I just don't feel comfortable interrupting your argument with yourself.

But, your anger is entertaining.

Laughing.......with you predictably abandoning your entire 'legal mulligan' nonsense, is there any claim I can't run you off of?

Oh my. Need a tampon?

And your posts predictably devolve into awkward attempts at insults.

If you ever muster up the courage to comment relevantly on the thread......might I suggest you take a position you won't abandon so readily. As your 'legal mulligan' nonsense is a rhetorical pile that even you won't touch.

Smiling.....now, anyway.

 

[Si modo]

^^^^Moron doesn't know what "IF" means.

Please continue arguing with yourself.

And our resident dipshit abandons his entire argument. So much for your 'best way to handle it'.

As I said, the best way to handle it is exactly how we have: merely recognize same sex couples as part of the union. And every issue is solved simply and without any absurd 'legal mulligan' that voids all marriage certificates as you insist is 'the best way'.

I just don't feel comfortable interrupting your argument with yourself.

But, your anger is entertaining.

Laughing.......with you predictably abandoning your entire 'legal mulligan' nonsense, is there any claim I can't run you off of?

Oh my. Need a tampon?

And your posts predictably devolve into awkward attempts at insults.

If you ever muster up the courage to comment relevantly on the thread......might I suggest you take a position you won't abandon so readily.

As your 'legal mulligan' nonsense is a rhetorical pile that even you won't touch now.

Midol, then?

 

[Skylar]

that whole separate but equal thing hasn't held up since 1950

For race, but behaviors are not about race. So not sure why you brought that up. People make distinctions on behavior every single day of the week. Ever hear of penal codes?

Religion is a behavior. Speech is a behavior. Keeping and bearing arms is a behavior. Yet none of those are the basis of exclusion from marriage either.

Thankfully Kentucky hasn't even tried to change the legal status of same sex married couples. Nor does their law even recognize 'same sex marriage'. Merely 'marriage'. Which both same and opposite sex couples can participate in.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

It is simple and the USSC will rule in a 5-3 decision and tell the State of Kentucky they are wrong... Now why 5-3?

Scalia passed away, so if President Obama get a nomination through then it will be 6-3 ( I know pouring gas on a fire is never wise ) but if a GOP like Trump nominates someone, well it could still be 6-3 because Trump would be like Reagan and nominate Sandra Day O'Connor and not another Scalia to the bench, but no matter what if this hit the USSC the State of Kentucky will lose and the OP will be crying about how the USSC is too Liberal no matter what!

 

[jillian]

that whole separate but equal thing hasn't held up since 1950

For race, but behaviors are not about race. So not sure why you brought that up. People make distinctions on behavior every single day of the week. Ever hear of penal codes?

BTW, on that "separate but equal" issue.... why is gay marriage "legal" but polygamy "illegal". Both are unions of consenting adults based on their kink. Gay is legal, polygamy is not. When you've stumped for polygamy until it is also legal, THEN you will be qualified to speak about that, but not before..

court decisions aren't that narrow.

 

[jillian]

that whole separate but equal thing hasn't held up since 1950

For race, but behaviors are not about race. So not sure why you brought that up. People make distinctions on behavior every single day of the week. Ever hear of penal codes?

Religion is a behavior. Speech is a behavior. Keeping and bearing arms is a behavior. Yet none of those are the basis of exclusion from marriage either.

Thankfully Kentucky hasn't even tried to change the legal status of same sex married couples. Nor does their law even recognize 'same sex marriage'. Merely 'marriage'. Which both same and opposite sex couples can participate in.

kentucky doesn't have a choice.