Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Skylar]

And you're more than welcome to your personal opinion. It still has nothing to do with the law.

As all the same sex couples getting married in every state demonstrate elegantly.

My post had EVERYTHING to do with the law, its limits and what it means when the SCOTUS redefines words to get the opinion it wants to give rather than being limited by the actual words of the law itself.

Your post has everything to do with your personal opinion of what you think the law 'oughta be'. Which doesn't define what the law actually is.

As the lower courts and States are bound by what the court did rule. Not by what you think the court 'shoulda' ruled. Your personal opinion has no legal relevence, defines nothing, limits nothing, affects nothing.

While the USSC ruling is still binding precedent. And gay marriage is still happening in every state of the union.

In what way do laws guide or limit the courts of our nation if they can just redefine the necessary words to mean whatever in the fuck they want?

Redefine them according to who? Necessary according to who? And which terms?

Again, every term you're using is subjective opinion. Where the court's rulings are only valid if YOU say they are. If YOU think they agreed with the constitution.

And you're nobody. You are not the people. Nor are you granted any particular constitutional authority to interpret the constitution in any binding manner. Simply put, the validity of a court ruling is not predicated on YOUR interpretations of the constitution.

Your personal opinion is noted. And?

If you think that there was not a long defined meaning to the word marriage you are either delusional, an idiot or a fucking liar.

They are ruling on how the State must treat marriage under the law. Religious rites and your personal opinion are free to be whatever wish them to be, as they are defined by you.

The law isn't.

And if you don't see the danger in the SCOTUS setting itself up as having no restraint or scope to its authority to even define long defined words, then you are a fucking PC Nazi.

Who says they have no restraint? You do, citing yourself. Your argument is again subjective opinion. And you're more than welcome to it. But why should I give a shit?

A judiciary that extends rights doesn't worry me much. A judiciary that extends government power does worry me. The Obergefell ruling extended individual rights. And doesn't effect me in the slightest.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

Oh, and thanks for satisfying Godwin's law with your blithering 'nazi' nonsense. If you spent half the time formulating your argument that you do spewing vitriol and verbal feces upon anyone unfortunate enough to converse with you, you'd be unstoppable.

 

[Skylar]

Under the proposal in Alabama, the state would no longer issue ANY marriage license. Therefore, it ceases to recognize, endorse or sanction ANY kind of marriage. Instead, it will issue contracts.

Nope. As usual, you don't have the slightest clue what you're babbling about. The only one that says that Alabama doesn't recognize marriage....is you. Citing yourself. And you citing you is meaningless pseudo-legal drivel.

Back in reality, SB377 Alabama merely converts it to a contract and removes the licensing requirement. And then recognizes and records the contracts with their Office of Vital Statistics just like they did marriage licenses. Says who?

Says Alabama SB377, the most current incarnation of the Alabama bill in question:

To amend Sections 12-19-90, 22-9A-17, 30-1-5, 12 30-1-12, 30-1-13, 30-1-14, 30-1-16, and 30-6-11 of the Code of Alabama 1975, to abolish the requirement that a marriage license be issued by the judge of probate; to provide that a marriage would be entered into by contract; to provide that the judge of probate would record each contract of marriage presented to the probate office for recording and would forward the contract to the Office of Vital Statistics; to provide for the content of a properly executed contract of marriage; to provide fees for recording; and to repeal Sections 30-1-9, 30-1-10, and 30-1-11 of the Code of Alabama 1975.

http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/ALISON/SearchableInstruments/2015RS/PrintFiles/SB377-eng.pdf

Now why would they be recording with the Office of Vital Statistics something that they don't recognize?

Simple: you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

The bill merely eliminates the licensing requirement and recognizes marriage as a contract. All the same marriage laws apply. Its still marriage. They've merely changed the way its been entered into. No where in the entire bill does it say that they don't recognize the marriage contract, nor that they don't recognize marriages performed in other States.

How did you get this so comically wrong? And you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. To underline this point, I offer you paragraph (f) of section 1 of the very same proposed bill

"This section shall not affect any other legal aspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited
to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or common law marriage."

Paragraph F, Section 1
Alabama SB377

Now how is it possible that they can apply any marriage laws in Alabama...if as you ignorantly insist, Alabama no longer recognizes the existence of any marriages?

Simple: you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. And Alabama obviously does recognize marriage.

As usual, you've offered us your imaginary version of the law, just like you offered us your imaginary version of the constitution, just like you offered us your imaginary version of the Obergefell ruling.

Alas, the States are bound to the ACTUAL law. And not your imagination

 

[JimBowie1958]

Who says they have no restraint? You do, citing yourself. Your argument is again subjective opinion. And you're more than welcome to it. But why should I give a shit?

No, idiot, the SCOTUS has now taken upon themselves the right to redefine words like 'marriage' to also mean what it has never before meant. With that power and authority, they can also redefine any other word they please, stupid ass.

 

[Skylar]

Who says they have no restraint? You do, citing yourself. Your argument is again subjective opinion. And you're more than welcome to it. But why should I give a shit?

No, idiot, the SCOTUS has now taken upon themselves the right to redefine words like 'marriage' to also mean what it has never before meant. With that power and authority, they can also redefine any other word they please, stupid ass.

They've taken upon themselves the authority to intepret the constitution as it relates to how the STATE must treat marriage under the law.

You're more than welcome to whatever definition of marriage pleases you. The law however is bound by constitutional guarantees.

Its fascinating though. Unless we're talking about guns, conservatives almost always side with State Power over the rights of the individual. What about being a conservative makes you think that the power of the government is so much more important than individual rights?

 

[Syriusly]

You just keep arguing that there will be a slippery slope. 11 years and no such 'slipping' has happened.

Your bigotry against homosexuals just leads you to your unsubstantiated predictions and opinions.

Again a deflection. States will need to look at the change the USSC made to the law and decide if the law can legally exclude same sex siblings the benefits of marriage

Unless you can come up with a compelling state interest in the denial of these rights, then so will they.

You have a pathetically piss poor understanding of how things work. First of all, SCOTUS did not "change the laws regarding marriage" They invalidated the new laws that were superimposed on those original laws which banned same sex marriage. Doing so DID NOT disturb laws concerning incest, age of consent or anything else.

Secondly, states don't need to look at anything in the absence of a challenge to any existing bans on incest or anything else. If there is, in fact, a challenge, then and only then will states have to justify those laws. I do not know of any such challenges in any state, but if you do, feel free to post them. Then we can all see what rational basis or compelling interest the state comes up with to justify the laws, and what the court did with it.

Please then tell me why same sex marriage was not allowed in all 50 state prior.

You love your semantics.

State do not have to modify laws because of changes on the judicial level but often do without, or to stop legal challenge.

Now, please state the compelling state interest in denying a heterosexual same sex sibling couple from the right to marry.

If you can't, admit defeat.

If you have an argument to make for sibling same sex marriage....make it. Tell us why you want it. Instead, you're laughably insisting that WE make your argument for you, telling you why we should have sibling marriage.

You want it. You make the argument. If you can't, admit defeat, Troll.

I beleive I've posted many times my opposition to it, and many times I've asked the question you progressives(?) can't or won't amswer:

What is the compelling state interest in denying this right to hetro same sex siblings?

Go ahead Sally, giver her a shot.

Pop still trying to get someone to dance with his straw man.

Pop- feel free to test it out- try to marry your sibling and see what the State says its compelling interest is.

 

[Syriusly]

I was responding to your one, inane comment about "sponsoring sexual behavior" I'm not arguing the law with you at this point. That is clearly a dead end. It's apparent that you will not own up to truth about your underlying attitude towards gay people. You cant see the issue in human terms.

Finally, I am the one who sees marriage in human terms, you are the one who advocates the legal terms. I support marriage being defined by the individual and not government. You support marriage as defined by the court to ensure some protection from a perception of inequity under the law.

No- you are seeing marriage strictly on your terms.

You don't care about the opinion of any other Americans- this entire thread is your proposal to 'kill marriage' for homosexuals- and you are willing to 'kill marriage' for Americans to do so.

That is not an 'individual' level- that is a petty revenge level.

 

[Syriusly]

You have attempted to refute that with the inane claim that only marriages obtained by issuance of a license are really marriages.

No I haven't and you won't find anywhere that I've said that. Marriages are whatever people want to call them. I can marry my fucking mailbox if I want to call it that. So it's ridiculous to claim that the only kind of marriages that exist are the ones ordained and sanctioned by the state.

Removing States from the obligation of issuing a license for marriage, eliminates the state sanctioning of said marriage. It's no longer a state-sanctioned thing. It might be replaced by a private contract between parties but the State doesn't endorse whatever intent is of any contract. Marriage has been a type of contract, but with a marriage license the State is specifically endorsing marriage.

Again... private party contracts have been around forever. We're going to have those no matter what happens to gay marriage. You can argue that the state would still be sanctioning gay marriage in a round about way, but that has been the case for over 200 years in America, or as long as two parties have had contract law available.

Under the proposal in Alabama, the state would no longer issue ANY marriage license. Therefore, it ceases to recognize, endorse or sanction ANY kind of marriage. .

Alabama will continue to recognize both marriages made in Alabama and marriages performed outside of Alabama.

All of the legal recognition of marriage in Alabama will continue exactly the same.

The only thing that changes is that the state will not issue licenses- but will recognize marriages through a different operation.

And that is fine with me- it will probably screw over Alabamans who just want to get married, but since it will screw over all Alabamans equally- and since despite your objections- gay Alabamans will continue to be legally married- just like any other Alabamans- in Alabama- its all fine with me.

Legal marriage in Alabama would remain exactly the same- except on how the legal recognition is recorded.

Alabama will continue to recognize both marriages made in Alabama and marriages performed outside of Alabama.

All of the legal recognition of marriage in Alabama will continue exactly the same.

The only thing that changes is that the state will not issue licenses- but will recognize marriages through a different operation.

And that is fine with me- it will probably screw over Alabamans who just want to get married, but since it will screw over all Alabamans equally- and since despite your objections- gay Alabamans will continue to be legally married- just like any other Alabamans- in Alabama- its all fine with me.

Legal marriage in Alabama would remain exactly the same- except on how the legal recognition is recorded

 

[Skylar]

You have attempted to refute that with the inane claim that only marriages obtained by issuance of a license are really marriages.

No I haven't and you won't find anywhere that I've said that. Marriages are whatever people want to call them. I can marry my fucking mailbox if I want to call it that. So it's ridiculous to claim that the only kind of marriages that exist are the ones ordained and sanctioned by the state.

Removing States from the obligation of issuing a license for marriage, eliminates the state sanctioning of said marriage. It's no longer a state-sanctioned thing. It might be replaced by a private contract between parties but the State doesn't endorse whatever intent is of any contract. Marriage has been a type of contract, but with a marriage license the State is specifically endorsing marriage.

Again... private party contracts have been around forever. We're going to have those no matter what happens to gay marriage. You can argue that the state would still be sanctioning gay marriage in a round about way, but that has been the case for over 200 years in America, or as long as two parties have had contract law available.

Under the proposal in Alabama, the state would no longer issue ANY marriage license. Therefore, it ceases to recognize, endorse or sanction ANY kind of marriage. .

Alabama will continue to recognize both marriages made in Alabama and marriages performed outside of Alabama.

All of the legal recognition of marriage in Alabama will continue exactly the same.

The only thing that changes is that the state will not issue licenses- but will recognize marriages through a different operation.

And that is fine with me- it will probably screw over Alabamans who just want to get married, but since it will screw over all Alabamans equally- and since despite your objections- gay Alabamans will continue to be legally married- just like any other Alabamans- in Alabama- its all fine with me.

Legal marriage in Alabama would remain exactly the same- except on how the legal recognition is recorded.

Alabama will continue to recognize both marriages made in Alabama and marriages performed outside of Alabama.

All of the legal recognition of marriage in Alabama will continue exactly the same.

The only thing that changes is that the state will not issue licenses- but will recognize marriages through a different operation.

And that is fine with me- it will probably screw over Alabamans who just want to get married, but since it will screw over all Alabamans equally- and since despite your objections- gay Alabamans will continue to be legally married- just like any other Alabamans- in Alabama- its all fine with me.

Legal marriage in Alabama would remain exactly the same- except on how the legal recognition is recorded

Exactly. And if Alabama tries to use the change in the method of recording marriages as a justification for denying same sex couples access to marriage.......they run head long into this passage from Obergefell:

"The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the
same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex. "

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

It doesn't matter what Alabama calls marriage or how they record it. Whatever terms for marriage that are accorded to opposite sex couples are also accorded to same sex couples.

 

[Montrovant]

You have attempted to refute that with the inane claim that only marriages obtained by issuance of a license are really marriages.

No I haven't and you won't find anywhere that I've said that. Marriages are whatever people want to call them. I can marry my fucking mailbox if I want to call it that. So it's ridiculous to claim that the only kind of marriages that exist are the ones ordained and sanctioned by the state.

Removing States from the obligation of issuing a license for marriage, eliminates the state sanctioning of said marriage. It's no longer a state-sanctioned thing. It might be replaced by a private contract between parties but the State doesn't endorse whatever intent is of any contract. Marriage has been a type of contract, but with a marriage license the State is specifically endorsing marriage.

Again... private party contracts have been around forever. We're going to have those no matter what happens to gay marriage. You can argue that the state would still be sanctioning gay marriage in a round about way, but that has been the case for over 200 years in America, or as long as two parties have had contract law available.

I did not say that all marriages must be sanctioned by the state. You, however, claimed that the proposed bill in Alabama would get rid of state sanctioned marriage. You based that on the removal of marriage licenses from the process of getting married. Since civil marriage would still exist under the bill, since common law marriages would still exist under the bill, since all of the same rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage would exist under the bill, the only difference appears to be in the issuance of licenses. Therefore, if the only difference between a marriage and a non-marital contract is the issuance of a license, it follows that the issuance of a license is required for a marriage.

Can you point out any difference, other than the need to obtain a license, between civil marriages in Alabama now and civil marriages in Alabama if the bill were to pass?

It's funny that you say marriages are whatever people want to call them. You have claimed that same sex marriages aren't really marriages because marriage is between a man and a woman. Consistency is not your strong suit.

I'll go through this really slowly for you....

If I am a State, and I issue to you a "license to marry" it has a specific intent.

Can anyone in class tell us what the intention of a marriage license would be?

That's right, it's found in the name... A marriage license signifies an intention to marry. If I am a State issuing you a "marriage license" then I fully understand, authorize, endorse, sanction and recognize your intention to marry.

Okay... you understand what a "contract" is? The intention of a contract is to protect the interests of the parties involved. Why the parties want to protect interests is not known or assumed by the State. The State is not endorsing, authorizing, approving, sanctioning or recognizing the reason parties want to protect their interests.

To license something is completely different than providing a legal apparatus to two parties who wish to enter into a contract. If you are not educated enough to know the difference, then I can't do much more to help... I've explained it to you as if you were a 6th grader. Short of breaking out the coloring books, I don't what else I can do.

Under the proposal in Alabama, the state would no longer issue ANY marriage license. Therefore, it ceases to recognize, endorse or sanction ANY kind of marriage. Instead, it will issue contracts. You may have any number of reasons for wanting a contract, the state doesn't care. It is not a party to your reasoning, that is entirely up to you. If you feel you need a contract because of the black helicopters... it's up to you. If you feel you need a contract or your God will be angered... up to you! If you want a contract so you and your gay lover can play house and file tax returns together... your call! --The State has no association with your reasons.

Now... Bonus points class... How long has the United States had contract law where two parties can enter into a contractual agreement with each other to resolve property rights issues and other things? I think you will find this concept predates our nation. To my knowledge, homosexuals have never been excluded from entering into contracts.

Furthermore, we can find that before there was ever a such thing as "gay marriage" ....when that term itself would have been considered a joke... there were homosexual couples obtaining private party contracts between each other to deal with property rights, etc. This has been going on for years and hasn't been a problem because the State isn't a party to the reasons for a contract between two parties.

This has already been answered by Syriusly and skylar, but I'll reply as well.

Civil marriage is already a type of contract. Getting a license does not change that. Filling out forms for a government office rather than obtaining a license does not change the state's recognition of marriage. The bill states, over and over, that marriage will continue to exist in and be recognized by the state of Alabama. The only change would be in the way marriages are obtained. Where you get the idea that obtaining a license changes a contract into a marriage or that the proposed bill would end state endorsement of marriage, despite the clear text saying that marriage would remain as a state institution, is beyond me.

Again.....nothing would change with the proposed bill other than the method by which state sanctioned civil marriages are obtained. Nothing. All of the same benefits, responsibilities, etc. would continue as they had in the past. The parties would not have to draw up their own contracts for each individual union. The laws about marriage would all remain the same. The bill even says that non-licensed marriages, common-law marriages, would continue to be recognized by the state. The only difference would be how a couple gets their state sanctioned marriage.

Why do you insist that a license is the only means by which the state recognizes or sanctions a marriage? Where does that bit of opinion come from?

 

[Skylar]

Why do you insist that a license is the only means by which the state recognizes or sanctions a marriage? Where does that bit of opinion come from?

And where in Alabama SB377 does it say that Alabama will no longer recognize marriage from other states?

No where.

You're overthinking this. Boss hasn't read SB377. He couuld give a fiddler's fuck what the bill actually says, as he's just making this shit up as he goes along. Where did he get that particular piece of opinion? The same place he gets virtually all of his arguments.

The rectal database. Pulled out sideways.

 

[Syriusly]

You have attempted to refute that with the inane claim that only marriages obtained by issuance of a license are really marriages.

No I haven't and you won't find anywhere that I've said that. Marriages are whatever people want to call them. I can marry my fucking mailbox if I want to call it that. So it's ridiculous to claim that the only kind of marriages that exist are the ones ordained and sanctioned by the state.

Removing States from the obligation of issuing a license for marriage, eliminates the state sanctioning of said marriage. It's no longer a state-sanctioned thing. It might be replaced by a private contract between parties but the State doesn't endorse whatever intent is of any contract. Marriage has been a type of contract, but with a marriage license the State is specifically endorsing marriage.

Again... private party contracts have been around forever. We're going to have those no matter what happens to gay marriage. You can argue that the state would still be sanctioning gay marriage in a round about way, but that has been the case for over 200 years in America, or as long as two parties have had contract law available.

I did not say that all marriages must be sanctioned by the state. You, however, claimed that the proposed bill in Alabama would get rid of state sanctioned marriage. You based that on the removal of marriage licenses from the process of getting married. Since civil marriage would still exist under the bill, since common law marriages would still exist under the bill, since all of the same rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage would exist under the bill, the only difference appears to be in the issuance of licenses. Therefore, if the only difference between a marriage and a non-marital contract is the issuance of a license, it follows that the issuance of a license is required for a marriage.

Can you point out any difference, other than the need to obtain a license, between civil marriages in Alabama now and civil marriages in Alabama if the bill were to pass?

It's funny that you say marriages are whatever people want to call them. You have claimed that same sex marriages aren't really marriages because marriage is between a man and a woman. Consistency is not your strong suit.

I'll go through this really slowly for you....

If I am a State, and I issue to you a "license to marry" it has a specific intent.

Can anyone in class tell us what the intention of a marriage license would be?

That's right, it's found in the name... A marriage license signifies an intention to marry. If I am a State issuing you a "marriage license" then I fully understand, authorize, endorse, sanction and recognize your intention to marry.

Okay... you understand what a "contract" is? The intention of a contract is to protect the interests of the parties involved. Why the parties want to protect interests is not known or assumed by the State. The State is not endorsing, authorizing, approving, sanctioning or recognizing the reason parties want to protect their interests.

To license something is completely different than providing a legal apparatus to two parties who wish to enter into a contract. If you are not educated enough to know the difference, then I can't do much more to help... I've explained it to you as if you were a 6th grader. Short of breaking out the coloring books, I don't what else I can do.

Under the proposal in Alabama, the state would no longer issue ANY marriage license. Therefore, it ceases to recognize, endorse or sanction ANY kind of marriage. Instead, it will issue contracts. You may have any number of reasons for wanting a contract, the state doesn't care. It is not a party to your reasoning, that is entirely up to you. If you feel you need a contract because of the black helicopters... it's up to you. If you feel you need a contract or your God will be angered... up to you! If you want a contract so you and your gay lover can play house and file tax returns together... your call! --The State has no association with your reasons.

Now... Bonus points class... How long has the United States had contract law where two parties can enter into a contractual agreement with each other to resolve property rights issues and other things? I think you will find this concept predates our nation. To my knowledge, homosexuals have never been excluded from entering into contracts.

Furthermore, we can find that before there was ever a such thing as "gay marriage" ....when that term itself would have been considered a joke... there were homosexual couples obtaining private party contracts between each other to deal with property rights, etc. This has been going on for years and hasn't been a problem because the State isn't a party to the reasons for a contract between two parties.

This has already been answered by Syriusly and skylar, but I'll reply as well.

Civil marriage is already a type of contract. Getting a license does not change that. Filling out forms for a government office rather than obtaining a license does not change the state's recognition of marriage. The bill states, over and over, that marriage will continue to exist in and be recognized by the state of Alabama. The only change would be in the way marriages are obtained. Where you get the idea that obtaining a license changes a contract into a marriage or that the proposed bill would end state endorsement of marriage, despite the clear text saying that marriage would remain as a state institution, is beyond me.

Again.....nothing would change with the proposed bill other than the method by which state sanctioned civil marriages are obtained. Nothing. All of the same benefits, responsibilities, etc. would continue as they had in the past. The parties would not have to draw up their own contracts for each individual union. The laws about marriage would all remain the same. The bill even says that non-licensed marriages, common-law marriages, would continue to be recognized by the state. The only difference would be how a couple gets their state sanctioned marriage.

Why do you insist that a license is the only means by which the state recognizes or sanctions a marriage? Where does that bit of opinion come from?

The very odd thing about Boss's pretend concern about the ramifications of Americans who happen to be gay being allowed to marry each other- is that he has no concerns about the ramifications of Alabama's proposed law.

I know I had to supply a copy of my marriage license at least once to prove to employers that my wife and I were married- for both health and life insurance purposes.

I suspect that many other organizations also require marriage licenses as 'proof of marriage'- I suspect that the Veterans Administration is one of them.

This law will probably fuck Alabamans over royally if it comes to pass- because Alabamans will not be able to obtain the form of proof of marriage everyone else uses- and that is always demanded.

I suspect that Boss is okay with that- just so long as it fucks over gay Alabamans.

 

[EverCurious]

Then they'll have to "recognize" all non-state marriages. And if they want to push it and say they don't recognize any marriages from /any/ state then the fed will step in and tell them to stop acting like fucking children, possibly require them to issue FED marriage licenses instead of state licenses. Which is just what we need right? More fed power...

I don't understand what you all mean when you say "have to recognize" ...what does that mean? If there is no function of the state requiring the need to know your private domestic arrangement, why does anything need to be "recognized" by the state? How would that even be done?

Maybe the State of Alabama should build a monument like the Vietnam War Memorial, where we engrave the names of gay couples getting married? Is that the kind of "recognition" you mean?

As for your notion of a Federal marriage licence... good luck with that, you'll need to change the Constitution. The Fed can't just "step in" whenever you don't get your way, that's not how our nation was established. That might be what some of you want, it's not what we have.

I will add, it's amusing as hell how the lefties are spinning in the wind on this topic. You guys go from laughing and chortling that this won't mean anything and doesn't make any difference... moot point... to pounding your fists demanding that we're going to do as you say or you're going to make us!

What part of the SCOTUS rulings did you miss? They've said states have to recognize /all/ forms of legal marriage, including SSM's. Pretty much every form of federal aid, tax, inheritance, birth, death, hospital visit, etc. "recognizes" marriage in some form or another. ALL of those things must be "recognized" by the state, and when the constitutional ruling is that SSM is equal to OSM, the state has to follow that. They cant' just say well, this couple has an SSM so their Medicaid income qualifications, state taxes, etc. are based on single, but the OSM couple goes off of "married" qualifications. That's part of why the SCOTUS had to step in, because it's discrimination.

SCOTUS will rule, yet again, that it is discrimination if Alabama attempts to declare SSM not legal marriage, it's impossible for a state not to recognize marriage because of the various legal ramifications of it all over the place.

I find it amusing that you think I'm a lefty, even though my shits right there in my sig. I'm actually pretty damn republican, except I'm a /real/ republican in that I don't use the bible to color my beliefs in equality.

Anyway, I don't want the Fed's to have any more power, in fact I'd like them to have less and states more, but ya'll bigots keep pushing shit until it becomes a national (aka a FED) issue, and "proving" to the entire country's swath of socialist pushers that states are not able to rule themselves without being bigots - which means they vote in more fed power. You don't think they'd push for a constitutional measure? You mean like deleting the 2nd amendment? Nooo they'd never pine to do that would they? lol

 

[Skylar]

Then they'll have to "recognize" all non-state marriages. And if they want to push it and say they don't recognize any marriages from /any/ state then the fed will step in and tell them to stop acting like fucking children, possibly require them to issue FED marriage licenses instead of state licenses. Which is just what we need right? More fed power...

I don't understand what you all mean when you say "have to recognize" ...what does that mean? If there is no function of the state requiring the need to know your private domestic arrangement, why does anything need to be "recognized" by the state? How would that even be done?

Maybe the State of Alabama should build a monument like the Vietnam War Memorial, where we engrave the names of gay couples getting married? Is that the kind of "recognition" you mean?

As for your notion of a Federal marriage licence... good luck with that, you'll need to change the Constitution. The Fed can't just "step in" whenever you don't get your way, that's not how our nation was established. That might be what some of you want, it's not what we have.

I will add, it's amusing as hell how the lefties are spinning in the wind on this topic. You guys go from laughing and chortling that this won't mean anything and doesn't make any difference... moot point... to pounding your fists demanding that we're going to do as you say or you're going to make us!

What part of the SCOTUS rulings did you miss? They've said states have to recognize /all/ forms of legal marriage, including SSM's. Pretty much every form of federal aid, tax, inheritance, birth, death, hospital visit, etc. "recognizes" marriage in some form or another. ALL of those things must be "recognized" by the state, and when the constitutional ruling is that SSM is equal to OSM, the state has to follow that. They cant' just say well, this couple has an SSM so their Medicaid income qualifications, state taxes, etc. are based on single, but the OSM couple goes off of "married" qualifications. That's part of why the SCOTUS had to step in, because it's discrimination.

SCOTUS will rule, yet again, that it is discrimination if Alabama attempts to declare SSM not legal marriage, it's impossible for a state not to recognize marriage because of the various legal ramifications of it all over the place.

I find it amusing that you think I'm a lefty, even though my shits right there in my sig. I'm actually pretty damn republican, except I'm a /real/ republican in that I don't use the bible to color my beliefs in equality.

Anyway, I don't want the Fed's to have any more power, in fact I'd like them to have less and states more, but ya'll bigots keep pushing shit until it becomes a national (aka a FED) issue, and "proving" to the entire country's swath of socialist pushers that states are not able to rule themselves without being bigots - which means they vote in more fed power. You don't think they'd push for a constitutional measure? You mean like deleting the 2nd amendment? Nooo they'd never pine to do that would they? lol

The Alabama bill itself says that it doesn't effect marriage laws. And no where does it say the State won't recognize marriage. It merely says that marriage is accessed via contract rather than license.

Which Boss in yet another fit of glorious ignorance has interpreted as the State not longer recognizing marriage.

Boss's comments are much easier to interpret when you realize that he's never read SB377, has no idea what it says, cares even less, and has no clue what he's talking about.

 

[Pop23]

Who says they have no restraint? You do, citing yourself. Your argument is again subjective opinion. And you're more than welcome to it. But why should I give a shit?

No, idiot, the SCOTUS has now taken upon themselves the right to redefine words like 'marriage' to also mean what it has never before meant. With that power and authority, they can also redefine any other word they please, stupid ass.

They've taken upon themselves the authority to intepret the constitution as it relates to how the STATE must treat marriage under the law.

You're more than welcome to whatever definition of marriage pleases you. The law however is bound by constitutional guarantees.

And one of those guarantees is equal protection.

Prior to SSM being recognized siblings could not marry because it would always be a male sibling marrying a female sibling. Now we know that would not be the case in a large number of these cases and the threat of defective bloodlines would be impossible.

Citizens are being denied equal protection under the law because off the possibility that another group, far different then these individual might have sex?

Again, what is the compelling state interest that denies those citizens the same rights afforded any same sex couple?

Seems you're interested in constitutionality issues, then not.

 

[EverCurious]

Then they'll have to "recognize" all non-state marriages. And if they want to push it and say they don't recognize any marriages from /any/ state then the fed will step in and tell them to stop acting like fucking children, possibly require them to issue FED marriage licenses instead of state licenses. Which is just what we need right? More fed power...

I don't understand what you all mean when you say "have to recognize" ...what does that mean? If there is no function of the state requiring the need to know your private domestic arrangement, why does anything need to be "recognized" by the state? How would that even be done?

Maybe the State of Alabama should build a monument like the Vietnam War Memorial, where we engrave the names of gay couples getting married? Is that the kind of "recognition" you mean?

As for your notion of a Federal marriage licence... good luck with that, you'll need to change the Constitution. The Fed can't just "step in" whenever you don't get your way, that's not how our nation was established. That might be what some of you want, it's not what we have.

I will add, it's amusing as hell how the lefties are spinning in the wind on this topic. You guys go from laughing and chortling that this won't mean anything and doesn't make any difference... moot point... to pounding your fists demanding that we're going to do as you say or you're going to make us!

What part of the SCOTUS rulings did you miss? They've said states have to recognize /all/ forms of legal marriage, including SSM's. Pretty much every form of federal aid, tax, inheritance, birth, death, hospital visit, etc. "recognizes" marriage in some form or another. ALL of those things must be "recognized" by the state, and when the constitutional ruling is that SSM is equal to OSM, the state has to follow that. They cant' just say well, this couple has an SSM so their Medicaid income qualifications, state taxes, etc. are based on single, but the OSM couple goes off of "married" qualifications. That's part of why the SCOTUS had to step in, because it's discrimination.

SCOTUS will rule, yet again, that it is discrimination if Alabama attempts to declare SSM not legal marriage, it's impossible for a state not to recognize marriage because of the various legal ramifications of it all over the place.

I find it amusing that you think I'm a lefty, even though my shits right there in my sig. I'm actually pretty damn republican, except I'm a /real/ republican in that I don't use the bible to color my beliefs in equality.

Anyway, I don't want the Fed's to have any more power, in fact I'd like them to have less and states more, but ya'll bigots keep pushing shit until it becomes a national (aka a FED) issue, and "proving" to the entire country's swath of socialist pushers that states are not able to rule themselves without being bigots - which means they vote in more fed power. You don't think they'd push for a constitutional measure? You mean like deleting the 2nd amendment? Nooo they'd never pine to do that would they? lol

The Alabama bill itself says that it doesn't effect marriage laws. And no where does it say the State won't recognize marriage. It merely says that marriage is accessed via contract rather than license.

Which Boss in yet another fit of glorious ignorance has interpreted as the State not longer recognizing marriage.

Boss's comments are much easier to interpret when you realize that he's never read SB377, has no idea what it says, cares even less, and has no clue what he's talking about.

Yes I understand that, but I'm engaging in the exercise because it amuses me.

 

[Syriusly]

Who says they have no restraint? You do, citing yourself. Your argument is again subjective opinion. And you're more than welcome to it. But why should I give a shit?

No, idiot, the SCOTUS has now taken upon themselves the right to redefine words like 'marriage' to also mean what it has never before meant. With that power and authority, they can also redefine any other word they please, stupid ass.

They've taken upon themselves the authority to intepret the constitution as it relates to how the STATE must treat marriage under the law.

You're more than welcome to whatever definition of marriage pleases you. The law however is bound by constitutional guarantees.

And one of those guarantees is equal protection.

Prior to SSM being recognized siblings could not marry because it would always be a male sibling marrying a female sibling. Now we know that would not be the case in a large number of these cases and the threat of defective bloodlines would be impossible.

Citizens are being denied equal protection under the law because off the possibility that another group, far different then these individual might have sex?

Again, what is the compelling state interest that denies those citizens the same rights afforded any same sex couple?

Seems you're interested in constitutionality issues, then not.

Seems like you always drag out that same straw man.

But as always you aren't interested in an answer- you just want to attack anyone who supports Americans who are gay getting married.

 

[the_human_being]

Then they'll have to "recognize" all non-state marriages. And if they want to push it and say they don't recognize any marriages from /any/ state then the fed will step in and tell them to stop acting like fucking children, possibly require them to issue FED marriage licenses instead of state licenses. Which is just what we need right? More fed power...

I don't understand what you all mean when you say "have to recognize" ...what does that mean? If there is no function of the state requiring the need to know your private domestic arrangement, why does anything need to be "recognized" by the state? How would that even be done?

Maybe the State of Alabama should build a monument like the Vietnam War Memorial, where we engrave the names of gay couples getting married? Is that the kind of "recognition" you mean?

As for your notion of a Federal marriage licence... good luck with that, you'll need to change the Constitution. The Fed can't just "step in" whenever you don't get your way, that's not how our nation was established. That might be what some of you want, it's not what we have.

I will add, it's amusing as hell how the lefties are spinning in the wind on this topic. You guys go from laughing and chortling that this won't mean anything and doesn't make any difference... moot point... to pounding your fists demanding that we're going to do as you say or you're going to make us!

What part of the SCOTUS rulings did you miss? They've said states have to recognize /all/ forms of legal marriage, including SSM's. Pretty much every form of federal aid, tax, inheritance, birth, death, hospital visit, etc. "recognizes" marriage in some form or another. ALL of those things must be "recognized" by the state, and when the constitutional ruling is that SSM is equal to OSM, the state has to follow that. They cant' just say well, this couple has an SSM so their Medicaid income qualifications, state taxes, etc. are based on single, but the OSM couple goes off of "married" qualifications. That's part of why the SCOTUS had to step in, because it's discrimination.

SCOTUS will rule, yet again, that it is discrimination if Alabama attempts to declare SSM not legal marriage, it's impossible for a state not to recognize marriage because of the various legal ramifications of it all over the place.

I find it amusing that you think I'm a lefty, even though my shits right there in my sig. I'm actually pretty damn republican, except I'm a /real/ republican in that I don't use the bible to color my beliefs in equality.

Anyway, I don't want the Fed's to have any more power, in fact I'd like them to have less and states more, but ya'll bigots keep pushing shit until it becomes a national (aka a FED) issue, and "proving" to the entire country's swath of socialist pushers that states are not able to rule themselves without being bigots - which means they vote in more fed power. You don't think they'd push for a constitutional measure? You mean like deleting the 2nd amendment? Nooo they'd never pine to do that would they? lol

The Alabama bill itself says that it doesn't effect marriage laws. And no where does it say the State won't recognize marriage. It merely says that marriage is accessed via contract rather than license.

Which Boss in yet another fit of glorious ignorance has interpreted as the State not longer recognizing marriage.

Boss's comments are much easier to interpret when you realize that he's never read SB377, has no idea what it says, cares even less, and has no clue what he's talking about.

Come on people. What Alabama is doing makes sense. It is doing away with the gays and lesbians dragging some pastor, justice of the peace, judge, notary, clerk, or any other person before another federal judge in order to force that person to perform a wedding ceremony for them. The form they fill out is a legal agreement. They are legally married. They just no longer need a marriage ceremony.

 

[Montrovant]

Then they'll have to "recognize" all non-state marriages. And if they want to push it and say they don't recognize any marriages from /any/ state then the fed will step in and tell them to stop acting like fucking children, possibly require them to issue FED marriage licenses instead of state licenses. Which is just what we need right? More fed power...

I don't understand what you all mean when you say "have to recognize" ...what does that mean? If there is no function of the state requiring the need to know your private domestic arrangement, why does anything need to be "recognized" by the state? How would that even be done?

Maybe the State of Alabama should build a monument like the Vietnam War Memorial, where we engrave the names of gay couples getting married? Is that the kind of "recognition" you mean?

As for your notion of a Federal marriage licence... good luck with that, you'll need to change the Constitution. The Fed can't just "step in" whenever you don't get your way, that's not how our nation was established. That might be what some of you want, it's not what we have.

I will add, it's amusing as hell how the lefties are spinning in the wind on this topic. You guys go from laughing and chortling that this won't mean anything and doesn't make any difference... moot point... to pounding your fists demanding that we're going to do as you say or you're going to make us!

What part of the SCOTUS rulings did you miss? They've said states have to recognize /all/ forms of legal marriage, including SSM's. Pretty much every form of federal aid, tax, inheritance, birth, death, hospital visit, etc. "recognizes" marriage in some form or another. ALL of those things must be "recognized" by the state, and when the constitutional ruling is that SSM is equal to OSM, the state has to follow that. They cant' just say well, this couple has an SSM so their Medicaid income qualifications, state taxes, etc. are based on single, but the OSM couple goes off of "married" qualifications. That's part of why the SCOTUS had to step in, because it's discrimination.

SCOTUS will rule, yet again, that it is discrimination if Alabama attempts to declare SSM not legal marriage, it's impossible for a state not to recognize marriage because of the various legal ramifications of it all over the place.

I find it amusing that you think I'm a lefty, even though my shits right there in my sig. I'm actually pretty damn republican, except I'm a /real/ republican in that I don't use the bible to color my beliefs in equality.

Anyway, I don't want the Fed's to have any more power, in fact I'd like them to have less and states more, but ya'll bigots keep pushing shit until it becomes a national (aka a FED) issue, and "proving" to the entire country's swath of socialist pushers that states are not able to rule themselves without being bigots - which means they vote in more fed power. You don't think they'd push for a constitutional measure? You mean like deleting the 2nd amendment? Nooo they'd never pine to do that would they? lol

The Alabama bill itself says that it doesn't effect marriage laws. And no where does it say the State won't recognize marriage. It merely says that marriage is accessed via contract rather than license.

Which Boss in yet another fit of glorious ignorance has interpreted as the State not longer recognizing marriage.

Boss's comments are much easier to interpret when you realize that he's never read SB377, has no idea what it says, cares even less, and has no clue what he's talking about.

Come on people. What Alabama is doing makes sense. It is doing away with the gays and lesbians dragging some pastor, justice of the peace, judge, notary, clerk, or any other person before another federal judge in order to force that person to perform a wedding ceremony for them. The form they fill out is a legal agreement. They are legally married. They just no longer need a marriage ceremony.

Would the proposal have a direct effect on wedding ceremonies? I thought getting a license happened before a ceremony. Did I miss something in the bill?

 

[Skylar]

Then they'll have to "recognize" all non-state marriages. And if they want to push it and say they don't recognize any marriages from /any/ state then the fed will step in and tell them to stop acting like fucking children, possibly require them to issue FED marriage licenses instead of state licenses. Which is just what we need right? More fed power...

I don't understand what you all mean when you say "have to recognize" ...what does that mean? If there is no function of the state requiring the need to know your private domestic arrangement, why does anything need to be "recognized" by the state? How would that even be done?

Maybe the State of Alabama should build a monument like the Vietnam War Memorial, where we engrave the names of gay couples getting married? Is that the kind of "recognition" you mean?

As for your notion of a Federal marriage licence... good luck with that, you'll need to change the Constitution. The Fed can't just "step in" whenever you don't get your way, that's not how our nation was established. That might be what some of you want, it's not what we have.

I will add, it's amusing as hell how the lefties are spinning in the wind on this topic. You guys go from laughing and chortling that this won't mean anything and doesn't make any difference... moot point... to pounding your fists demanding that we're going to do as you say or you're going to make us!

What part of the SCOTUS rulings did you miss? They've said states have to recognize /all/ forms of legal marriage, including SSM's. Pretty much every form of federal aid, tax, inheritance, birth, death, hospital visit, etc. "recognizes" marriage in some form or another. ALL of those things must be "recognized" by the state, and when the constitutional ruling is that SSM is equal to OSM, the state has to follow that. They cant' just say well, this couple has an SSM so their Medicaid income qualifications, state taxes, etc. are based on single, but the OSM couple goes off of "married" qualifications. That's part of why the SCOTUS had to step in, because it's discrimination.

SCOTUS will rule, yet again, that it is discrimination if Alabama attempts to declare SSM not legal marriage, it's impossible for a state not to recognize marriage because of the various legal ramifications of it all over the place.

I find it amusing that you think I'm a lefty, even though my shits right there in my sig. I'm actually pretty damn republican, except I'm a /real/ republican in that I don't use the bible to color my beliefs in equality.

Anyway, I don't want the Fed's to have any more power, in fact I'd like them to have less and states more, but ya'll bigots keep pushing shit until it becomes a national (aka a FED) issue, and "proving" to the entire country's swath of socialist pushers that states are not able to rule themselves without being bigots - which means they vote in more fed power. You don't think they'd push for a constitutional measure? You mean like deleting the 2nd amendment? Nooo they'd never pine to do that would they? lol

The Alabama bill itself says that it doesn't effect marriage laws. And no where does it say the State won't recognize marriage. It merely says that marriage is accessed via contract rather than license.

Which Boss in yet another fit of glorious ignorance has interpreted as the State not longer recognizing marriage.

Boss's comments are much easier to interpret when you realize that he's never read SB377, has no idea what it says, cares even less, and has no clue what he's talking about.

Come on people. What Alabama is doing makes sense. It is doing away with the gays and lesbians dragging some pastor, justice of the peace, judge, notary, clerk, or any other person before another federal judge in order to force that person to perform a wedding ceremony for them. The form they fill out is a legal agreement. They are legally married. They just no longer need a marriage ceremony.

What Alabama is doing....and what Boss is describing....have nothing to do with each other.

 

[Skylar]

Then they'll have to "recognize" all non-state marriages. And if they want to push it and say they don't recognize any marriages from /any/ state then the fed will step in and tell them to stop acting like fucking children, possibly require them to issue FED marriage licenses instead of state licenses. Which is just what we need right? More fed power...

I don't understand what you all mean when you say "have to recognize" ...what does that mean? If there is no function of the state requiring the need to know your private domestic arrangement, why does anything need to be "recognized" by the state? How would that even be done?

Maybe the State of Alabama should build a monument like the Vietnam War Memorial, where we engrave the names of gay couples getting married? Is that the kind of "recognition" you mean?

As for your notion of a Federal marriage licence... good luck with that, you'll need to change the Constitution. The Fed can't just "step in" whenever you don't get your way, that's not how our nation was established. That might be what some of you want, it's not what we have.

I will add, it's amusing as hell how the lefties are spinning in the wind on this topic. You guys go from laughing and chortling that this won't mean anything and doesn't make any difference... moot point... to pounding your fists demanding that we're going to do as you say or you're going to make us!

What part of the SCOTUS rulings did you miss? They've said states have to recognize /all/ forms of legal marriage, including SSM's. Pretty much every form of federal aid, tax, inheritance, birth, death, hospital visit, etc. "recognizes" marriage in some form or another. ALL of those things must be "recognized" by the state, and when the constitutional ruling is that SSM is equal to OSM, the state has to follow that. They cant' just say well, this couple has an SSM so their Medicaid income qualifications, state taxes, etc. are based on single, but the OSM couple goes off of "married" qualifications. That's part of why the SCOTUS had to step in, because it's discrimination.

SCOTUS will rule, yet again, that it is discrimination if Alabama attempts to declare SSM not legal marriage, it's impossible for a state not to recognize marriage because of the various legal ramifications of it all over the place.

I find it amusing that you think I'm a lefty, even though my shits right there in my sig. I'm actually pretty damn republican, except I'm a /real/ republican in that I don't use the bible to color my beliefs in equality.

Anyway, I don't want the Fed's to have any more power, in fact I'd like them to have less and states more, but ya'll bigots keep pushing shit until it becomes a national (aka a FED) issue, and "proving" to the entire country's swath of socialist pushers that states are not able to rule themselves without being bigots - which means they vote in more fed power. You don't think they'd push for a constitutional measure? You mean like deleting the 2nd amendment? Nooo they'd never pine to do that would they? lol

The Alabama bill itself says that it doesn't effect marriage laws. And no where does it say the State won't recognize marriage. It merely says that marriage is accessed via contract rather than license.

Which Boss in yet another fit of glorious ignorance has interpreted as the State not longer recognizing marriage.

Boss's comments are much easier to interpret when you realize that he's never read SB377, has no idea what it says, cares even less, and has no clue what he's talking about.

Come on people. What Alabama is doing makes sense. It is doing away with the gays and lesbians dragging some pastor, justice of the peace, judge, notary, clerk, or any other person before another federal judge in order to force that person to perform a wedding ceremony for them. The form they fill out is a legal agreement. They are legally married. They just no longer need a marriage ceremony.

Would the proposal have a direct effect on wedding ceremonies? I thought getting a license happened before a ceremony. Did I miss something in the bill?

Not a thing. The only difference between Alabama's old law and Alabama's new proposed law is the method of recording the marriages. Before marriages were entered into via license. Under SB377 they're entered into via contract. Both still go to the exact same place:

The Office of Vital Records

That's it. All of Boss' pseudo-legal gibberish about how Alabama would no longer recognize marriage, how they would never recognize marriages from other states......imaginary horseshit. He literally just made that shit up. SB377 says no such thing.