Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
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?
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?
This isn't a license. It's the actual wedding contract. Once you have this document probated, you are married. There is no need for a ceremony. Certainly you can go and have a ceremony but you have no grounds to force anyone to perform one since you are already legally married.
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?
This isn't a license. It's the actual wedding contract. Once you have this document probated, you are married. There is no need for a ceremony. Certainly you can go and have a ceremony but you have no grounds to force anyone to perform one since you are already legally married.
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?
This isn't a license. It's the actual wedding contract. Once you have this document probated, you are married. There is no need for a ceremony. Certainly you can go and have a ceremony but you have no grounds to force anyone to perform one since you are already legally married.
There's no need for a ceremony under the license methodology either. Just go in and get your license.
The difference is for the benefit of the probate judges and clerks. They were catching shit for refusing to issue or record the licenses. Now neither are necessary. Just submit your marriage 'contract', confirmed by a notary, and you're done.
All the same laws still apply. Section 1, Paragraph f of SB377 says as much.
Boss genuinely has no fucking idea what he's talking about.
As long as their are social and financial benefits from marriage, gays and lesbians will engage in it. Its plain old self interest.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?
This isn't a license. It's the actual wedding contract. Once you have this document probated, you are married. There is no need for a ceremony. Certainly you can go and have a ceremony but you have no grounds to force anyone to perform one since you are already legally married.
There's no need for a ceremony under the license methodology either. Just go in and get your license.
The difference is for the benefit of the probate judges and clerks. They were catching shit for refusing to issue or record the licenses. Now neither are necessary. Just submit your marriage 'contract', confirmed by a notary, and you're done.
All the same laws still apply. Section 1, Paragraph f of SB377 says as much.
Boss genuinely has no fucking idea what he's talking about.
Actually, I look for the numbers of gay and lesbian marriages to drop a mite once all the states adopt this or something similar. Once these gays and lesbians realize they have no day in the limelight and tv publicity forcing someone to participate in their depraved unions and that they are now open to divorce and community property laws, etc., then some may opt out of entering into a marriage contract altogether.
As long as their are social and financial benefits from marriage, gays and lesbians will engage in it. Its plain old self interest.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?
This isn't a license. It's the actual wedding contract. Once you have this document probated, you are married. There is no need for a ceremony. Certainly you can go and have a ceremony but you have no grounds to force anyone to perform one since you are already legally married.
There's no need for a ceremony under the license methodology either. Just go in and get your license.
The difference is for the benefit of the probate judges and clerks. They were catching shit for refusing to issue or record the licenses. Now neither are necessary. Just submit your marriage 'contract', confirmed by a notary, and you're done.
All the same laws still apply. Section 1, Paragraph f of SB377 says as much.
Boss genuinely has no fucking idea what he's talking about.
Actually, I look for the numbers of gay and lesbian marriages to drop a mite once all the states adopt this or something similar. Once these gays and lesbians realize they have no day in the limelight and tv publicity forcing someone to participate in their depraved unions and that they are now open to divorce and community property laws, etc., then some may opt out of entering into a marriage contract altogether.
There will inevitably be a massive surge as all the gays and lesbians that wanted to get married do. But after that, it will settle into a predictable pattern. In Massechussets, 10 years after the same sex marriage was legalized....about 6% of all marriages are for same sex couples. Which is actually a bit higher than you'd expect.
As long as their are social and financial benefits from marriage, gays and lesbians will engage in it. Its plain old self interest.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?
This isn't a license. It's the actual wedding contract. Once you have this document probated, you are married. There is no need for a ceremony. Certainly you can go and have a ceremony but you have no grounds to force anyone to perform one since you are already legally married.
There's no need for a ceremony under the license methodology either. Just go in and get your license.
The difference is for the benefit of the probate judges and clerks. They were catching shit for refusing to issue or record the licenses. Now neither are necessary. Just submit your marriage 'contract', confirmed by a notary, and you're done.
All the same laws still apply. Section 1, Paragraph f of SB377 says as much.
Boss genuinely has no fucking idea what he's talking about.
Actually, I look for the numbers of gay and lesbian marriages to drop a mite once all the states adopt this or something similar. Once these gays and lesbians realize they have no day in the limelight and tv publicity forcing someone to participate in their depraved unions and that they are now open to divorce and community property laws, etc., then some may opt out of entering into a marriage contract altogether.
There will inevitably be a massive surge as all the gays and lesbians that wanted to get married do. But after that, it will settle into a predictable pattern. In Massechussets, 10 years after the same sex marriage was legalized....about 6% of all marriages are for same sex couples. Which is actually a bit higher than you'd expect.
Well, I read somewhere that they made up only about 7% of the population anyways. They're almost insignificant.
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.
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.
Not interested in an answer?
Try me for a change Sally
What part of the SCOTUS rulings did you miss? They've said states have to recognize /all/ forms of legal marriage, including SSM's.
Well I am happy that all you left-wing pinheads have weighed in and let me know that Alabama's measure to eliminate marriage licenses is not a problem for you. It sounds like we've found a compromise all of us can live with. Gays can pretend they are married, churches can hold on to sanctity of traditional marriage and the state doesn't have to worry about discriminating or playing favorites because it no longer sanctions marriages.
What part of the SCOTUS rulings did you miss? They've said states have to recognize /all/ forms of legal marriage, including SSM's.
Nope. Not what they said. Sorry. They ruled that states can't discriminate, that was the issue at hand. They can't offer marriage licenses to traditional couples and deny them to same-sex couples.
Obergefell v Hodges (2015) said: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.
However, there is nothing in the Constitution that mandates the state recognize or sanction ANY marriages. And that's what Alabama is going to adopt. A measure that removes the State from sanctioning ALL marriages. No discrimination.
US Constitution Article 4 Section 1 said:"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."
Obergefell v Hodges (2015) said:It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to
refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.
As long as their are social and financial benefits from marriage, gays and lesbians will engage in it. Its plain old self interest.This isn't a license. It's the actual wedding contract. Once you have this document probated, you are married. There is no need for a ceremony. Certainly you can go and have a ceremony but you have no grounds to force anyone to perform one since you are already legally married.
There's no need for a ceremony under the license methodology either. Just go in and get your license.
The difference is for the benefit of the probate judges and clerks. They were catching shit for refusing to issue or record the licenses. Now neither are necessary. Just submit your marriage 'contract', confirmed by a notary, and you're done.
All the same laws still apply. Section 1, Paragraph f of SB377 says as much.
Boss genuinely has no fucking idea what he's talking about.
Actually, I look for the numbers of gay and lesbian marriages to drop a mite once all the states adopt this or something similar. Once these gays and lesbians realize they have no day in the limelight and tv publicity forcing someone to participate in their depraved unions and that they are now open to divorce and community property laws, etc., then some may opt out of entering into a marriage contract altogether.
There will inevitably be a massive surge as all the gays and lesbians that wanted to get married do. But after that, it will settle into a predictable pattern. In Massechussets, 10 years after the same sex marriage was legalized....about 6% of all marriages are for same sex couples. Which is actually a bit higher than you'd expect.
Well, I read somewhere that they made up only about 7% of the population anyways. They're almost insignificant.
Which is what makes opposition to same sex marriage so absurd. It genuinely doesn't effect you.
As long as their are social and financial benefits from marriage, gays and lesbians will engage in it. Its plain old self interest.There's no need for a ceremony under the license methodology either. Just go in and get your license.
The difference is for the benefit of the probate judges and clerks. They were catching shit for refusing to issue or record the licenses. Now neither are necessary. Just submit your marriage 'contract', confirmed by a notary, and you're done.
All the same laws still apply. Section 1, Paragraph f of SB377 says as much.
Boss genuinely has no fucking idea what he's talking about.
Actually, I look for the numbers of gay and lesbian marriages to drop a mite once all the states adopt this or something similar. Once these gays and lesbians realize they have no day in the limelight and tv publicity forcing someone to participate in their depraved unions and that they are now open to divorce and community property laws, etc., then some may opt out of entering into a marriage contract altogether.
There will inevitably be a massive surge as all the gays and lesbians that wanted to get married do. But after that, it will settle into a predictable pattern. In Massechussets, 10 years after the same sex marriage was legalized....about 6% of all marriages are for same sex couples. Which is actually a bit higher than you'd expect.
Well, I read somewhere that they made up only about 7% of the population anyways. They're almost insignificant.
Which is what makes opposition to same sex marriage so absurd. It genuinely doesn't effect you.
No because I am so very very married and have been for 51 years. LOL! Now the polygamists can go forward and pick up a few of these forms and fill them out and have their marriages to multiple partners as well.
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.
Not interested in an answer?
Try me for a change Sally
Tell us why you want incest marriage. Make your case.
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.
Not interested in an answer?
Try me for a change Sally
Tell us why you want incest marriage. Make your case.
Incest is an act which I prefer stay out of marriage entirely.
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.
Not interested in an answer?
Try me for a change Sally
As long as their are social and financial benefits from marriage, gays and lesbians will engage in it. Its plain old self interest.Actually, I look for the numbers of gay and lesbian marriages to drop a mite once all the states adopt this or something similar. Once these gays and lesbians realize they have no day in the limelight and tv publicity forcing someone to participate in their depraved unions and that they are now open to divorce and community property laws, etc., then some may opt out of entering into a marriage contract altogether.
There will inevitably be a massive surge as all the gays and lesbians that wanted to get married do. But after that, it will settle into a predictable pattern. In Massechussets, 10 years after the same sex marriage was legalized....about 6% of all marriages are for same sex couples. Which is actually a bit higher than you'd expect.
Well, I read somewhere that they made up only about 7% of the population anyways. They're almost insignificant.
Which is what makes opposition to same sex marriage so absurd. It genuinely doesn't effect you.
No because I am so very very married and have been for 51 years. LOL! Now the polygamists can go forward and pick up a few of these forms and fill them out and have their marriages to multiple partners as well.
Except that they can't.
As long as their are social and financial benefits from marriage, gays and lesbians will engage in it. Its plain old self interest.Actually, I look for the numbers of gay and lesbian marriages to drop a mite once all the states adopt this or something similar. Once these gays and lesbians realize they have no day in the limelight and tv publicity forcing someone to participate in their depraved unions and that they are now open to divorce and community property laws, etc., then some may opt out of entering into a marriage contract altogether.
There will inevitably be a massive surge as all the gays and lesbians that wanted to get married do. But after that, it will settle into a predictable pattern. In Massechussets, 10 years after the same sex marriage was legalized....about 6% of all marriages are for same sex couples. Which is actually a bit higher than you'd expect.
Well, I read somewhere that they made up only about 7% of the population anyways. They're almost insignificant.
Which is what makes opposition to same sex marriage so absurd. It genuinely doesn't effect you.
No because I am so very very married and have been for 51 years. LOL! Now the polygamists can go forward and pick up a few of these forms and fill them out and have their marriages to multiple partners as well.
Except that they can't.
