Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Skylar]

Nope. It was clear as a bell, even citing the Alabama SB377 itself. A law you have never read and refuse to read.....despite absurdly basing an entire thread on it.

LMAO... who said I have never read it and refuse to read it?

I do. As you keep asserting claims that aren't even mentioned in SB377 as being written into SB377. While being explicitly contradicted by the passages that actually do exist.

You quite simply have no idea what you're talking about. Watch. I'll demonstrate:

It is clear as a bell, the State will no longer sanction marriages.

Save that SB377 never says that any of that. If you believe it does, quote it:

Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session

Not there, is it? It doesn't even include the word 'sanction' in any context. You literally made that shit up.

Laughing...I don't think 'clear as a bell' means what you think it means.

The only thing you've cited is their legal obligation to record vital statistics and the statutory obligations of contract law

I've cited the contract of marriage as a legal record of marriage with the Office of Vital Statistics in Alabama.

Says who? Why SB377 of course!

The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the
Department of Public Health and made a part of its record.

Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session

A contract of marriage is legal record of the marriage. And its recognized by the State of Alabama as such. Just destroying any ignorant prattle that the state of Alabama won't 'recognize marriage'.

And as a hint.....the Department of Health doesn't record any old business contract, no matter what blithering nonsense you believe. They record births, deaths, marriages, divorces and health statistics.

Laughing.....remember, you're fucking clueless. Which is what makes this so comically easy.

 

[Syriusly]

Nope. It was clear as a bell, even citing the Alabama SB377 itself. A law you have never read and refuse to read.....despite absurdly basing an entire thread on it.

LMAO... who said I have never read it and refuse to read it?

It is clear as a bell, the State will no longer sanction marriages. The only thing you've cited is their legal obligation to record vital statistics and the statutory obligations of contract law. Neither of these functions are recognizing or sanctioning marriage. Both of these functions have been around, observed and performed by the State long before the issue of Gay Marriages.

SB377 merely changes marriage from a license to a contract.

And in doing so, removes the State from being a party to the action.
.

The State will be 'sanctioning' marriage exactly as it does now- merely changing the forms required.

But prove me wrong- show me the language in the law now which states 'sanctioning marriage' and how the new law changes that language.

Because the Bill very clearly states it changes nothing about marriage law- except the license

(f) 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.

 

[Montrovant]

BOSS SAID:

"It's not up to me, it's up to the States."

Wrong.

It's up to neither you nor the states.

States have no 'authority' to deny citizens their rights; citizens do not 'forfeit' their rights merely as a consequence of their state of residence; and one's rights are not subject to 'majority rule' or the 'will of the people' – Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of the states subordinate to that, where the fundamental rights of citizens are immune from attack by the states.

Before you scream your rights are being denied, don't you have to find a right being denied first? Seems to me, states deciding they will no longer sanction marriage leaves you without a cause. There is no discrimination, they aren't going to sanction ANY marriages.

Now... I never said states have the authority to deny citizens their rights. I know that you WISH that's what I had said because you can jump all over that with both feet. And it seems like a lot of you people don't seem to know what do at this point... you've won your moral crusade, convinced the high court to rule 5-4 in your favor and changed the Constitution. We've moved on to a different topic and you seem to want to gravitate back to the same argument you just won. We're no longer having that argument, it's over, you won. The points you made for THAT argument are worthless in the next argument because it's a different argument.

I understand your shepherds probably haven't gotten you programmed for the next argument yet and you're probably just in rerun mode. Pay attention, the argument is not over gay marriage being legal or constitutional. The argument is not about equal protection of gay couples seeking marriage licenses. Those arguments are over now, your side won. I disagree with the ruling and your argument but the court has spoken and I understand it's law of the land now and the argument is over. I've now moved on and so has my state. We are currently debating whether or not the State can abolish ALL marriage licenses.

I think they can because there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the State to recognize marriage at all. Your task, if you choose to argue, is to find the part of the Constitution which mandates States must recognize marriage. We already know, because the argument has been settled, that they have to recognize gay marriage if they recognize traditional marriage. That's no longer debatable and isn't the argument. Getting yourself all worked up in a froth over gay couples having the same "rights" as straight couples to obtain a marriage license, is kind of goofy and pointless now... that argument is settled.

And when the first state actually stops recognizing marriages, perhaps you should get back to us.....as of now, they all still do. More, even the state that had proposed legislation that you think would end their recognition of marriages, did nothing of the sort. Of course, since you seem to think state recognition of marriage is entirely based on the issuance of licenses, it's not surprising you'd make odd claims and predictions.

Well, you'll only have to wait until the next session of the Alabama legislature. I strongly suspect there will many other states following the same course. But I am sorry, you don't get to tell me to sit down and shut up until what I am advocating becomes reality... if we could do that, we wouldn't have ever seen gay marriage. I have every right to speak about this or any damn thing else I want to talk about. You're not the Boss of ME!

As for State recognition of marriage, we've been through this... very slowly, so you could comprehend. But you want to ignore that and cling to your ignorance. The State issuing a license is not the same as the State making contracts available for interested parties. If you can't comprehend how one implies state sanctioning and the other doesn't, I don't know what to tell you... get some education, read some books, find a dictionary!

I didn't tell you to 'sit down and shut up'. Not even close. I made a suggestion that you might want to wait until what you claim actually happens rather than continue to say it will with such little evidence. You're obviously free to continue to spout your nonsense.

You have claimed that removing licensing removes state recognition of marriage....but you've claimed that without providing evidence. I'd be happy to see any dictionary definition which says that states only sanction things when they are licensed. If you can show that only things licensed by the state are recognized by the state, feel free. As it stands, all you have are your unsubstantiated claims that this is so. Claims which, by the way, run counter to the text of the bill you claim would end state recognition of marriage. Relevant passages of the bill have been quoted to you, passages which state that no other marriage laws will be changed, which state that common law marriages (which are already unlicensed) will continue to be recognized. In fact, here's a quick link about common law marriage in Alabama : Common Law Marriage Alabama - Marriage | Laws.com. Let me post a quote from the beginning of the article "Two people who are in a relationship may have their status as a married couple legally recognized even without an official license from the state of Alabama.". Note that right off the bat it tells us that the state is recognizing marriages without a license. Assuming that this is true (and if it is not, it would be strange for the author of the bill in question to include it!) there is direct evidence that a license is not required for a state to recognize marriage. A number of other states recognize common law marriages as well.

So, once again, your claim is that only through licensing can a state recognize or sanction a marriage. When that is questioned, when evidence counter to it is presented to you, rather than providing any evidence yourself, you basically say, "It's true, if you don't already know that I'm not going to prove it to you.". This seems to be a common tactic for you.

If you can't comprehend how marriage law exists with or without licensing, that states can recognize unlicensed marriages, that Alabama does so and would continue to do so if the bill were passed, and that the bill in no way stops state sanctioning and recognition of marriage, I don't know what to tell you. After all, unlike you, multiple posters have actually shown you the clear evidence that the bill does not do what you say it does. Perhaps (Remember this word? Do you need an explanation of how it is a suggestion and not a command?) you could provide even the slightest evidence other than your own opinion that the proposed bill would end Alabama's recognition of marriages, or that only marriages obtained through a license are recognized by states?

 

[Boss]

I win this argument every time I point out that you are dragging out your straw man.

You've not won anything from what I can tell. You haven't answered the man's question. You keep dismissing him as making a straw man argument but I think he raised a legitimate point.

Of course you think he raised a 'legitimate point'.

You also believe that gay men are going to try to pass legislation allowing them to force you to have sex with them in public.

You raise stupid points- like this thread- about how you are willing to kill marriage in order to kill marriage for homosexuals.

Pop talks about one thing- in every thread- incestuous marriage. That issue of course has absolutely nothing to do with your OP or thread- but Pop dragged his straw man in here as he drags it everywhere with him.

When I see Pop interested in anything like an actual dialogue, I will participate- but since he keeps insisting that the ONLY reason for banning sibling marriage is the issue of procreation- and then ignores every other reason- he is just here to drag his straw man around.

You also believe that gay men are going to try to pass legislation allowing them to force you to have sex with them in public.

And the context of that statement was sarcasm. You know this, everyone who read it knew this. Now that it's inconvenient for people to go search for the comment, you present it as an attempt to smear and jeer, like the dishonest piece of trash you are. It's why the majority of what you post should simply be ignored.

You raise stupid points- like this thread- about how you are willing to kill marriage in order to kill marriage for homosexuals.

I have NEVER said that I want to kill marriages. I want to end state recognition of marriages and I believe that will be done soon in my state and others. I want marriages to be retained by the individuals and their churches and clergy. I believe that when there is no more governmental tie to marriage, the act of homosexual marriage will end as suddenly as it began.

Pop talks about one thing- in every thread- incestuous marriage. That issue of course has absolutely nothing to do with your OP or thread- but Pop dragged his straw man in here as he drags it everywhere with him.

It may not conform to the specificity of the OP but it is a related issue.

In the past, an "incestuous" relationships that could be considered for "marriage" were confined to male-female relationships, as that was what marriage used to be. Under that confining restraint, we could arguably deny incest marriage because of risk in procreation. It's a humanitarian ethics thing and not necessarily religious or moral thing. But now that marriage has been redefined to include homosexuals, you lack that same constraint when it comes to certain situations. For instance: Two homosexual brothers. Why can't they marry?

You simply don't have a legitimate answer to this, so you declare the question a straw man.

 

[Boss]

The State will be 'sanctioning' marriage exactly as it does now- merely changing the forms required.

But prove me wrong-

I've already proven you wrong.

A license is a directive from an authority that you have permission to do something.
A contract is an arrangement between parties unrelated to the authority enforcing it legally.

It's not "changing the forms" it's changing from licensing to contract.
In doing so, it removes the state from association. The state is not a party to the action.

I don't know that it can be explained to you any clearer. If you don't understand the difference between the state sanctioning a particular act and the state enforcing contractual law between private parties, I don't know what else to tell you. They are NOT the same thing.

 

[Skylar]

I win this argument every time I point out that you are dragging out your straw man.

You've not won anything from what I can tell. You haven't answered the man's question. You keep dismissing him as making a straw man argument but I think he raised a legitimate point.

Of course you think he raised a 'legitimate point'.

You also believe that gay men are going to try to pass legislation allowing them to force you to have sex with them in public.

You raise stupid points- like this thread- about how you are willing to kill marriage in order to kill marriage for homosexuals.

Pop talks about one thing- in every thread- incestuous marriage. That issue of course has absolutely nothing to do with your OP or thread- but Pop dragged his straw man in here as he drags it everywhere with him.

When I see Pop interested in anything like an actual dialogue, I will participate- but since he keeps insisting that the ONLY reason for banning sibling marriage is the issue of procreation- and then ignores every other reason- he is just here to drag his straw man around.

You also believe that gay men are going to try to pass legislation allowing them to force you to have sex with them in public.

And the context of that statement was sarcasm. You know this, everyone who read it knew this. Now that it's inconvenient for people to go search for the comment, you present it as an attempt to smear and jeer, like the dishonest piece of trash you are. It's why the majority of what you post should simply be ignored.

You raise stupid points- like this thread- about how you are willing to kill marriage in order to kill marriage for homosexuals.

I have NEVER said that I want to kill marriages.

So was the thread title 'Killing Homosexual Marriage' was just more 'sarcasm'?

I want to end state recognition of marriages and I believe that will be done soon in my state and others.

Not by SB377. Contracts of marriage are recognized by Alabama as legal records of marriage and stored with the Department of Health. No where in SB377 does it say that Alabama will no longer recognize marriage or that it won't recognize marriage from other states.

You just made that shit up.

 

[Skylar]

The State will be 'sanctioning' marriage exactly as it does now- merely changing the forms required.

But prove me wrong-

I've already proven you wrong.

A license is a directive from an authority that you have permission to do something.
A contract is an arrangement between parties unrelated to the authority enforcing it legally.

And no where does either eliminate Alabama's recognition of marriage. Alabama recognizes a contract of marriage as a legal record of marriage under SB377 just like it does a marriage license now.

And other than entering into marriage by contract, no other marriage law in the state is affected.

Your gross misconceptions are the product of you never having read SB377, ignoring any quote from it, and just making up your own version of the law based on your imagination.

Which never works out well.

 

[Syriusly]

I win this argument every time I point out that you are dragging out your straw man.

You've not won anything from what I can tell. You haven't answered the man's question. You keep dismissing him as making a straw man argument but I think he raised a legitimate point.

Of course you think he raised a 'legitimate point'.

You also believe that gay men are going to try to pass legislation allowing them to force you to have sex with them in public.

You raise stupid points- like this thread- about how you are willing to kill marriage in order to kill marriage for homosexuals.

Pop talks about one thing- in every thread- incestuous marriage. That issue of course has absolutely nothing to do with your OP or thread- but Pop dragged his straw man in here as he drags it everywhere with him.

When I see Pop interested in anything like an actual dialogue, I will participate- but since he keeps insisting that the ONLY reason for banning sibling marriage is the issue of procreation- and then ignores every other reason- he is just here to drag his straw man around.

You also believe that gay men are going to try to pass legislation allowing them to force you to have sex with them in public.

And the context of that statement was sarcasm. You know this, everyone who read it knew this. Now that it's inconvenient for people to go search for the comment, you present it as an attempt to smear and jeer, like the dishonest piece of trash you are. It's why the majority of what you post should simply be ignored..

'Sarcasm'?

Didn't sound like sarcasm to anyone who actually read it. Glad to remind everyone of the actual quote- where you told people not to laugh at your prediction- why would you tell someone not to laugh if you intended it to be 'sarcasm'?

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

Before you whine about context- here is your entire OP- from sad beginning to angry sick ending.

I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.

We've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied. We've taught our kids to accept them, our pastors and ministers preach about being tolerant, love the sinner and hate the sin. We've allowed them the dignity of coming out of the closet but it seems no matter what efforts are made to try and accept their behavior, it's simply not enough. We're pushed and pushed even further. There is no end... it's becoming sheer madness.

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

At what point does society STOP being tolerant and PC? When do we reach that tipping point where we say... ya know what, maybe it was a mistake to accept you people and tolerate this? Perhaps your behavior is inappropriate and wrong, and we have been foolish trying to condone it for all this time? Could we ever reach such a 'backlash' point? I think we can because inevitably it's where they are going to push us. They are bound and determined to turn America against them or die trying. Change your laws! Make marriage be about your sexual behaviors and not what it has traditionally meant for 5,000 years! Tolerate it in your face every day 24/7 or face being castigated as a bigot.

No... You can't enjoy your favorite TV show anymore, we're going to make you watch two men kissing because you are a bigot who needs it shoved in your face. No, you can't hold your own personal religious beliefs anymore, it violates our rights! We gay people demand you accept our sexually deviant behavior as "normal" and not compare us with other deviants because we're fucking special! You got that, bigot?

When does society stand up and say, you know what? We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU... YOU have to tolerate US! --WE don't have to accept you being gay... you need to abandon that behavior or get help, but don't ask for special treatment anymore... we're done!

What will it take? Anthony Kennedy legislating from the bench to "find a right" for homos to publicly molest heterosexuals without fear of reprisal? Eventually, this is where this all leads because we can't ever give them what they want. They seek legitimacy for an abnormal sexual behavior which they know and realize is abnormal. What we are doing is encouraging and enabling their condition.... it's like offering kiddie porn to pedophiles. It's NEVER going to be enough!

Now, patiently we've tried for the past 30 years or so, to accept gay people and be tolerant of their lifestyles. We're no closer to appeasing them now than we've ever been and I don't know that we can ever appease them enough. It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is normal.

 

[Syriusly]

I win this argument every time I point out that you are dragging out your straw man.

You've not won anything from what I can tell. You haven't answered the man's question. You keep dismissing him as making a straw man argument but I think he raised a legitimate point.

Of course you think he raised a 'legitimate point'.

You also believe that gay men are going to try to pass legislation allowing them to force you to have sex with them in public.

You raise stupid points- like this thread- about how you are willing to kill marriage in order to kill marriage for homosexuals.

Pop talks about one thing- in every thread- incestuous marriage. That issue of course has absolutely nothing to do with your OP or thread- but Pop dragged his straw man in here as he drags it everywhere with him.

When I see Pop interested in anything like an actual dialogue, I will participate- but since he keeps insisting that the ONLY reason for banning sibling marriage is the issue of procreation- and then ignores every other reason- he is just here to drag his straw man around.

You raise stupid points- like this thread- about how you are willing to kill marriage in order to kill marriage for homosexuals.

I have NEVER said that I want to kill marriages. I want to end state recognition of marriages and I believe that will be done soon in my state and others. I want marriages to be retained by the individuals and their churches and clergy. I believe that when there is no more governmental tie to marriage, the act of homosexual marriage will end as suddenly as it began.
.

You said you want to kill homosexual marriage.

And you want to do it by ending legal marriage for everyone.

Which of course would result in killing marriage as effectively for everyone as it does for homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

Pop talks about one thing- in every thread- incestuous marriage. That issue of course has absolutely nothing to do with your OP or thread- but Pop dragged his straw man in here as he drags it everywhere with him.

It may not conform to the specificity of the OP but it is a related issue.

In the past, an "incestuous" relationships that could be considered for "marriage" were confined to male-female relationships, as that was what marriage used to be. Under that confining restraint, we could arguably deny incest marriage because of risk in procreation. It's a humanitarian ethics thing and not necessarily religious or moral thing. But now that marriage has been redefined to include homosexuals, you lack that same constraint when it comes to certain situations. For instance: Two homosexual brothers. Why can't they marry?

You simply don't have a legitimate answer to this, so you declare the question a straw man.

I have provided 'legitimate' answers- actually quoting a judge, ruling on a case. Just you and Pops always ignore actual citations and prefer to offer your own opinions as facts.
Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 118- U.S. District Court Western Wisconsin

For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.

BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge



Now answer me this- why- in your opinion, before Obergefel and Loving v. Virginia, was it prohibited in Alabama for an infertile brother to marry an infertile sister?

If procreation was the only concern regarding sibling marriage.

 

[Boss]

I win this argument every time I point out that you are dragging out your straw man.

You've not won anything from what I can tell. You haven't answered the man's question. You keep dismissing him as making a straw man argument but I think he raised a legitimate point.

Of course you think he raised a 'legitimate point'.

You also believe that gay men are going to try to pass legislation allowing them to force you to have sex with them in public.

You raise stupid points- like this thread- about how you are willing to kill marriage in order to kill marriage for homosexuals.

Pop talks about one thing- in every thread- incestuous marriage. That issue of course has absolutely nothing to do with your OP or thread- but Pop dragged his straw man in here as he drags it everywhere with him.

When I see Pop interested in anything like an actual dialogue, I will participate- but since he keeps insisting that the ONLY reason for banning sibling marriage is the issue of procreation- and then ignores every other reason- he is just here to drag his straw man around.

You also believe that gay men are going to try to pass legislation allowing them to force you to have sex with them in public.

And the context of that statement was sarcasm. You know this, everyone who read it knew this. Now that it's inconvenient for people to go search for the comment, you present it as an attempt to smear and jeer, like the dishonest piece of trash you are. It's why the majority of what you post should simply be ignored.

You raise stupid points- like this thread- about how you are willing to kill marriage in order to kill marriage for homosexuals.

I have NEVER said that I want to kill marriages.

So was the thread title 'Killing Homosexual Marriage' was just more 'sarcasm'?

I want to end state recognition of marriages and I believe that will be done soon in my state and others.

Not by SB377. Contracts of marriage are recognized by Alabama as legal records of marriage and stored with the Department of Health. No where in SB377 does it say that Alabama will no longer recognize marriage or that it won't recognize marriage from other states.

You just made that shit up.

So was the thread title 'Killing Homosexual Marriage' was just more 'sarcasm'?
Nope... I do want to kill homosexual marriage.

Not by SB377
Well, nothing will be done by SB377 since it failed to get super majority vote. Sorry you wasted your time memorizing all aspects of it. The bill that eventually does pass will be completely different but will undoubtedly address the various legal entanglements regarding contract law and probate as well as vital records. I can't imagine them failing to deal with that in any legislation.

It will end the state sanctioning of marriage and thus, recognition of it. Statutory requirements of contract law which have always existed will still exist, have nothing to do with what the state formally recognizes or sanctions in an official capacity. Yes, they will still have to perform divorces for gay couples... that is not the State recognizing gay marriage.

The problem is, you are trying to take this from one extreme to another. You are claiming that anything short of completely ignoring something and acting like it doesn't exist, constitutes recognition. The State is bound to uphold the Constitution and rule of law, including contractual law, including contractual law from other states. That is NOT THE ISSUE! The State was obligated to do this BEFORE gay marriage! It's impossible for them to pass ANY legislation to absolve themselves from this obligation.

 

[Boss]

You said you want to kill homosexual marriage.

And you want to do it by ending legal marriage for everyone.

Which of course would result in killing marriage as effectively for everyone as it does for homosexuals.

How about you STOP posting for 5 minutes and READ the fucking replies?

I don't want to end marriage for anyone. I want to end state sanctioning of marriage and state or government benefit associated with marriage. I don't believe this effectively kills marriage for anyone. I do believe, after we've made things so that there is no state/government benefit of marriage, the practice of "gay marriage" will become a thing of the past. Thus killing gay marriage.

The OP spells out how this works in detail. All you want to do is muddy the water with dishonesty about what I've said and flood the board with nonsense. You manically go from claiming this doesn't change anything or mean anything to smearing and insulting me like I kicked your mother. You're not the least bit worried or concerned, but you've spent hours here typing so fast your fingers are blistered to flood the board with your rants.

 

[Faun]

BOSS SAID:

"It's not up to me, it's up to the States."

Wrong.

It's up to neither you nor the states.

States have no 'authority' to deny citizens their rights; citizens do not 'forfeit' their rights merely as a consequence of their state of residence; and one's rights are not subject to 'majority rule' or the 'will of the people' – Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of the states subordinate to that, where the fundamental rights of citizens are immune from attack by the states.

Before you scream your rights are being denied, don't you have to find a right being denied first? Seems to me, states deciding they will no longer sanction marriage leaves you without a cause. There is no discrimination, they aren't going to sanction ANY marriages.

Now... I never said states have the authority to deny citizens their rights. I know that you WISH that's what I had said because you can jump all over that with both feet. And it seems like a lot of you people don't seem to know what do at this point... you've won your moral crusade, convinced the high court to rule 5-4 in your favor and changed the Constitution. We've moved on to a different topic and you seem to want to gravitate back to the same argument you just won. We're no longer having that argument, it's over, you won. The points you made for THAT argument are worthless in the next argument because it's a different argument.

I understand your shepherds probably haven't gotten you programmed for the next argument yet and you're probably just in rerun mode. Pay attention, the argument is not over gay marriage being legal or constitutional. The argument is not about equal protection of gay couples seeking marriage licenses. Those arguments are over now, your side won. I disagree with the ruling and your argument but the court has spoken and I understand it's law of the land now and the argument is over. I've now moved on and so has my state. We are currently debating whether or not the State can abolish ALL marriage licenses.

I think they can because there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the State to recognize marriage at all. Your task, if you choose to argue, is to find the part of the Constitution which mandates States must recognize marriage. We already know, because the argument has been settled, that they have to recognize gay marriage if they recognize traditional marriage. That's no longer debatable and isn't the argument. Getting yourself all worked up in a froth over gay couples having the same "rights" as straight couples to obtain a marriage license, is kind of goofy and pointless now... that argument is settled.

And when the first state actually stops recognizing marriages, perhaps you should get back to us.....as of now, they all still do. More, even the state that had proposed legislation that you think would end their recognition of marriages, did nothing of the sort. Of course, since you seem to think state recognition of marriage is entirely based on the issuance of licenses, it's not surprising you'd make odd claims and predictions.

Well, you'll only have to wait until the next session of the Alabama legislature. I strongly suspect there will many other states following the same course. But I am sorry, you don't get to tell me to sit down and shut up until what I am advocating becomes reality... if we could do that, we wouldn't have ever seen gay marriage. I have every right to speak about this or any damn thing else I want to talk about. You're not the Boss of ME!

As for State recognition of marriage, we've been through this... very slowly, so you could comprehend. But you want to ignore that and cling to your ignorance. The State issuing a license is not the same as the State making contracts available for interested parties. If you can't comprehend how one implies state sanctioning and the other doesn't, I don't know what to tell you... get some education, read some books, find a dictionary!

And Alabama will still recognize same-sex marriages.

What do you mean by "recognize"? How? In what way? You all keep SAYING this but you're not explaining what the fuck you mean. If the State has no benefit or requirement depending on "marital status" then how can they be recognizing marriage of any kind? So this whole "will recognize" thing doesn't make any sense... what the hell are you talking about?

For the same reason the state recognizes I own my property because I filed my deed with the state.

 

[Skylar]

I win this argument every time I point out that you are dragging out your straw man.

You've not won anything from what I can tell. You haven't answered the man's question. You keep dismissing him as making a straw man argument but I think he raised a legitimate point.

Of course you think he raised a 'legitimate point'.

You also believe that gay men are going to try to pass legislation allowing them to force you to have sex with them in public.

You raise stupid points- like this thread- about how you are willing to kill marriage in order to kill marriage for homosexuals.

Pop talks about one thing- in every thread- incestuous marriage. That issue of course has absolutely nothing to do with your OP or thread- but Pop dragged his straw man in here as he drags it everywhere with him.

When I see Pop interested in anything like an actual dialogue, I will participate- but since he keeps insisting that the ONLY reason for banning sibling marriage is the issue of procreation- and then ignores every other reason- he is just here to drag his straw man around.

You also believe that gay men are going to try to pass legislation allowing them to force you to have sex with them in public.

And the context of that statement was sarcasm. You know this, everyone who read it knew this. Now that it's inconvenient for people to go search for the comment, you present it as an attempt to smear and jeer, like the dishonest piece of trash you are. It's why the majority of what you post should simply be ignored.

You raise stupid points- like this thread- about how you are willing to kill marriage in order to kill marriage for homosexuals.

I have NEVER said that I want to kill marriages.

So was the thread title 'Killing Homosexual Marriage' was just more 'sarcasm'?

I want to end state recognition of marriages and I believe that will be done soon in my state and others.

Not by SB377. Contracts of marriage are recognized by Alabama as legal records of marriage and stored with the Department of Health. No where in SB377 does it say that Alabama will no longer recognize marriage or that it won't recognize marriage from other states.

You just made that shit up.

So was the thread title 'Killing Homosexual Marriage' was just more 'sarcasm'?
Nope... I do want to kill homosexual marriage.

You merely look forward to it demise then?

Not by SB377
Well, nothing will be done by SB377 since it failed to get super majority vote. Sorry you wasted your time memorizing all aspects of it. The bill that eventually does pass will be completely different but will undoubtedly address the various legal entanglements regarding contract law and probate as well as vital records. I can't imagine them failing to deal with that in any legislation.

Ah, so you've been citing an *imaginary* bill that hasn't even been written yet and doesn't actually exist. That would explain why you've been so comically inaccurate in explaining SB377.

So what measure were you referring to here?

It's not up to me, it's up to the States. Alabama has already tried to pass a measure... actually, did pass it, but needed a super-majority because of some stupid rule regarding the governor's agenda. It will eventually be passed because it had enormous support. The same thing is happening in states across the country where same-sex marriage had been banned. This won't take long to develop once it starts.

Boss
Post 10

Killing Homosexual Marriage | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So you *weren't* talking about SB377......or you just didn't know what the fuck you were talking about regarding it? If the former, which bill were you referring to?

It will end the state sanctioning of marriage and thus, recognition of it.

Save that it won't end the recognition of marriage. With a marriage contract being recognized as a legal record of marriage. With no changes to existing marriage law save that marriage would be entered into by contract rather than license.

Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. And you can't actually back any of your pseudo-legal gibberish factually. You can merely repeat your claims over and over...

....backed by jack shit.

While I can actively disprove them. As I have repeatedly with citations of SB377.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I win this argument every time I point out that you are dragging out your straw man.

You've not won anything from what I can tell. You haven't answered the man's question. You keep dismissing him as making a straw man argument but I think he raised a legitimate point.

Of course you think he raised a 'legitimate point'.

You also believe that gay men are going to try to pass legislation allowing them to force you to have sex with them in public.

You raise stupid points- like this thread- about how you are willing to kill marriage in order to kill marriage for homosexuals.

Pop talks about one thing- in every thread- incestuous marriage. That issue of course has absolutely nothing to do with your OP or thread- but Pop dragged his straw man in here as he drags it everywhere with him.

When I see Pop interested in anything like an actual dialogue, I will participate- but since he keeps insisting that the ONLY reason for banning sibling marriage is the issue of procreation- and then ignores every other reason- he is just here to drag his straw man around.

You also believe that gay men are going to try to pass legislation allowing them to force you to have sex with them in public.

And the context of that statement was sarcasm. You know this, everyone who read it knew this. Now that it's inconvenient for people to go search for the comment, you present it as an attempt to smear and jeer, like the dishonest piece of trash you are. It's why the majority of what you post should simply be ignored.

You raise stupid points- like this thread- about how you are willing to kill marriage in order to kill marriage for homosexuals.

I have NEVER said that I want to kill marriages.

So was the thread title 'Killing Homosexual Marriage' was just more 'sarcasm'?

I want to end state recognition of marriages and I believe that will be done soon in my state and others.

Not by SB377. Contracts of marriage are recognized by Alabama as legal records of marriage and stored with the Department of Health. No where in SB377 does it say that Alabama will no longer recognize marriage or that it won't recognize marriage from other states.

You just made that shit up.

So was the thread title 'Killing Homosexual Marriage' was just more 'sarcasm'?
Nope... I do want to kill homosexual marriage.

Not by SB377
Well, nothing will be done by SB377 since it failed to get super majority vote. Sorry you wasted your time memorizing all aspects of it. The bill that eventually does pass will be completely different but will undoubtedly address the various legal entanglements regarding contract law and probate as well as vital records. I can't imagine them failing to deal with that in any legislation.

It will end the state sanctioning of marriage and thus, recognition of it. Statutory requirements of contract law which have always existed will still exist, have nothing to do with what the state formally recognizes or sanctions in an official capacity. Yes, they will still have to perform divorces for gay couples... that is not the State recognizing gay marriage.

The problem is, you are trying to take this from one extreme to another. You are claiming that anything short of completely ignoring something and acting like it doesn't exist, constitutes recognition. The State is bound to uphold the Constitution and rule of law, including contractual law, including contractual law from other states. That is NOT THE ISSUE! The State was obligated to do this BEFORE gay marriage! It's impossible for them to pass ANY legislation to absolve themselves from this obligation.

To Boss Man and all of those who still insist that government can be divorced from marriage, this is the reason why it is not happening. The real issue is not whether or not there is a right to marry, it is about equal protection under the law, as well as religious discrimination. Feel free to comment:

So far we have established two things on this thread:

1. The legal question of same sex marriage is settled, at least for now
   
   
2. Most or all of those who were pushing to get government out of marriage before Obergefell, and continue to now are doing so for the purpose of thwarting government recognition of same sex marriage

Now the question on the table is “Can government from a strictly legal standpoint actually abolish legal marriage? To put it differently, do people have a “right to marriage?” under the constitution? Now, we know that while there is no mention of marriage in the constitution or any of the amendments, the SCOTUS has ruled on numerous occasions that marriage is a “fundamental right” in cases that sought to secure the rights of individual couples to marry, where the states sought to exclude them for various reasons. But are those rulings the same as saying that marriage generally speaking is a right? I will concede that the answer is probably not. But, don’t start dancing for joy just yet

The fact is, that while you might be able to question the right to marriage, you cannot you cannot question the right to be treated equally and as long as some people are allowed to marry and reap the benefits of it, then others must also be allowed to marry- in the absence of a compelling government interest in preventing a particular group of class of people from doing so. That my friends is the rub-getting from where we are now, to a point where no one is able to marry nationwide or, at minimum, where everyone is treated equally by the federal government regardless of marital status in any particular state.

To do that, and thus avoid running afoul of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment one of two things would have to happen. 1) All states would have to simultaneously end legal marriage-including the marriages that are already in place- so as everyone, regardless of their home state would be equally deprived of federal benefits or 2) the federal government would have to end all of the benefits of marriage. In either case, it would result in no one being able to say that they are being treated unequally either by their state or by the federal government.

Now let’s consider the first scenario more closely. How exactly is that going to happen? I contend that it can’t Common sense will tell you that 50 states are not going to coordinate such legislation, even if there were popular support to do so, which there would not be. You might say that it could be enacted on the federal level-perhaps as a constitutional amendment banning all marriage. However, that is equally unlikely to happen. In addition, it is the same people who screamed about federal medaling in states affairs when it was about same sex marriage, are likely to have a problem with this as well-the ultimate act of melding.

And, what is to be done about all of the people who are already married? Unless those marriages can be invalidated, you will still have a problem of inequality –between those married people and the ones who wish to marry both for federal and state benefits.

Now for scenario two. Since getting all states to abolish marriage is not practical and most likely not even doable, we turn to the possibility of the abolishing of all federal benefits and all mention of marriage in the tax codes or any other federal legislation. That way people in states that have in fact abolished marriage will not have a case for being treated unequally. That too seems like a real long shot, but perhaps not quite as much as getting all states to abolish marriage and to invalidate existing marriages. However, consider the infamous Washington gridlock when it comes to far less drastic and controversial matters, couples with what is sure to be considerable opposition from those on both the left and the right. It seems to me that anyone pushing either of these proposals would in fact be committing political suicide.

Lastly, there are those who are pushing for state sanctioned unions to be called civil unions. Those folks do not seem to have a problem with government involvement in, and regulation of relationships as long as they are not called “ Marriage” To be married they contend, people would have to go to a religious institution. Let’s think about that. First, you are again running into a problem with federal benefits since the federal government does not recognize civil unions for that purpose. The same would be true of “private contracts. OK, you might be able to get federal laws changed to address that, although it is also a long, long shot and there are many different statutes that would have to be changed.

But even if you were successful, there is another problem not fixable through legislation. That is the religious aspect of it. Many people consider “marriage “ to be more than a religious matter and many more don’t consider it to be religious at all but want to be able to call their union marriage for the status that it conveys and the fact that "marriage" is a term that is universally understood. If it were necessary to submit to a religious institution in order to be married, it’s apparent that non-religious people would have a first Amendment claim for religious discrimination.

Ladies and gentlemen, quite apart from all of the other reason’s that I have presented to show why to try to get government out of marriage is an ill-conceived idea, I submit to you that there is no way of doing it without running afoul of the constitution either on the basis of the 14th or the first amendment. Feel free to try and prove me wrong.

 

[Syriusly]

You've not won anything from what I can tell. You haven't answered the man's question. You keep dismissing him as making a straw man argument but I think he raised a legitimate point.

Of course you think he raised a 'legitimate point'.

You also believe that gay men are going to try to pass legislation allowing them to force you to have sex with them in public.

You raise stupid points- like this thread- about how you are willing to kill marriage in order to kill marriage for homosexuals.

Pop talks about one thing- in every thread- incestuous marriage. That issue of course has absolutely nothing to do with your OP or thread- but Pop dragged his straw man in here as he drags it everywhere with him.

When I see Pop interested in anything like an actual dialogue, I will participate- but since he keeps insisting that the ONLY reason for banning sibling marriage is the issue of procreation- and then ignores every other reason- he is just here to drag his straw man around.

You also believe that gay men are going to try to pass legislation allowing them to force you to have sex with them in public.

And the context of that statement was sarcasm. You know this, everyone who read it knew this. Now that it's inconvenient for people to go search for the comment, you present it as an attempt to smear and jeer, like the dishonest piece of trash you are. It's why the majority of what you post should simply be ignored.

You raise stupid points- like this thread- about how you are willing to kill marriage in order to kill marriage for homosexuals.

I have NEVER said that I want to kill marriages.

So was the thread title 'Killing Homosexual Marriage' was just more 'sarcasm'?

I want to end state recognition of marriages and I believe that will be done soon in my state and others.

Not by SB377. Contracts of marriage are recognized by Alabama as legal records of marriage and stored with the Department of Health. No where in SB377 does it say that Alabama will no longer recognize marriage or that it won't recognize marriage from other states.

You just made that shit up.

So was the thread title 'Killing Homosexual Marriage' was just more 'sarcasm'?
Nope... I do want to kill homosexual marriage.

Not by SB377
Well, nothing will be done by SB377 since it failed to get super majority vote. Sorry you wasted your time memorizing all aspects of it. The bill that eventually does pass will be completely different but will undoubtedly address the various legal entanglements regarding contract law and probate as well as vital records. I can't imagine them failing to deal with that in any legislation.

It will end the state sanctioning of marriage and thus, recognition of it. Statutory requirements of contract law which have always existed will still exist, have nothing to do with what the state formally recognizes or sanctions in an official capacity. Yes, they will still have to perform divorces for gay couples... that is not the State recognizing gay marriage.

The problem is, you are trying to take this from one extreme to another. You are claiming that anything short of completely ignoring something and acting like it doesn't exist, constitutes recognition. The State is bound to uphold the Constitution and rule of law, including contractual law, including contractual law from other states. That is NOT THE ISSUE! The State was obligated to do this BEFORE gay marriage! It's impossible for them to pass ANY legislation to absolve themselves from this obligation.

To Boss Man and all of those who still insist that government can be divorced from marriage, this is the reason why it is not happening. The real issue is not whether or not there is a right to marry, it is about equal protection under the law, as well as religious discrimination. Feel free to comment:

So far we have established two things on this thread:

1. The legal question of same sex marriage is settled, at least for now
   
   
2. Most or all of those who were pushing to get government out of marriage before Obergefell, and continue to now are doing so for the purpose of thwarting government recognition of same sex marriage

Now the question on the table is “Can government from a strictly legal standpoint actually abolish legal marriage? To put it differently, do people have a “right to marriage?” under the constitution? Now, we know that while there is no mention of marriage in the constitution or any of the amendments, the SCOTUS has ruled on numerous occasions that marriage is a “fundamental right” in cases that sought to secure the rights of individual couples to marry, where the states sought to exclude them for various reasons. But are those rulings the same as saying that marriage generally speaking is a right? I will concede that the answer is probably not. But, don’t start dancing for joy just yet

The fact is, that while you might be able to question the right to marriage, you cannot you cannot question the right to be treated equally and as long as some people are allowed to marry and reap the benefits of it, then others must also be allowed to marry- in the absence of a compelling government interest in preventing a particular group of class of people from doing so. That my friends is the rub-getting from where we are now, to a point where no one is able to marry nationwide or, at minimum, where everyone is treated equally by the federal government regardless of marital status in any particular state.

To do that, and thus avoid running afoul of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment one of two things would have to happen. 1) All states would have to simultaneously end legal marriage-including the marriages that are already in place- so as everyone, regardless of their home state would be equally deprived of federal benefits or 2) the federal government would have to end all of the benefits of marriage. In either case, it would result in no one being able to say that they are being treated unequally either by their state or by the federal government.

Now let’s consider the first scenario more closely. How exactly is that going to happen? I contend that it can’t Common sense will tell you that 50 states are not going to coordinate such legislation, even if there were popular support to do so, which there would not be. You might say that it could be enacted on the federal level-perhaps as a constitutional amendment banning all marriage. However, that is equally unlikely to happen. In addition, it is the same people who screamed about federal medaling in states affairs when it was about same sex marriage, are likely to have a problem with this as well-the ultimate act of melding.

And, what is to be done about all of the people who are already married? Unless those marriages can be invalidated, you will still have a problem of inequality –between those married people and the ones who wish to marry both for federal and state benefits.

Now for scenario two. Since getting all states to abolish marriage is not practical and most likely not even doable, we turn to the possibility of the abolishing of all federal benefits and all mention of marriage in the tax codes or any other federal legislation. That way people in states that have in fact abolished marriage will not have a case for being treated unequally. That too seems like a real long shot, but perhaps not quite as much as getting all states to abolish marriage and to invalidate existing marriages. However, consider the infamous Washington gridlock when it comes to far less drastic and controversial matters, couples with what is sure to be considerable opposition from those on both the left and the right. It seems to me that anyone pushing either of these proposals would in fact be committing political suicide.

Lastly, there are those who are pushing for state sanctioned unions to be called civil unions. Those folks do not seem to have a problem with government involvement in, and regulation of relationships as long as they are not called “ Marriage” To be married they contend, people would have to go to a religious institution. Let’s think about that. First, you are again running into a problem with federal benefits since the federal government does not recognize civil unions for that purpose. The same would be true of “private contracts. OK, you might be able to get federal laws changed to address that, although it is also a long, long shot and there are many different statutes that would have to be changed.

But even if you were successful, there is another problem not fixable through legislation. That is the religious aspect of it. Many people consider “marriage “ to be more than a religious matter and many more don’t consider it to be religious at all but want to be able to call their union marriage for the status that it conveys and the fact that marriage is a term that is universally understood. If it were necessary to submit to a religious institution in order to be married, it’s apparent that non-religious would have a first Amendment claim for religious discrimination.

Ladies and gentlemen, quite apart from all of the other reason’s that I have presented to show why to try to get government out of marriage is an ill-conceived idea, I submit to you that there is no way of doing it without running afoul of the constitution either on the basis of the 14th or the first amendment. Feel free to try and prove me wrong.

'

Well of course you are correct.

The only way to achieve in any form what Boss and other antagonists of legal marriage want would be to eliminate incrementally legal references to marriage- most demonstrably in the tax code.

And that just isn't going to happen.

They are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water, but people actually want to keep the baby- and they don't care.

 

[Boss]

Save that it won't end the recognition of marriage. With a marriage contract being recognized as a legal record of marriage. With no changes to existing marriage law save that marriage would be entered into by contract rather than license.

Yes, it will end official state sanctioning and recognition of marriage. The State is not associated with the reasons for contracts between parties. They are required to administer probate according to statutory law regarding contracts between parties, without regard for the reason the contract was made. They've had to do this for over 200 years and will continue to have to do this as a matter of requirement by the Constitution of both the state and federal government.

Thank you so very much for continuing to point out how this in no way violates or interferes with anyone's civil rights. The sooner we can make this law of the land nationwide, the better!

 

[Syriusly]

You said you want to kill homosexual marriage.

And you want to do it by ending legal marriage for everyone.

Which of course would result in killing marriage as effectively for everyone as it does for homosexuals.

How about you STOP posting for 5 minutes and READ the fucking replies?

I don't want to end marriage for anyone. I want to end state sanctioning of marriage and state or government benefit associated with marriage. I don't believe this effectively kills marriage for anyone. I do believe, after we've made things so that there is no state/government benefit of marriage, the practice of "gay marriage" will become a thing of the past. Thus killing gay marriage.

I don't believe this effectively kills marriage for anyone.....Thus killing gay marriage.

Contradicting yourself in the same paragraph.

Bravo.

By any logic that ending 'legal marriage' will kill 'gay marriage' it will also 'kill' marriage.

Yes- some people might still get married for quaint religious reasons. But since people have a myriad of reasons to get married, there is no reason that is not based upon anything other than pure bigotry that would assume 'straight couples' would react any differently to the end of legal marriage than 'gay couples'.

You are suggesting killing marriage to kill 'gay marriage'

Bravo.

 

[Syriusly]

Save that it won't end the recognition of marriage. With a marriage contract being recognized as a legal record of marriage. With no changes to existing marriage law save that marriage would be entered into by contract rather than license.

Yes, it will end official state sanctioning and recognition of marriage.

Alabama will still recognize both marriages performed in Alabama- and marriages performed outside of Alabama.

The State doesn't sanction marriages- they recognize marriages.

And Alabama does that now- and will do the same if that law ever passes.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You said you want to kill homosexual marriage.

And you want to do it by ending legal marriage for everyone.

Which of course would result in killing marriage as effectively for everyone as it does for homosexuals.

How about you STOP posting for 5 minutes and READ the fucking replies?

I don't want to end marriage for anyone. I want to end state sanctioning of marriage and state or government benefit associated with marriage. I don't believe this effectively kills marriage for anyone. I do believe, after we've made things so that there is no state/government benefit of marriage, the practice of "gay marriage" will become a thing of the past. Thus killing gay marriage.

The OP spells out how this works in detail. All you want to do is muddy the water with dishonesty about what I've said and flood the board with nonsense. You manically go from claiming this doesn't change anything or mean anything to smearing and insulting me like I kicked your mother. You're not the least bit worried or concerned, but you've spent hours here typing so fast your fingers are blistered to flood the board with your rants.

Why just gay marriage Mr. Boss Man? Do you think that gays marry only for those government bennies and that other marry only for love and companionship? You can't possibly believe that because, as you states......you are not a bigot. Absolutely not!