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.
I stand corrected, thanks for the info.
With regard to same sex marriages, by the. United States Supreme Court kicking it back to the individual states, it becomes an individual state issue. That being said if a state doesn't recognize same sex marriage, you still can't force the to accept documents from a state which does. You have to accept the process and the will of the people. As difficult as it is, that is the way in which our nation was established.
You stand corrected again.
The Supreme Court did not kick back Perry for the states to decide the issue, the High Court ruled that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing and the Court couldnt rule on the merits of the case accordingly, letting stand the Ninths decision invalidating Proposition 8.
A similar case, with officers of a given state defending a measure prohibiting same-sex couples right to access to marriage law, could come to the Supreme Court for review.
Unless the United States Supreme Court has ruled that same sex marriage is legal and to be recognized on a NATIONAL level that ALL states must accept..... I do not stand corrected.
Unless the United States Supreme Court has ruled that same sex marriage is legal and to be recognized on a NATIONAL level that ALL states must accept..... I do not stand corrected.
Unless the United States Supreme Court has ruled that same sex marriage is legal and to be recognized on a NATIONAL level that ALL states must accept..... I do not stand corrected.
Exactly. What is Upheld across all 50 states was the retroactive constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage. The right to say "yes" or "no" through a state consensus. In CA that consensus is the initiative system that twice said "no" to gay marriage. No other consensus has been held on the matter to my knowledge. 7 million have spoken. Gay marriage is NOT legal in California.
it is unfair to those going to court to not know they dont have standing except after 3 layers of court.
IF those defending prop8 had known they would be denied standing they would not have defended the law in the fist place. That is another part of the joke that is the federal court system along with gimmicky rules on standing that say a case already won, in DOMA, could continue on to Supreme court, and yet a whole states voters could be essentially denied standing.
Well in a sense what the court is indirectly demonstrating, is that the right of the people to petition their government and allow their voice to be heard is both insignificant and irrelevant. A woman's right to vote wasn't simply accomplished in that fashion, there were Constitutional procedures to securing that right.... otherwise history would show the 14th Amendment would be enough to stand on its own merits.
Look folks, we are probably going to sanction gay marriage in this country. If you don't think that is a slippery slope to bigamy and polygamy and other forms of "marriage" then you don't know how lawyers work or how our legal system works.
If you think that sanctioning all forms of marriage will make our society better, then you have a perfect right to think that.
Many believe that our society will crumble if that is allowed, and they have an equal right think that.
Societal morals and ethics should be set by the society by a majority vote, not by a bunch of high paid lawyers speaking latin.
The fact is that the constitution is silent on marriage, any form of marriage. So to try to make a constitutional argument is playing games.
I cannot predict how this will play out, but our culture is at stake.
homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition----it is not normal or equal to heterosexuality.
gays should have equal rights, because I do believe that SOME of them have no choice in their sexuality.
but to call a gay union a marriage is culturally damaging IMHO
Look folks, we are probably going to sanction gay marriage in this country. If you don't think that is a slippery slope to bigamy and polygamy and other forms of "marriage" then you don't know how lawyers work or how our legal system works.
If you think that sanctioning all forms of marriage will make our society better, then you have a perfect right to think that.
Many believe that our society will crumble if that is allowed, and they have an equal right think that.
Societal morals and ethics should be set by the society by a majority vote, not by a bunch of high paid lawyers speaking latin.
The fact is that the constitution is silent on marriage, any form of marriage. So to try to make a constitutional argument is playing games.
I cannot predict how this will play out, but our culture is at stake.
homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition----it is not normal or equal to heterosexuality.
gays should have equal rights, because I do believe that SOME of them have no choice in their sexuality.
but to call a gay union a marriage is culturally damaging IMHO
Look folks, we are probably going to sanction gay marriage in this country. If you don't think that is a slippery slope to bigamy and polygamy and other forms of "marriage" then you don't know how lawyers work or how our legal system works.
If you think that sanctioning all forms of marriage will make our society better, then you have a perfect right to think that.
Many believe that our society will crumble if that is allowed, and they have an equal right think that.
Societal morals and ethics should be set by the society by a majority vote, not by a bunch of high paid lawyers speaking latin.
The fact is that the constitution is silent on marriage, any form of marriage. So to try to make a constitutional argument is playing games.
I cannot predict how this will play out, but our culture is at stake.
homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition----it is not normal or equal to heterosexuality.
gays should have equal rights, because I do believe that SOME of them have no choice in their sexuality.
but to call a gay union a marriage is culturally damaging IMHO
"We", like a cult Seawytch?
Our culture really is at stake. Marriage epitomizes the icon of social acceptance. When a behavior like homosexualiy is thusly iconized, look for HIV to start soaring in boys seeking to be "normal", like all teens do.
Oh, wait, that's already happening. Coincidentally just since gays started shoving their brand of marriage through in the 12 states it's now legal in and DC, there has been a skyrocket jump in new HIV cases in boys ages 13-29. I'm sure it's all just a coincidence.
Look folks, we are probably going to sanction gay marriage in this country. If you don't think that is a slippery slope to bigamy and polygamy and other forms of "marriage" then you don't know how lawyers work or how our legal system works.
Yup, the IRS recognize same-sex marriages at the federal level for income tax purposes.
That forces hetero-only marriage states to accept the federal regulation instead of their own, since almost all of them used the federal form as the platform for their state.
Yup, shakes and silhouette, you have nothing but a dead argument walking.
Look folks, we are probably going to sanction gay marriage in this country. If you don't think that is a slippery slope to bigamy and polygamy and other forms of "marriage" then you don't know how lawyers work or how our legal system works.
This is either ignorance or demagoguery on your part, and you clearly have no idea how our legal system works.
Marriage law can accommodate same-sex couples now, currently, without being rewritten or changed, that is not the case with bigamy and polygamy, where neither conform to current marriage laws, as currently written consequently there is no slippery slope.
Marriage is a contract between two equal parties, two equal partners, where the couple can be either opposite- or same-sex; it makes no difference with regard to the wording of the contract (marriage).
It remains and is called marriage, where the genders of the partners are irrelevant.
To rename marriage is pointless nonsense, just as is the notion that allowing same-sex couples access to marriage would be culturally damaging.
Look folks, we are probably going to sanction gay marriage in this country. If you don't think that is a slippery slope to bigamy and polygamy and other forms of "marriage" then you don't know how lawyers work or how our legal system works.
If you think that sanctioning all forms of marriage will make our society better, then you have a perfect right to think that.
Many believe that our society will crumble if that is allowed, and they have an equal right think that.
Societal morals and ethics should be set by the society by a majority vote, not by a bunch of high paid lawyers speaking latin.
The fact is that the constitution is silent on marriage, any form of marriage. So to try to make a constitutional argument is playing games.
I cannot predict how this will play out, but our culture is at stake.
homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition----it is not normal or equal to heterosexuality.
gays should have equal rights, because I do believe that SOME of them have no choice in their sexuality.
but to call a gay union a marriage is culturally damaging IMHO
So change the name...we're not stopping you.
What DOMA did was to legally shut down what gays are doing...
Look folks, we are probably going to sanction gay marriage in this country. If you don't think that is a slippery slope to bigamy and polygamy and other forms of "marriage" then you don't know how lawyers work or how our legal system works.
If you think that sanctioning all forms of marriage will make our society better, then you have a perfect right to think that.
Many believe that our society will crumble if that is allowed, and they have an equal right think that.
Societal morals and ethics should be set by the society by a majority vote, not by a bunch of high paid lawyers speaking latin.
The fact is that the constitution is silent on marriage, any form of marriage. So to try to make a constitutional argument is playing games.
I cannot predict how this will play out, but our culture is at stake.
homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition----it is not normal or equal to heterosexuality.
gays should have equal rights, because I do believe that SOME of them have no choice in their sexuality.
but to call a gay union a marriage is culturally damaging IMHO
So change the name...we're not stopping you.
What? you are the one who is insisting that your gay union be called a marriage.
Like I said earlier, its not about equality and fairness because civil unions give you those things-------your agenda is to have the govt force the rest of us to accept gay unions as marriages, even though that violates our religions and our basic beliefs.
you want govt mandated thought control------and I say screw that.
So change the name...we're not stopping you.
What? you are the one who is insisting that your gay union be called a marriage.
Like I said earlier, its not about equality and fairness because civil unions give you those things-------your agenda is to have the govt force the rest of us to accept gay unions as marriages, even though that violates our religions and our basic beliefs.
you want govt mandated thought control------and I say screw that.
Wrong. Marriage licenses are what are granted by the government so that is what we demand equal access to. If you were to change it to civil unions for everyone, you'd get no complaint from gays.
What? you are the one who is insisting that your gay union be called a marriage.
Like I said earlier, its not about equality and fairness because civil unions give you those things-------your agenda is to have the govt force the rest of us to accept gay unions as marriages, even though that violates our religions and our basic beliefs.
you want govt mandated thought control------and I say screw that.
Wrong. Marriage licenses are what are granted by the government so that is what we demand equal access to. If you were to change it to civil unions for everyone, you'd get no complaint from gays.
a gay union is not equivalent to a man/woman marriage. It is an unnatural coupling of two adults of the same sex.
If you want to do it, fine. But its not a marriage.
I am done with you and this thread.
opinion[/b]. The law is not going to agree with it so if you don't want us to be legally married, hurry up and change the name now, we won't mind...as long as it applies to everyone.
Yes, run off again. You always come back.
opinion[/b]. The law is not going to agree with it so if you don't want us to be legally married, hurry up and change the name now, we won't mind...as long as it applies to everyone.
Yes, run off again. You always come back.
Correction. The law already does agree with him. The highest Law in the Land. In June this year the US Supreme Court Upheld that each state's consensus to choose yes or no on gay marriage is a constitutional right of theirs back to the founding of the country. It cited that each state's populace has a vested and protected interest in setting social norms via marriage as a distinct social institution for doing so. Read the dicta. Future lawyers will be...
So, if you think you are legally married in California, think again. No lower court may take that right away from each state. None. It's a retroactive finding. All lower findings previous and in conflict are destroyed and void. No finding whatsoever was made that gay marriage is a right. Zero.
Therefore, the civil rights of 7 million have been revoked illegally and in contempt of the constituitonal interpretation of the US Supreme Court. As you will soon enough find out.
