Now the gays can be a miserable
- Thread starter Fijimn
- Start date
- Status
Divorce lawyers are celebrating in the streets now. The client bases of those practitioners will expand considerably.
The attorneys at Cordell & Cordell are about to make a fortune -- they specialize in representing men....
Uh oh. Two friends of mine who have been in a relationship far longer than me and my wife will suddenly have some awkward morning conversations......
Still feel it should be a state issue. More federal government intervention.
I don't agree that equal rights is a state issue.
Having said that, it doesn't matter if you agree with my principal, it literally can't be a state issue. America has long had as a principal of its federalism that marriage "comity" applies across the states..ie a marriage in one state no matter the rules in place has equal authority and legitimacy in any other state.
Why stop there?? Who does the government think they are telling me I can love & marry only one person?? What if I want 5 wives and moving to Utah isn't in the cards?
I'm fine with pluralistic marriage if you want it. I on the other hand couldn't imagine wanting more than one wife that's more than enough for me. As long as it's two or more consenting adults with the ability to consent, then have whatever freaky dreaky sex and resulting contractual obligations you want to engage in.
Usually the next argument is "what about a man and a turtle?" Well in that case the turtle doesn't have the brain power to consent nor do dogs or most animals.
Getting back to who would want to live with five catty women sniping at each other, you think divorce is bad now where the man gets half or less. Just wait until you get twenty percent or less following a divorce...
The moral of this is, even if legal I doubt there would be many pluralistic marriages. Maybe amongst celebrities, with a wife in NYC, a wife in LA and a husband in Las Vegas where those three never meet.
The moral of this is, even if legal I doubt there would be many pluralistic marriages. Maybe amongst celebrities, with a wife in NYC, a wife in LA and a husband in Las Vegas where those three never meet.
Sigh...was waiting for the married to animals false-analogy before this one or the "why can't I get married to my sister." I attribute it to the basic misunderstanding of Constitutional law. The decision today held that marriage is a fundamental right. There are a certain amount of rights that are "fundamental" and there are other rights that are not fundamental. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are fundamental. However, those rights are not absolute. For example, you have the freedom of speech. That is a fundamental right. But you can be arrested to yelling fire in a movie theater or the government can pass content-neutral ordinances that restrict the time, place and manner of your speech.
You may ask: well, how can the government infringe on my fundamental right to free speech. Again, the right is not absolute. The government can pass laws that infringe on your rights or even discriminate against one class of citizens. However, those laws must pass certain levels of scrutiny. For fundamental rights, the test is the highest form - strict scrutiny. Very few laws can pass strict scrutiny test.
Now back you your original question: anti-polygamy laws were passed because of the evidence submitted regarding the adverse effect these relationships have on women. they are generally very young, subject to abuse, etc. Anti-consanguinity laws were passed because of the genetic mutations in offspring--generally these laws are limited to the second cousin.
You're correct having two or three wives may be a bit much to handle after you got the honeymoon stage out of the way. Who wants to split things 3 or 4 ways when things head south?
Serious question: why can't a single guy or girl get the same benefits as a married couple? Why incentivize a institution for couples that has 50% failure rate?
Last edited:
Because the social policy of the western world has been to encourage marriage and offspring....creates, in general, a happier and more productive society.
So I have a question? If a church offers marriage ceremonies, can they still refuse to do it to same sex couples, or can they be charged with violating the civil rights for refusing to do so?
A church can refuse to perform the service. It's in the opinion (or at least I have been told that it is in the opinion, I haven't had time to read it or the many dissents)
Yes, much like churches have been able to refuse to marry mixed couples since the courts ruled they were allowed to marry just the same as same race couples, about 55ish years ago.
? Relations more distant than 2nd cousin can marry, but this close or closer can't legally marry?
I recall some first cousin marriages in Europe, like I think Einstein's.......not sure if that's still legal over there.
I seem to recall reading that first cousins can legally marry in like 20something states.
It's state law dependent - if I recall, in Texas it to the second degree some may be to the first degree.
Still feel that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at any level.
Because marriage has been and always will be licensed by the state government and there is a large and very vocal percentage of Americans that believe that homosexual marriage is fundamentally wrong--generally due to their religious views--and should not be recognized by the government. I believe that view is wrong, however, I recognize for many that a fundamental tenant of faith and should be respected.
So now, if they employ someone at their church, say a private school of the church, do they have to recognize the marriage as it relates to providing health care benefits to the spouse of the employee, even though that church itself does not recognize the person as a spouse? Or are they free to discriminate against employing someone engaged in a same-sex marriage or fire them should they become part of a same sex marriage?
I believe that, under the Hobby Lobby decision, the church would not have to provide insurance coverage to a same sex partner or seek out an insurer who's policy includes coverages for a same-sex partner. Although, Hobby Lobby is not directly on point, there is enough there to indicate as such. This decision is really and intentional restrictive to state discrimination against same-sex couples that want to marry.
I am by no means a legal expert. But I'm not sure the HL decision has an effect on the question.
HL was asking for the same religious exemption that churches were already allowed when it came to paying for certain types of birth control.
The answer to WDN's question probably will get answered over the coming weeks, as I'm not sure if that has been addressed by ACA yet. Now that these marriages are legal, do churches get the same exemption, if they do, then so does HL.
No, it's not directly on point. HL was an objection to ACA or the policy that were required under the ACA that had coverage for certain birth control. SCOTUS recognized the legit religious objection to paying for these policies. What I was saying is the recognition of a religious objection to coverages or terms of coverages in an insurance policy.
Spare a thought for the same sexers. When guys have troubles with their wives they go play golf with other dudes. When ladies have troubles with their man, they hang out with other women and shop and drink wine and stuff. When both partners are from the same sex, wtf are you supposed to do?
I thought gay marriage is perfect? I mean according to all the news, it appears that it is the greatest thing ever.
We're done as a country. Dudes marrying dudes. Dudes becoming chicks. Yeah, this is what the framers intended. Sure. Everyone gets a ribbon. Everything is fine. Nothing is off limits. Yeah. This will work.
If by greatest thing ever you mean "two consenting adults who love each other and want to spend their lives together" then, yes.
Yeah the good old days that the slavers err...I mean framers envisioned. That original Constitution was a perfect god given document as it allowed us the benefits of slavery; women are mere chattel without rights; the government could imprison you for debts, speaking your mind, gathering with likeminded friends; you couldn't petition/sue the government to address anything the government did to you; you were not allowed weapons to defend yourself; law enforcement could search you and seize assets for no reason; you could be tried multiple times for the same crime; you could be punished before being tried if you looked...funny or something, no reason necessary; you could be tortured into a confession; the court wasn't required to tell you what your were being tried for if they actually bothered with a trial; torture was deemed a perfectly acceptable punishment; they could murder you by putting you in a diseases ridden prison without food or ordinary sanitation; only white males not Asians, Hispanics, native Americans and CERTAINLY not those black slaves were allowed to vote; but even if you're a white male, you can't be a poor white male because you could only vote if you had enough land or could afford to pay tax imposed to vote; and there were no limits on how many years your king...I mean president could serve.
Yep those original slaveowning founders could do no wrong and created a perfect document in the original constitution. We should never change.
So, if a same sex couple gets married in a state that permits it then has their job transferred to a state that doesn't, should the couple be denied the spousal benefits enjoyed in their previous location?
Abraham Lincoln was probably only "prison gay" when he was poor and in an area with ten dudes for every vagina.
But James Buchanan, he was 100% gay. Let's see...never married...lived for years with another unmarried senator even though they could both easily afford to live alone....when his lover I mean "senator pal" left to serve as an ambassador the president wrote to a friend "I am now solitary and alone. I have gone a-wooing to several gentlemen, but have not succeeded with any one of them." (which even using the overly flowery language of that time can mean only one thing)....Andy Jackson called the president Aunt Fancy and Miss Nancy to their faces....several senators openly called Buchanan's lover his "better half" and his "wife".
You are probably clapping that the White House is being lit this evening with rainbow colors. I am vomiting. Whatever. The U.S. will not exist (as we know it) within 50-75 years. Dudes marrying dudes is only part of our intensifying problems, but it confirms that we have completely abandoned the fundamental principles that enabled the U.S. to previously be the greatest country in the world.
- Status
