DescentBB

ABOUT FREAKING TIME!!!!

Who cares *shrug*

about 40 couples that I know, down' south care big-time, CUDA. Thanks for asking.

And this ruling affects me how?

CUDA wrote:Who cares *shrug*

yeah you're right. it's not like human decency and treating others fairly is a big deal or anything.

Ferno wrote:

CUDA wrote:Who cares *shrug*

yeah you're right. it's not like human decency and treating others fairly is a big deal or anything.

well put. Not like those are Christian virtues or nothing, right?

And what does the bible say about the topic. Please enlighten us with your biblical knowledge.

CUDA wrote:And what does the bible say about the topic. Please enlighten us with your biblical knowledge.

that Jesus fellow said to love everyone. Never said a damned thing about marriage himself.

get the marshmallows and pass the matches:
http://www.hngn.com/articles/103690/201 ... rriage.htm

CUDA wrote:And what does the bible say about the topic. Please enlighten us with your biblical knowledge.

If you're trying for the "sanctity" angle...

What's ridiculous about all this is the comments by the Republican candidates for president. NOW they're all coming out and saying it should be left as a state's rights issue. Back when DOMA was a federal law, it was an important that it was federal law. You can't make these flip floppy conservatives happy unless they unilaterally win things their way.

By the way, SCOTUS upheld Obamacare this week too. 2nd loss this week for conservatives. If we get a Republican pres and Congress in 2016, I'd like to see what they come up with if they get their way and get rid of Obamacare by legislating it into oblivion. So far, not one idea has come from that camp, only a bunch of b*thin' and moanin'. If conservatives don't like the ACA, put up or shut up.

tunnelcat wrote:2nd loss this week for conservatives.

I wish we could stop calling them conservatives. Nothing about them is conservative. It's a misnomer.

How about unprincipled bigots then? Not all of them, but pretty much most of the modern group we have today.

Can you imagine the Fox News breathless commentary if one of Obama's daughters had done this? Gasp! Out of wedlock too? Tsk, tsk. They're such a good model Republican family.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bristol- ... d=32036289

Gays today, harems tomorrow.

woodchip wrote:Gays today, harems tomorrow.

woodchip wrote:blacks today, harems tomorrow.

woodchip wrote:mexicans today, harems tomorrow.

woodchip wrote:chinese today, harems tomorrow.

the same argument has been used for the past 70 years. wasn't true then, isn't true now, won't be true at all.

woodchip wrote:Gays today, harems tomorrow.

I suppose we should be thankful you didn't go the bestiality route.

woodchip wrote:Gays today, harems tomorrow.

Already got 'em. Mormon polygamists. I don't see conservatives going after them with restrictive laws to put a stop to the practice. By the way, why don't we see the opposite, plural marriage with a woman as the matriarch and the males as the harem?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/modern-polygam ... d=19322087

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:Gays today, harems tomorrow.

woodchip wrote:blacks today, harems tomorrow.

woodchip wrote:mexicans today, harems tomorrow.

woodchip wrote:chinese today, harems tomorrow.

the same argument has been used for the past 70 years. wasn't true then, isn't true now, won't be true at all.

Kind of a weak rejoinder don't you think?

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:Gays today, harems tomorrow.

Already got 'em. Mormon polygamists. I don't see conservatives going after them with restrictive laws to put a stop to the practice. By the way, why don't we see the opposite, plural marriage with a woman as the matriarch and the males as the harem?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/modern-polygam ... d=19322087

Notice I didn't use any gender

[mod]Keep it professional here, folks. I've already removed one post taking a personal shot at someone's humanity.[/mod]

It would help if there was some actual legal analysis here, rather than speculation and rhetoric.

10th vs 14th amendments, anyone?

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:Gays today, harems tomorrow.

Already got 'em. Mormon polygamists. I don't see conservatives going after them with restrictive laws to put a stop to the practice.

Polygamy has been illegal in the United States since the 1850s. The LDS church officially abandoned the practice in a weak statement in 1890 (though they still believe in eternal polygamy, and many offshoot groups still practice polygamy.) We don't need more restrictive laws, but better enforcement.

We've recently been celebrating the small victory in the Winston Blackmore case, and in the Warren Jeffs case. I would love to see more publicity for efforts along this front, instead of culture-war crap about same-sex marriage or the confederate Virginia battle flag. (If you're inclined to offer help to those fleeing polygamy, consider donating to the Hagar Home project.)

and, here we have the first call to eliminate one of the three Constitutional branches of government. Had to read it three times before accepting he really said this:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pre ... -the-court

I've got a question about SCOTUS. Scalia really ripped into Kennedy, even doing it personally. He did it back in 2013 when DOMA was repealed. Where's the decorum in that? It shows no class or respect for your colleagues and their opinions. He's acting like a spoiled child who didn't get his way.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/scalia-ju ... 33617.html

Lothar wrote:Polygamy has been illegal in the United States since the 1850s. The LDS church officially abandoned the practice in a weak statement in 1890 (though they still believe in eternal polygamy, and many offshoot groups still practice polygamy.) We don't need more restrictive laws, but better enforcement.

but, better enforcement means, in effect, more robust government. And yes, I'd agree. Good info on the polygamist runaway support efforts, thanks.

tunnelcat wrote:I've got a question about SCOTUS. Scalia really ripped into Kennedy, even doing it personally. He did it back in 2013 when DOMA was repealed. Where's the decorum in that? It shows no class or respect for your colleagues and their opinions. He's acting like a spoiled child who didn't get his way.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/scalia-ju ... 33617.html

moreover, today Scalia actually inferred that gays might be emboldened to take revenge, by way of justification for keeping the old discrimination intact. The man has spent this week criticizing his own institution.

woodchip wrote:Kind of a weak rejoinder don't you think?

Not really. The only weakness would be hearing the same argument used over and over, with the only change being what's in vogue at the time.

So now that marriage has been a deemed “fundamental right” and raised above a privilege granted to people by their peers, the next logical step should be the elimination of the marriage license, because you can’t license a fundamental right.

Also that whole “if anyone present has any objections…” thing has to go as well.

Spidey wrote:...the next logical step should be the elimination of the marriage license, because you can’t license a fundamental right.

That sounds fantastic. I'm on board with that. Don't know why the state has any say in marriage anyway.

Ummmm…because it’s a legal status.

Spidey wrote:Ummmm…because it’s a legal status.

Great. Just don't give tax breaks to married people and we'll be getting somewhere.

And because of this decision:

The editorial board of PennLive/The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Pa. is taking a hardcore stance against those who disagree with the Supreme Court ruling to legalize gay marriage.

“As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage,” they declared.

I wonder if PennLive also bans hate speech by Al Sharpton

Spidey wrote:So now that marriage has been a deemed “fundamental right” and raised above a privilege granted to people by their peers, the next logical step should be the elimination of the marriage license, because you can’t license a fundamental right.

I've said this all along. Government should be out of the marriage business altogether.

woodchip wrote:And because of this decision:

The editorial board of PennLive/The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Pa. is taking a hardcore stance against those who disagree with the Supreme Court ruling to legalize gay marriage.

“As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage,” they declared.

I wonder if PennLive also bans hate speech by Al Sharpton

have only read the Patriot-News when I'm upstate fishing in camp, but don't recall ever reading a word in there written by Rev. Al. But, of course, the usual 'what if' scary scenario is your stock-in-trade, and it's made so much easier when you're talking about a newspaper you've never read, right?

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:So now that marriage has been a deemed “fundamental right” and raised above a privilege granted to people by their peers, the next logical step should be the elimination of the marriage license, because you can’t license a fundamental right.

I've said this all along. Government should be out of the marriage business altogether.

So when you remove legal status from marriage how do you enforce things like inheritance and the other things that legal status brings?

Give legal authority back to the church? If so, how do non religious people get married, force churches to marry anybody? There was a reason the government took over the sanctioning duties in the first place.

Go without a sanctioning body, and let people just declare themselves married?

Do away with all any and all legal benefits?

Spidey wrote:So when you remove legal status from marriage how do you enforce things like inheritance and the other things that legal status brings?

there you have an issue that will get a bit more complicated, because you won't have a legal default. Now, in my case, I have a will. It's about 6 pages long and detailed as hell. Many people do not. I would suggest that state probate courts establish some sort of simple default heir form for folks, but it would take lawyers to get that right.

Give legal authority back to the church? If so, how do non religious people get married, force churches to marry anybody? There was a reason the government took over the sanctioning duties in the first place.

legal and Church violate the Constitution completely in the same sentence, so that's out.

Go without a sanctioning body, and let people just declare themselves married?

yup, but if people wish a church to be involved, and the church is ok with it, fine.

Do away with all any and all legal benefits?

yes

Thanks.

One of the main functions of the license is to facilitate the legal name change, so I guess we do away with that as well.

Adopting the name of your spouse is more than just tradition, it serves to solidify the union as well as other legal purposes.


And of course the most important result becomes no person, business or organization will have the legal obligation to honor or recognize your marriage. (ironically one of the things gays were hoping for the most)

Spidey wrote:Adopting the name of your spouse is more than just tradition, it serves to solidify the union as well as other legal purposes.

While we are on the topic, I'm against that name-changing business. For too long it has been a symbol of patriarchy. The "tradition" is the man owns the woman and is branded with his name. Sure, you might not think of it that way, but that's the history.

Spidey wrote:Thanks.

One of the main functions of the license is to facilitate the legal name change, so I guess we do away with that as well.

Adopting the name of your spouse is more than just tradition, it serves to solidify the union as well as other legal purposes.

no reason to do away with the name change, but the process will be the same as anyone else choosing to change their name.

And of course the most important result becomes no person, business or organization will have the legal obligation to honor or recognize your marriage. (ironically one of the things gays were hoping for the most)

no, most of the folks I know just want fair and equal treatment, and not be discriminated against. The marriage thing was a matter, as stated above of the legal BENEFITS, and if straight married people could get benefits, they should too.

vision wrote:

Spidey wrote:Adopting the name of your spouse is more than just tradition, it serves to solidify the union as well as other legal purposes.

While we are on the topic, I'm against that name-changing business. For too long it has been a symbol of patriarchy. The "tradition" is the man owns the woman and is branded with his name. Sure, you might not think of it that way, but that's the history.

That's been changing recently, with hybridized names making up a good percentage of married couples. My sister got married a few years ago and she made the choice to choose the last name.