Active Users:480 Time:17/09/2025 02:09:47 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
if your spoon or dog is capable of making power of attorney decisions then by all means do so *NM* moondog Send a noteboard - 19/10/2012 06:41:43 PM
.. or 20 people at once, or my pet dog, or even my own daughter (that way I can avoid that inheritance tax Joel cites).

Reasonable (by someone's definition) restrictions are placed on virtually all things (even the Freedom of Speech). Social acceptability can not be legislated, and you will not find love anywhere in any law book. Additionally, the "marriage rights" people are constantly carping on can be obtained quite easily (except for Social inSecurity survivor benefits, which are crap) through other means.

Frankly I couldn't care less who or what anyone marries, but the legal arguments put forth are garbage.
"The RIAA has shown a certain disregard for the creative people of the industry in their eagerness to protect the revenues of the record companies." -- Frank Zappa

"That's the trouble with political jokes in this country... they get elected!" -- Dave Lippman
Reply to message
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional. Burr - 18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM 1017 Views
An excellent ruling. Thanks for the post. *NM* Ghavrel - 18/10/2012 08:47:54 PM 291 Views
Oh, and they addressed the First Circuit's argument: Burr - 18/10/2012 08:54:47 PM 795 Views
I always knew that DomA guy was bad news. Nate - 18/10/2012 09:05:13 PM 549 Views
Completely unsurprising since the Justice department refuses to defend the law. HyogaRott - 18/10/2012 09:05:16 PM 603 Views
For a moment there I thought you were saying the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional. Legolas - 18/10/2012 09:10:16 PM 644 Views
Do you know if there's a case about DOMA and the "full faith and credit" clause? Tim - 18/10/2012 10:05:11 PM 720 Views
I don't know offhand, but my gchat friend will. If she pops on again, I'll ask her. But... Burr - 18/10/2012 10:37:09 PM 733 Views
I asked her about pending cases taking on Section 2. "None that I know of," she answered. *NM* Burr - 19/10/2012 12:46:21 AM 265 Views
I wonder about that one as well. Joel - 19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM 671 Views
Re: I wonder about that one as well. Burr - 19/10/2012 01:18:22 AM 659 Views
Either a ban discriminates against those affected more than those unaffected, or it does not. Joel - 19/10/2012 03:48:32 PM 550 Views
Gun control laws can equally affect everyone, though, is my point. Burr - 20/10/2012 10:52:41 PM 651 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it. Tom - 19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM 718 Views
There is a good chance it won't happen Roland00 - 19/10/2012 03:02:50 PM 781 Views
Kennedy will go along with them. *NM* Tom - 19/10/2012 10:05:38 PM 273 Views
I just have to note in passing that Ted Olsons memoires will make fascinating reading. Joel - 19/10/2012 04:44:15 PM 744 Views
Also, hooray! Let's hope SCOTUS adheres (if you use that term over there). *NM* Tim - 18/10/2012 10:59:14 PM 285 Views
I believe we typically use the terms "affirms" or "upholds." Joel - 19/10/2012 12:23:50 AM 709 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause Joel - 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM 798 Views
Not really HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM 717 Views
Not quite Roland00 - 19/10/2012 02:56:56 PM 600 Views
Yes, really, for "any CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT." Joel - 19/10/2012 03:12:11 PM 685 Views
joel, please stop moondog - 19/10/2012 05:42:51 PM 661 Views
That's such a stupid, puerile argument. Ghavrel - 19/10/2012 03:47:26 PM 672 Views
Not the best analogy, though I agree with the sentiment. Joel - 19/10/2012 04:10:11 PM 598 Views
Then by the "legal argument" you all propose I should have the "right" to marry a spoon... HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 05:48:32 PM 631 Views
if your spoon or dog is capable of making power of attorney decisions then by all means do so *NM* moondog - 19/10/2012 06:41:43 PM 290 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM* HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM 283 Views
provide for us a legal reason why marrying a corporation should be recognized by the US gov't moondog - 19/10/2012 08:09:08 PM 705 Views
The argument above was that there was no jsutification it should not, thus it should be allowed. HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 10:57:16 PM 710 Views
you are only offering your own emotional take on a legal decision there is no logic in your posts moondog - 19/10/2012 11:12:17 PM 624 Views
Wrong. I do not have an emotional stake in this, I am simply using logic. *NM* HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 03:59:08 PM 297 Views
saying you should be able to marry a spoon or corporation is not logical reasoning. try again *NM* moondog - 22/10/2012 06:19:29 PM 277 Views
EXACTLY, and that was the point I was making. Congratualtions for figuring that out. *NM* HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 11:34:46 PM 267 Views
you are obviously using some humpty dumpty definition of "logic" then *NM* moondog - 22/10/2012 11:40:12 PM 281 Views
No, you apparently failed reading comprehension in school. HyogaRott - 23/10/2012 03:08:44 PM 638 Views
#1: fuck you. #2: you are still not using logic moondog - 23/10/2012 05:50:14 PM 600 Views
Ah yes, the fuck you argument... the height of all intelectual persuits... and you call ME emotional HyogaRott - 23/10/2012 06:47:21 PM 673 Views
i see -- it's ok to be insulting as long as the "f-bomb" is not used. got it. moondog - 23/10/2012 10:27:54 PM 753 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM* beetnemesis - 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM 292 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white? Dannymac - 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM 594 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM 563 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument. Dannymac - 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM 584 Views
No, I am not, try reading everything I have written on the subject before jumping to conclusions. HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 11:41:05 PM 735 Views
It was only a matter of time. Tom - 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM 639 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion. Joel - 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM 797 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb. HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM 716 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself moondog - 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM 677 Views
There is no right being denied... HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM 649 Views
that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way moondog - 19/10/2012 08:06:54 PM 717 Views
Re: that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way HyogaRott - 19/10/2012 11:11:55 PM 774 Views
nobody is arguing the legal right to marry, they are arguing about the legal rights marriage gives moondog - 19/10/2012 11:37:14 PM 606 Views
There are no "marriage rights" NONE, zip, ziltch, nada... HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 04:18:15 PM 645 Views
why bother settling custody in a divorce then if there are no "marriage rights"? moondog - 22/10/2012 06:38:14 PM 548 Views
You obviously have no idea what a right is. HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 11:49:26 PM 886 Views
No? snoopcester - 19/10/2012 11:34:36 PM 620 Views
Really HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 04:29:38 PM 633 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument: Burr - 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM 674 Views
Nope I am not HyogaRott - 22/10/2012 04:34:59 PM 601 Views
That is just it: Most US marriage laws are already areligious. Joel - 23/10/2012 05:08:38 PM 617 Views
Yes, the laws are 100% secular... HyogaRott - 23/10/2012 07:01:08 PM 588 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Formatting
Smiley Codes