Re: that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
HyogaRott Send a noteboard - 19/10/2012 11:11:55 PM
1: There is NO legal right to marriage, PERIOD. You will not find marriage in the Constitution (the location of ALL our rights). There is NO right.
As for the difficulties for people who choose to participate in a legal union that 2/3rds of the country including the federal government does not recognize, it is not the problem of those 2/3rds or the feds to resolve it. THEY chose to put themselves in that situation, it was THEIR choice to complicate their own lives. As for the extent of those complications, they really do not exist.
2: The US only recognizes marriages from other countries that conform to US law. A shikh can't immigrate here with his 12 wives because polygamy is not legal in the US.
3: The existing framework is man and woman; man and man, or woman and woman is something different, thus not the same.
4: The point is (and Utah does not accept polygamy either) that it is NOT about equal rights. If it was then it would be about eliminating ANY restriction upon who can form a marriage, but it is not (Me too. Me too. No, not them; just me too).
We got legally divorced (with children) and it was about as amicable as possible. We get along much better divorced than we ever did married, I just enjoy the cliche
BTW: I think the DOMA law is just as much garbage as the various legal arguments (on the state level) being made by the gay mariage advocates.
As for the difficulties for people who choose to participate in a legal union that 2/3rds of the country including the federal government does not recognize, it is not the problem of those 2/3rds or the feds to resolve it. THEY chose to put themselves in that situation, it was THEIR choice to complicate their own lives. As for the extent of those complications, they really do not exist.
2: The US only recognizes marriages from other countries that conform to US law. A shikh can't immigrate here with his 12 wives because polygamy is not legal in the US.
3: The existing framework is man and woman; man and man, or woman and woman is something different, thus not the same.
4: The point is (and Utah does not accept polygamy either) that it is NOT about equal rights. If it was then it would be about eliminating ANY restriction upon who can form a marriage, but it is not (Me too. Me too. No, not them; just me too).
We got legally divorced (with children) and it was about as amicable as possible. We get along much better divorced than we ever did married, I just enjoy the cliche
BTW: I think the DOMA law is just as much garbage as the various legal arguments (on the state level) being made by the gay mariage advocates.
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM
1063 Views
Completely unsurprising since the Justice department refuses to defend the law.
- 18/10/2012 09:05:16 PM
642 Views
For a moment there I thought you were saying the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 09:10:16 PM
688 Views
Do you know if there's a case about DOMA and the "full faith and credit" clause?
- 18/10/2012 10:05:11 PM
760 Views
I don't know offhand, but my gchat friend will. If she pops on again, I'll ask her. But...
- 18/10/2012 10:37:09 PM
775 Views
I asked her about pending cases taking on Section 2. "None that I know of," she answered. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 12:46:21 AM
283 Views
I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM
717 Views
Re: I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 01:18:22 AM
714 Views
Either a ban discriminates against those affected more than those unaffected, or it does not.
- 19/10/2012 03:48:32 PM
611 Views
Gun control laws can equally affect everyone, though, is my point.
- 20/10/2012 10:52:41 PM
688 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it.
- 19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM
767 Views
I just have to note in passing that Ted Olsons memoires will make fascinating reading.
- 19/10/2012 04:44:15 PM
790 Views
Also, hooray! Let's hope SCOTUS adheres (if you use that term over there). *NM*
- 18/10/2012 10:59:14 PM
301 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause
- 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM
835 Views
Not really
- 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM
748 Views
Then by the "legal argument" you all propose I should have the "right" to marry a spoon...
- 19/10/2012 05:48:32 PM
669 Views
if your spoon or dog is capable of making power of attorney decisions then by all means do so *NM*
- 19/10/2012 06:41:43 PM
305 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM
300 Views
provide for us a legal reason why marrying a corporation should be recognized by the US gov't
- 19/10/2012 08:09:08 PM
741 Views
The argument above was that there was no jsutification it should not, thus it should be allowed.
- 19/10/2012 10:57:16 PM
750 Views
you are only offering your own emotional take on a legal decision there is no logic in your posts
- 19/10/2012 11:12:17 PM
663 Views
Wrong. I do not have an emotional stake in this, I am simply using logic. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 03:59:08 PM
315 Views
saying you should be able to marry a spoon or corporation is not logical reasoning. try again *NM*
- 22/10/2012 06:19:29 PM
291 Views
EXACTLY, and that was the point I was making. Congratualtions for figuring that out. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:34:46 PM
283 Views
you are obviously using some humpty dumpty definition of "logic" then *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:40:12 PM
299 Views
No, you apparently failed reading comprehension in school.
- 23/10/2012 03:08:44 PM
674 Views
#1: fuck you. #2: you are still not using logic
- 23/10/2012 05:50:14 PM
641 Views
Ah yes, the fuck you argument... the height of all intelectual persuits... and you call ME emotional
- 23/10/2012 06:47:21 PM
716 Views
i see -- it's ok to be insulting as long as the "f-bomb" is not used. got it.
- 23/10/2012 10:27:54 PM
790 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM
308 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white?
- 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM
639 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully
- 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM
602 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument.
- 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM
623 Views
No, I am not, try reading everything I have written on the subject before jumping to conclusions.
- 22/10/2012 11:41:05 PM
771 Views
It was only a matter of time.
- 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM
674 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion.
- 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM
842 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb.
- 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM
756 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself
- 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM
722 Views
There is no right being denied...
- 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM
684 Views
that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
- 19/10/2012 08:06:54 PM
758 Views
Re: that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
- 19/10/2012 11:11:55 PM
812 Views
nobody is arguing the legal right to marry, they are arguing about the legal rights marriage gives
- 19/10/2012 11:37:14 PM
665 Views
There are no "marriage rights" NONE, zip, ziltch, nada...
- 22/10/2012 04:18:15 PM
680 Views
why bother settling custody in a divorce then if there are no "marriage rights"?
- 22/10/2012 06:38:14 PM
594 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument:
- 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM
710 Views