Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Reply To Thread

New York approves Same *** Marriage.Follow

#1 Jun 25 2011 at 6:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
I'm surprised I get to go first on this!

Law goes into effect in 30 days. 4 Republicans in the New York Senate voted "yes", passing the bill. Thank you Republican Senators!

Churches and religious institutions will not be forced to perform SSM ceremonies.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#2 Jun 25 2011 at 6:54 AM Rating: Good
******
49,821 posts
I expect some ******** from the Archdiocese.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Jun 25 2011 at 6:57 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
Alma got in first. Smiley: grin
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#4 Jun 25 2011 at 8:12 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
According to good 'ol trusting Fox News, SSM is still not allowed in California. I thought it was legal in California?
#5 Jun 25 2011 at 8:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It was made legal by the CA courts, then a ballot resolution was passed that made it illegal which is then being challenged as un-(state)-constitutional and it's tied up back in the courts. The pro-SSM folks won the first case and then won a case in which the anti-SSM people tried to get the first case thrown out.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#6 Jun 25 2011 at 8:27 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jophiel wrote:
It was made legal by the CA courts, then a ballot resolution was passed that made it illegal which is then being challenged as un-(state)-constitutional and it's tied up back in the courts. The pro-SSM folks won the first case and then won a case in which the anti-SSM people tried to get the first case thrown out.


Such a waste of money. There should be one case to determine it all, one way or the other. It doesn't make sense to have 6 states allow SSM then wasting time and money debating the same topic in other states. At this rate, all 50 states will allow it, but at an incredibly slow rate.


One case, that's it. Want to appeal it? Fine? Just not 50 different states doing it 50+ different times.
#7 Jun 25 2011 at 8:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Marriage is largely a state's issue, which is why different states have different rules on marriage licenses or whether you can marry your first cousin and things like that. Barring a US Supreme Court ruling on the overall constitutionality of SSM bans, it's going to continue to be handled on a state level. The federal Defense of Marriage Act applies to the requirements for federal marriage benefits but doesn't stop states from declaring any two people married, just whether or not the federal government will find them eligible.

On the plus side, its certainly possible that the CA case will eventually be appealed to the US Supreme Court. I think they've declined to hear previous rulings on the matter but this could be one they pick up.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Jun 25 2011 at 9:03 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Marriage is largely a state's issue, which is why different states have different rules on marriage licenses or whether you can marry your first cousin and things like that. Barring a US Supreme Court ruling on the overall constitutionality of SSM bans, it's going to continue to be handled on a state level. The federal Defense of Marriage Act applies to the requirements for federal marriage benefits but doesn't stop states from declaring any two people married, just whether or not the federal government will find them eligible.

On the plus side, its certainly possible that the CA case will eventually be appealed to the US Supreme Court. I think they've declined to hear previous rulings on the matter but this could be one they pick up.


I realize it's a state issue, I just think it's a waste of time and money. If you can get married at the age of 16 in one state, then you should be able to get married at the age of 16 in another state.

I can understand some differences among states, but I think major things such as age and *** should be decided at the national level.
#9 Jun 25 2011 at 9:03 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Besides, the point that there should only be one case and then no more is f*cking retarded if you want to maintain a democratic system. MANY of our current laws, that we take to be natural and obvious necessities of our society, were defeated in courts many times before going into effect. And some foul laws need to be challenged in courts multiple times before they are overturned.

It's the nature of a democratic system.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#10 Jun 25 2011 at 9:09 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
idiggory wrote:
Besides, the point that there should only be one case and then no more is f*cking retarded if you want to maintain a democratic system. MANY of our current laws, that we take to be natural and obvious necessities of our society, were defeated in courts many times before going into effect. And some foul laws need to be challenged in courts multiple times before they are overturned.

It's the nature of a democratic system.


Almaieque wrote:
One case, that's it. Want to appeal it? Fine? Just not 50 different states doing it 50+ different times.

#11 Jun 25 2011 at 9:30 AM Rating: Decent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
I like how you think that was a response. You NEED multiple cases.

First of all, there's no chance for a federal bill mandating same *** marriage until you get enough support for it, and if you can't even get those bills passed in their states, there's no chance in **** it is passing in the federal gov't. ALL movements start small, start local, and then move up. They have to, there's no other outlet.

Furthermore, you can't even get a case tried in the federal gov't until it has moved up from the state system, realistically.

Plus, having only one case just increases the chance of injustice occurring in the long run. Cases need to be evaluated multiple times, over time. In 1950, it was considered obvious that women shouldn't be able to vote, for instance. Had there been only one trial then, they would not have been granted suffrage.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#12 Jun 25 2011 at 9:37 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
idiggory wrote:
Plus, having only one case just increases the chance of injustice occurring in the long run. Cases need to be evaluated multiple times, over time. In 1950, it was considered obvious that women shouldn't be able to vote, for instance. Had there been only one trial then, they would not have been granted suffrage.


Smiley: confused

1920
#13 Jun 25 2011 at 9:38 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
That was supposed to be an 18. >.<
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#14 Jun 25 2011 at 9:53 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Idiggory wrote:
I like how you think that was a response. You NEED multiple cases.


If one MAJOR case consists of 2-3 small cases underneath the umbrella of that one case, then that still consists of one MAJOR case. My point is that 50 different states shouldn't have to REPEAT the same process for the same result.

Idiggory wrote:
Plus, having only one case just increases the chance of injustice occurring in the long run. Cases need to be evaluated multiple times, over time. In 1950, it was considered obvious that women shouldn't be able to vote, for instance. Had there been only one trial then, they would not have been granted suffrage.


Almalieque wrote:
One case, that's it. Want to appeal it? Fine? Just not 50 different states doing it 50+ different times.

#15 Jun 25 2011 at 10:00 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
And yet you fail to see that having state movements is integral to the fair evaluation of a federal bill.

Or that all these different states come to different conclusions about the constitutionality of SSM, which suggests that a single case in the federal gov't would be appealed so much that it would be useless right now anyway.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#16 Jun 25 2011 at 12:24 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,646 posts
Smiley: yippee

Six down, 44 to go!!
#17 Jun 25 2011 at 12:39 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
idiggory wrote:
And yet you fail to see that having state movements is integral to the fair evaluation of a federal bill.

Or that all these different states come to different conclusions about the constitutionality of SSM, which suggests that a single case in the federal gov't would be appealed so much that it would be useless right now anyway.


My point is that it shouldn't be that way...doing so is wasting time. Each state can participate if they want, but it should done all at once. You know, kind of how we vote for presidents. We don't need to undergo various different court sessions over a series of years and decades. If it's ok for NY, then it's ok for CA.
#18 Jun 25 2011 at 12:43 PM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
idiggory wrote:
And yet you fail to see that having state movements is integral to the fair evaluation of a federal bill.

Or that all these different states come to different conclusions about the constitutionality of SSM, which suggests that a single case in the federal gov't would be appealed so much that it would be useless right now anyway.


My point is that it shouldn't be that way...doing so is wasting time. Each state can participate if they want, but it should done all at once. You know, kind of how we vote for presidents. We don't need to undergo various different court sessions over a series of years and decades. If it's ok for NY, then it's ok for CA.


I think I see what you're saying, and I think I agree with you, but if I'm interpreting you correctly, then you're arguing that we should take the decision away from the states and make it a federal type dealy thingy.
#19 Jun 25 2011 at 12:52 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
idiggory wrote:
And yet you fail to see that having state movements is integral to the fair evaluation of a federal bill.

Or that all these different states come to different conclusions about the constitutionality of SSM, which suggests that a single case in the federal gov't would be appealed so much that it would be useless right now anyway.


My point is that it shouldn't be that way...doing so is wasting time. Each state can participate if they want, but it should done all at once. You know, kind of how we vote for presidents. We don't need to undergo various different court sessions over a series of years and decades. If it's ok for NY, then it's ok for CA.


I think I see what you're saying, and I think I agree with you, but if I'm interpreting you correctly, then you're arguing that we should take the decision away from the states and make it a federal type dealy thingy.
When is it ok for the federal government to do that, and when isn't it? I think it's better for each state to decide it, and once there's a majority of states already allowing something, then bring it up federally. One case to rule them all though is kinda of dangerous.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#20 Jun 25 2011 at 12:59 PM Rating: Decent
******
30,646 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
When is it ok for the federal government to do that, and when isn't it? I think it's better for each state to decide it, and once there's a majority of states already allowing something, then bring it up federally. One case to rule them all though is kinda of dangerous.


Personally, I think it should be the same across the board, and the states shouldn't be allowed to discriminate that way. When you've got each state deciding, then you've got marriages that are valid in some places and not in others. It's great that these guys can get married in NY, but if they come to Tennessee, they're just another bunch of homos who have no rights and their marriage is invalid. That's ****** up.
#21 Jun 25 2011 at 1:04 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
When is it ok for the federal government to do that, and when isn't it? I think it's better for each state to decide it, and once there's a majority of states already allowing something, then bring it up federally. One case to rule them all though is kinda of dangerous.


Personally, I think it should be the same across the board, and the states shouldn't be allowed to discriminate that way. When you've got each state deciding, then you've got marriages that are valid in some places and not in others. It's great that these guys can get married in NY, but if they come to Tennessee, they're just another bunch of homos who have no rights and their marriage is invalid. That's @#%^ed up.
Personally, I can't think of a good reason to go to a state where you're not wanted. Keep your money and life in places where you are. The others will wake up when they see themselves falling behind financially as a result. Or they won't and there'll be even less reason to ever go near the sh*t holes.

Quote:
It's great that these guys can get married in NY, but if they come to Tennessee, they're just another bunch of homos who have no rights and their marriage is invalid.
I'd hav edno trouble with a federal law requiring another state to honor a marriage from another state, so long as it wasn't because someone was taking up permanent residence ans was just visiting.


Edited, Jun 25th 2011 4:06pm by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#22 Jun 25 2011 at 1:17 PM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Personally, I can't think of a good reason to go to a state where you're not wanted. Keep your money and life in places where you are. The others will wake up when they see themselves falling behind financially as a result. Or they won't and there'll be even less reason to ever go near the sh*t holes.


Speaking from experience, you can't always pick and choose where you want to live. Believe me, my family didn't pick to move to Tennessee because of the Crystal Gale commercials. My dad had a choice: unemployment or to go TN and work at Saturn. Being a high school graduate who only knew how to do what he was already doing, we didn't have a ton of choices. And we weren't wanted in TN, let me tell you. "Yankee, go home," was a pretty frequent phrase. One kid said to me, "Do you know the difference between a Yankee and a **** Yankee? **** Yankees don't leave." Everyone else on the bus thought it was hilarious, at least.

I agree with you in theory, but in practice... well.

Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
It's great that these guys can get married in NY, but if they come to Tennessee, they're just another bunch of homos who have no rights and their marriage is invalid.
I'd have no trouble with a federal law requiring another state to honor a marriage from another state, so long as it wasn't because someone was taking up permanent residence and was just visiting.


I'm not 100% sure I understand what you mean about just visiting vs. taking up permanent residence. It seems to me that each state should recognize another state's legal marriages, no matter the reason that the couple is in that state.
#23 Jun 25 2011 at 1:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I'd have no trouble with a federal law requiring another state to honor a marriage from another state, so long as it wasn't because someone was taking up permanent residence ans was just visiting.

The Full Faith & Credit Clause of the US Constitution is supposed to require that states honor each other's contracts (among other things) but the Defense of Marriage Act states that states are not required to honor one another's marriage agreements. The constitutionality of this is currently being fought in the courts.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Jun 25 2011 at 1:23 PM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
And we weren't wanted in TN, let me tell you. "Yankee, go home," was a pretty frequent phrase. One kid said to me, "Do you know the difference between a Yankee and a **** Yankee? **** Yankees don't leave." Everyone else on the bus thought it was hilarious, at least.

I agree with you in theory, but in practice... well.
See what I mean about a state like that becoming less and less appealing and falling behind others financially?



Quote:
I'm not 100% sure I understand what you mean about just visiting vs. taking up permanent residence. It seems to me that each state should recognize another state's legal marriages, no matter the reason that the couple is in that state.
I disagree. If I'm *** and living in TN, I can go to another state and get married to my girlyman, come home and now TN has to recognize my marriage. So, what if I want to marry someone 15 and that's legal in one state. Should we make all other states recognize my pedo habits?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#25 Jun 25 2011 at 1:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I'm not 100% sure I understand what you mean about just visiting vs. taking up permanent residence. It seems to me that each state should recognize another state's legal marriages, no matter the reason that the couple is in that state.
I disagree. If I'm *** and living in TN, I can go to another state and get married to my girlyman, come home and now TN has to recognize my marriage. So, what if I want to marry someone 15 and that's legal in one state. Should we make all other states recognize my @#%^ habits?

But that IS how it works with other marriages. If I want to marry my first cousin, I can go to one of the states that allows it (such as Tennessee as it turns out), get married, and then move back home and our marriage will be recognized as valid. In South Carolina, females can marry at age 14 with parental consent. That marriage is legally valid in all 50 states.

The same works for the other side of marriage; Nevada was very popular to visit due to its lax divorce laws before "No Fault" divorces became common practice in the rest of the country.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#26 Jun 25 2011 at 1:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
Well then, disregard everything I've said and make with making it federal law to recognize same *** marriage already.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)