US Appeals Court Rules Against DOMAFollow

You have to understand that the state was very interested in me procreating some naturally occurring children within the bounds of holy matrimony. They probably cut me a break as an incentive to marry.

Unless...

I think my marriage license was $35 as well. And another $20 for the second copy, since we temporarily misplaced the first one when we moved into the house. (We found it again a few months later.)

Man, y'all had it cheap. We payed $95 for our marriage license.

We thought about doing that, but obviously decided to skip it. We're not big on counseling

Wait, are you all including import fees in the cost of the license? Because I don't see how you can get those kind of deals even in Malaysia. It's fairly irritating because I only need the kidneys, but it's somehow cheaper to get the combo.

I think we paid $20 or $30. The cost must be so low because the gays are subsidizing straight marriage in Iowa.

Sure you're still young. Wait a few years. I'd get the whole thing. With a bit of prep you should be able to preserve it for later use. Use a vacuum packer before freezing.

Yeah, I know what you think. I've also discussed your arguments before.

Edited, Jun 4th 2012 6:06pm by Jophiel

It isn't about "teh gheyz," though. It's really about "teh dudez hasing icky buttseckses."

Because no one is against lesbians.

It shouldn't even be up for a vote. Aside from gbaji's argument about the cost of marriage benefits, SSM doesn't affect anyone who doesn't get a same sex marriage. It affects others the same as interracial marriage, which is another civil rights issue that had to go before the supreme court to be legalized because the country as a whole was too bigoted to accept that people should be able to marry who they want.

I forget who said it, but someone smart once said that civil rights should never be put up to a vote, because the majority will never rule in favor of the minority. I think that's very accurate.

Vote? Yes. That was sorta my point. Amazing what you can accomplish when you don't let people vote on things.



The people voted in that case? You're still proving my point.



In my state the people voted against granting that legal status to gay couples. Then a judge overruled them. Then the people voted a second time to amend the state constitution. In both votes the majority of the population (of California, not exactly a bastion of intolerance) voted against granting the legal status of marriage and the attendant benefits to same sex couples. At some point, you really do have to abandon the assumption that this issue is just about people who like gays fighting against those who don't. That's just a stupid/silly way of looking at this.



What exceptions? Can you name a single state in the US where the actual people voted to extend the legal status of marriage to same sex couples? Not the legislature, not the courts. A vote of the people. Last time I checked, every single time this has come to a vote of the people, the people have opposed it.

Why does this matter? Because someone up the thread made it sound like the majority wants these legal changes, and it's just some bigoted minority using money and influence to prevent what everyone wants. But that's simply not true. While there are a small number of bigoted people who just don't like gays, they are *not* the reason why things like Prop 8 in California exist. They are *not* the reason why DOMA exists. And if you only focus on that group, you are missing like 90% of the actual issue.


Again, does anyone actually think that over 50% of the voters in California just hate gay people? Really? That's pretty darn absurd. So then why do some people keep arguing this as though it's true?