- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 10th Circuit rules Utah gay marriage ban unconstitutional
Posted on 6/25/14 at 2:37 pm to ballscaster
Posted on 6/25/14 at 2:37 pm to ballscaster
quote:
The idea of government getting out of marriage is as absurd
No it's not. In fact if the courts had the least amount of vision they could have avoided the obvious conflict we are now seeing between freedom of religion and civil rights.
I have nothing further say in this matter. I am busy and we clearly agree to disagree.
1
Posted on 6/25/14 at 2:40 pm to davesdawgs
quote:Good because you sound unfamiliar with the origin and purpose of marriage.
No it's not. In fact if the courts had the least amount of vision they could have avoided the obvious conflict we are now seeing between freedom of religion and civil rights. I have nothing further say in this matter. I am busy and we clearly agree to disagree.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 2:41 pm to imjustafatkid
Wills are contested often. Especially for gay people as often is tried to get around by trying to adopting their would be spouse so they can get a legal backing.
Yea its a problem that could prbly be solved through will reform. But its often times hard to do so because the writing party is dead. One reason they are being used less..
Either way, whether you think the benefits of marriage are often bogus and despite the fact that I would tend to agree. There are benefits being denied which is an injustice that needs to be resolved.
Yea its a problem that could prbly be solved through will reform. But its often times hard to do so because the writing party is dead. One reason they are being used less..
Either way, whether you think the benefits of marriage are often bogus and despite the fact that I would tend to agree. There are benefits being denied which is an injustice that needs to be resolved.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 2:44 pm to Toddy
I just want to remind every person reading this thread who has claimed that I am anything short of the smrtest person on the face of the planet: I was completely right about this. I was right about what amendment would be cited and what specific interpretation would be offered.
Numerous people on this board claiming to have an education in law have ridiculed me for my predictions and stances on this issue, saying that I couldn't possibly know what I'm talking about, etc...
Well, I was right. 100% right. And it feels good.
Numerous people on this board claiming to have an education in law have ridiculed me for my predictions and stances on this issue, saying that I couldn't possibly know what I'm talking about, etc...
Well, I was right. 100% right. And it feels good.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 2:59 pm to ballscaster
quote:
It states that you can't prevent a citizen from signing a contract based on his sex.
That's a dishonest statement.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:02 pm to petar
quote:
Either way, whether you think the benefits of marriage are often bogus and despite the fact that I would tend to agree.
If they're not benefits then they're not benefits. The will situation you brought up is legit but that will still be a problem in other situations unless that is dealth with. Nothing about gay marriage being legal changes anything about laws dealing with wills.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:04 pm to Toddy
This is such bullshite. I'm not against gay marriage, but it's a states rights issue. If Utah doesn't want gay marriage, then let them stay the way they are. Once again, forcing this on people is only going to do you morons more harm than good, Toddy.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:05 pm to imjustafatkid
This is so ridiculous that you can be married in one state but not another. There needs to be 1 Federal law that prohibits discrimination is marriages. Every day a new state strikes down thelaw and some one challenges that on and on.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:06 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
That's a dishonest statement.
quote:
A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union," the court said.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:07 pm to TigersSEC2010
quote:Every state ratified the Constitutional Amendment cited in the decision.
but it's a states rights issue.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:10 pm to ballscaster
quote:
A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union," the court said.
This is also a dishonest statement. The people involved would have been able to enter into marriage unions before gay marriage was allowed. No matter what sex a person is, they were always able to enter into legal marital agreements. They expanded marriage rights to all people not just to gay people.
Before gay marriage:
Everyone is allowed to enter into marriage contracts with the opposite sex.
After gay marriage:
Everyone is allowed to enter into marriage contracts with both sexes.
No one gained or lost any rights relative to anyone else when gay marriage contracts were forced on everyone.
This post was edited on 6/25/14 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:12 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:Sounds like you have a very good understanding of the dynamic, and this is basically what I've been saying the whole time. So what's the problem?
The people involved would have been able to enter into marriage unions before gay marriage was allowed. They expanded marriage rights to all people not just to gay people.
Before gay marriage:
Everyone is allowed to enter into marriage contracts with the opposite sex.
After gay marriage:
Everyone is allowed to enter into marriage contracts with both sexes.
No one gained or lost any rights relative to anyone else when gay marriage contracts were forced on everyone.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:13 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
Yeah, I guess. I don't actually know the specifics of where they get breaks, although my dad was a pastor. I'm guessing their income isn't taxed, or at least there are no payroll taxes.
Pastor's file as subcontractors.
If churches had to pay taxes it would kill most. My dad has been a pastor since before I was born, and I'm a youth pastor at a small church in Alabama. I am not paid, but I do live in the parsonage for free. Right now we do not have a single dime in our general operations account. If we had to pay taxes on the measly income we receive we would shut our doors overnight. Which I am sure those on the left would love.
As far as making charitable donations non tax write-offs. This is another logical fallacy. Even say, if this were implemented, do it with a cutoff like receiving a gift. Over a certain amount and you have to pay taxes. However this is paying twice on the same money. It would kill more than just churches, every charity doing good work across this country would get leveled. People would no longer give because it would be viewed as pointless.
This post was edited on 6/25/14 at 3:17 pm
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:15 pm to ballscaster
quote:
Every state ratified the Constitutional Amendment cited in the decision.
Do you really think that people who drafted and the people who voted on the 14th Amendment (or 5th Amendment) had any f*cking clue that their words would be so f*cking perverted as to grant a Constitutional RIGHT to gay marriage?
Don't worry, I know that you're incapable of answering that honestly.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:16 pm to TigersSEC2010
quote:
a states rights
Problem is that this is dead. Thanks Lincoln.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:17 pm to MMauler
quote:Until 2/3 of Congress agrees with you, it just doesn't matter.
Do you really think that people who drafted and the people who voted on the 14th Amendment (or 5th Amendment) had any f*cking clue that their words would be so f*cking perverted as to grant a Constitutional RIGHT to gay marriage?
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:19 pm to MMauler
quote:
ad any f*cking clue that their words would be so f*cking perverted as to grant a Constitutional RIGHT to gay marriage?
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:20 pm to Toddy
owned, bigots
PS 420 blaze it
(in my time zone)
PS 420 blaze it
(in my time zone)
This post was edited on 6/25/14 at 3:20 pm
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:22 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
owned, bigots
I would say bigots are definitely taking over the country.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:23 pm to ballscaster
quote:
Until 2/3 of Congress agrees with you, it just doesn't matter.
The intent of an amendment or a piece of legislation doesn't matter?
Right, just so long as you can pervert the language to get your political agenda enacted by fiat -- even if it means flushing the Constitution down the toilet -- it just doesn't matter to your demented ilk.
Truly, truly pathetic and sad.
This post was edited on 6/25/14 at 3:24 pm
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News