- 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 3:26 pm to MMauler
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:26 pm to MMauler
quote:The Constitution was followed here.
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.
2
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:27 pm to ballscaster
lol at all the haters getting wrecked by the 14th Amendment
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:28 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Nothing about gay marriage being legal changes anything about laws dealing with wills
it does though. Wills are much harder (basically impossible) to contest if you are contesting what the spouse gets. (mainly because if you contest a will you are saying it is invalid therefore state law dividing the estate should apply and that generally always goes to the spouse).
So it applies when wills are being contested. It applies if there is no will. and it applies with the estate tax.
Like in Windsor, she paid a $350k estate tax based solely on the fact that they were not married.
Plus i wasn't saying they weren't benefits. i was saying that maybe it was bogus that we give so many benefits, but while there is at least 1 benefit from the governmental institution of marriage then it should be open for homosexual couples.
Plus you can file separately even if you are married. At least as late as 2010
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:28 pm to ballscaster
quote:
The Constitution was followed here.
Only in your demented and perverted "ends justifies the means" reading.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:29 pm to Toddy
Is anyone besides me simply sick and tired of all the gay crap? I don't care if you can get married. I don't care if you can't get married. I don't think it right, and I'd never vote for it, but that's just me. But mostly, I'm just sick and tired of hearing about it.
And yes. That's precisely why I clicked on a thread about it.
And yes. That's precisely why I clicked on a thread about it.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:33 pm to Toddy
Yea for Gay. Me sad.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:33 pm to MMauler
quote:
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?
I doubt they would have cared.. they didn't strike me as the religious type, plus they seemed to like to expand the rights of people so maybe they didn't have a clue that it would but then again maybe they thought it wouldn't be needed as they felt like gay marriage would just happen and wouldn't need to find a constituional amendment to provide for equality. granted that is what this amendment is about so yea i guess i think they would be happy by the result.. Plus, i doubt they would have envisioned marriage being such an important aspect of modern society.
Either way, i have no reason to believe that they would have been against gay marriage being recognized by the government.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:37 pm to petar
quote:
I doubt they would have cared..
Now, I know you're either just plain f*cking stupid, or lying because as long biased and politicized judges are doing your bidding for you and inventing Constitutional rights out of whole cloth, the ends always justifies the means in your sick little mind.
Like I said when I asked the question, I expected no less.
This post was edited on 6/25/14 at 3:38 pm
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:41 pm to petar
quote:
Wills are much harder to contest if you are contesting what the spouse gets.
How does gay marriage change this fact? Why didn't we address this issue instead?
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:43 pm to petar
quote:
Plus i wasn't saying they weren't benefits. i was saying that maybe it was bogus that we give so many benefits, but while there is at least 1 benefit from the governmental institution of marriage then it should be open for homosexual couples.
I'm still trying to figure out what legal benefit I gained from being married. I haven't found any yet.
There were tax benefits when I had children, but I didn't need to be married for that...
quote:
Plus you can file separately even if you are married. At least as late as 2010
You can file "married filing seperately." You will be subject to the same tax rate as if you had filed "married filing jointly." There is literally no difference here.
This post was edited on 6/25/14 at 3:45 pm
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:43 pm to MMauler
quote:Can you quote the demented and perverted part of the text? I'm honestly intrigued at what passage in the text is something you view to be demented and perverted.
Only in your demented and perverted "ends justifies the means" reading.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:45 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:They did. Marriage rights deal with wills.
How does gay marriage change this fact? Why didn't we address this issue instead?
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:45 pm to ballscaster
quote:
Can you quote the demented and perverted part of the text?
He was referring to your interpretation of the Constitution.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:46 pm to ballscaster
quote:
They did. Marriage rights deal with wills.
I don't think you are following the conversation...
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:49 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:What could possibly be viewed demented or perverted about my interpretation of the 14th Amendment?
How does gay marriage change this fact? Why didn't we address this issue instead?
I say you can't deny a person the right to sign onto something, basing this denial solely on the person's sex.
What is demented or perverted about that?
This post was edited on 6/25/14 at 3:50 pm
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:51 pm to VaBamaMan
quote:
People would no longer give because it would be viewed as pointless.
Well, then that's more of a reflection of a hollow belief than anything else. If you really think that people only make donations to write them off, then you're in the wrong line of work and are a pretty sad human as well.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:51 pm to ballscaster
quote:
Marriage is among the most basic, natural human rights
You talking about the union of two people, or the modern day contract law that has been attached to two people who decide to spend their life together? One is a right, one is not.
quote:
The idea of government getting out of marriage is as absurd as the idea of government getting out of lawmaking
Hardly. We could go to a flat tax and no longer allow the combining of assets. Then, government could pretty easily get out of marriage.
The notion that the modern interpretation of contract laws and tax laws that go along with getting married is a right is pretty ridiculous.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 3:52 pm to ballscaster
Good ruling for the long term evolution of our country. Inclusion is a good thing. Live and let live. This ruling will never affect the lives of the conservatives bitching about it in any way, shape or form.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 4:01 pm to MMauler
quote:
I know you're either just plain f*cking stupid, or lying
Why?
the founding fathers and lincoln weren't notoriously religious
They all liked rights.
So when the main reason to not give a right is religious, why would i think these two above facts would change?
Posted on 6/25/14 at 4:10 pm to ballscaster
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?
I think it's pretty clear that my problem with this is the redefining of marriage and the forced acceptance of deviant behavior. The question is whether or not your argument holds up under scrutiny. Your lack of a rebuttle is showing it does not.
This post was edited on 6/25/14 at 4:11 pm
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News