kallend 2,182 #1 March 27, 2013 Scotus hears the case today. I liked this quote from Representative Steve King, R-Iowa, "Equal protection means equal protection for a man and woman to be able to get married to each other, because that's been the definition of marriage for thousands of years." Love that Iowa logic. We see a lot of it in SC.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #2 March 27, 2013 A lot of amusing protest signs here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-absolute-best-signs-against-doma-and-prop-8-at-the-supre"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #3 March 27, 2013 QuoteA lot of amusing protest signs here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-absolute-best-signs-against-doma-and-prop-8-at-the-supre Yes yes yes. . . If you disqualify the definition of marriage (On man and One Woman) then you would have to legalize bigamy. Its only fair.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfzombie 3 #4 March 27, 2013 i hope they get it right this time. looks like the prop 8 thing is going to go away, too bad. doma is just straight up wrong. and when they say let the states decide, i hope they let the people in the states decide, not the politicians.http://kitswv.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #5 March 27, 2013 QuoteQuoteA lot of amusing protest signs here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-absolute-best-signs-against-doma-and-prop-8-at-the-supre Yes yes yes. . . If you disqualify the definition of marriage (On man and One Woman) then you would have to legalize bigamy. Its only fair. As long as there is love involved, we should all aprove"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #6 March 27, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteA lot of amusing protest signs here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-absolute-best-signs-against-doma-and-prop-8-at-the-supre Yes yes yes. . . If you disqualify the definition of marriage (On man and One Woman) then you would have to legalize bigamy. Its only fair. As long as there is love involved, we should all aprove Ya know - I heard that there are people that really REALLY love their animals. They should get married too.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 385 #7 March 27, 2013 QuoteQuoteA lot of amusing protest signs here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-absolute-best-signs-against-doma-and-prop-8-at-the-supre Yes yes yes. . . If you disqualify the definition of marriage (On man and One Woman) then you would have to legalize bigamy. Its only fair.You mean, if they disqualify your definition of marriage. For that matter, though, the prohibition on bigamy is clearly based on Christian tradition. If we were to adopt the libertarian position that nobody should acquire access to benefits by virtue of being married to someone, then what non-religious (i.e. constitutional) arguments could be raised against bigamy? From an economic point of view, bigamy would be problematic if every spouse was entitled to full survivorship benefits, but if the benefits were to be divided equally between the spouses (so the total was no more than it would be for one spouse) is there any remaining constitutional reason for prohibiting the arrangement? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,602 #8 March 27, 2013 Oh, but it wouldn't disqualify one man and one woman marrying. That'd be legal. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #9 March 27, 2013 Can we list the rights these people don't get. From my understanding so long as you have a ss# you can be a beneficiary. Obamacare will force everyone to have healthcare. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 385 #10 March 27, 2013 QuoteLove that Iowa logic. We see a lot of it in SC. I remember a long time ago when PeacefulJeffrey was quite insistent that gay people had exactly the same right as everybody else to marry someone of the opposite sex, so by demanding the right to marry the person they actually love they were demanding special rights. I also seem to recall that some who still post here were in complete agreement with that position. "PeacefulJeffrey", what a deliciously ironic name that was. I wonder whatever happened to him. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #11 March 27, 2013 Quote Scotus hears the case today. I liked this quote from Representative Steve King, R-Iowa, "Equal protection means equal protection for a man and woman to be able to get married to each other, because that's been the definition of marriage for thousands of years." Love that Iowa logic. We see a lot of it in SC. That is because Iowans are much smarter than many here"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 385 #12 March 27, 2013 QuoteYa know - I heard that there are people that really REALLY love their animals. They should get married too. You mean, like marrying their turtles? Well, maybe we can reconsider that issue when non-human animals can demonstrate competence to make adult decisions and enter into legally binding contracts. How would they be able to demonstrate such intelligence? Maybe if they started posting coherent well reasoned posts in Speaker's Corner? So far I haven't seen any evidence of that. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #13 March 27, 2013 QuoteEqual protection Whenever "equality" is an issue, it means that freedoms are abridged. I think that the issue with DOMA is not so much "equality" as it is an example of government telling gays that they are not free to marry. It's a freedom thing. Because if the government wants to keep things equal, it can ban hetero marriage, too. The whole concept of "freedom" seems so foreign nowadays. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #14 March 27, 2013 QuoteI remember a long time ago when PeacefulJeffrey was quite insistent that gay people had exactly the same right as everybody else to marry someone of the opposite sex, And on that note... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-YCdcnf_P8Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #15 March 27, 2013 Jeffrey's doing all right. He's just as refreshingly blunt as he has always been. Weird - people held it against him. I actually appreciated his no-holds-barred approach. I disagreed with him frequently (still do). My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 385 #16 March 27, 2013 QuoteJeffrey's doing all right. He's just as refreshingly blunt as he has always been. Weird - people held it against him. I actually appreciated his no-holds-barred approach. I disagreed with him frequently (still do).Thanks, it's good to hear he's doing all right. He could always be counted on to liven up a "discussion". Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #17 March 27, 2013 QuoteYou mean, if they disqualify your definition of marriage. No. Not just MY definition . . . 1) Webster's - 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law 2) Dictionary.com - mar·riage [mar-ij] Show IPA noun 1. a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation. 3) Java-man.com The Definition of Marriage (Nikah) The original meaning of the work nikah is the physical relationship between man and woman. It is also used secondarily to refer to the contract of marriage which makes that relationship lawful. Which of the two meanings is intended can be determined by the context in which it is used. 4) France FRANCE, January 31, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – France’s Constitutional Council, its highest court for constitution issues, ruled on Friday that the country’s definition of marriage as between one man and one woman is valid under French constitution. 5) Oxford Dictionary Definition of marriage noun 1the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife: 6) Legal Dictionary - The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of Husband and Wife in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship. 7) South Africa - The Marriage Act, 1961,[4] which allows for the solemnisation of a civil or religious marriage between a man and a woman.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #18 March 27, 2013 Quote Quote I remember a long time ago when PeacefulJeffrey was quite insistent that gay people had exactly the same right as everybody else to marry someone of the opposite sex, And on that note... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-YCdcnf_P8 That got me thinking; Next time I have a steady SO, I think I'll hire a gay guy to do all the boring shit with her."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #19 March 27, 2013 Quote Next time I have a steady SO, I think I'll hire a gay guy to do all the boring shit with her. How's he going to prove he's gay at the interview? Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #20 March 27, 2013 Quote Quote Next time I have a steady SO, I think I'll hire a gay guy to do all the boring shit with her. How's he going to prove he's gay at the interview? Well, this one time, at a job interview...Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #21 March 27, 2013 Quote Quote Quote Next time I have a steady SO, I think I'll hire a gay guy to do all the boring shit with her. How's he going to prove he's gay at the interview? Well, this one time, at a job interview... Wing Nut told me you were only Gay if you cuddle after.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #22 March 27, 2013 >1) Webster's - >1 >a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a >consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law Here's the part you cut off: (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage Were you hoping no one checked? If your argument is so weak that you have to hope no one checks your sources - might want to reconsider it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #23 March 27, 2013 Quote>1) Webster's - >1 >a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a >consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law Here's the part you cut off: (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage Were you hoping no one checked? If your argument is so weak that you have to hope no one checks your sources - might want to reconsider it. No. I took the leading definition. I don't see you disputing the rest.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #24 March 27, 2013 QuotePresident Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law in 1996 after it passed Congress with only 81 of 535 lawmakers opposing it. Clinton, a Democrat, earlier this month said that times have changed since then and called for the law to be overturned. And the supremes are asking Obama lawyers what their test is that decides which laws they enforce or ignore Good question"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #25 March 27, 2013 QuoteQuotePresident Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law in 1996 after it passed Congress with only 81 of 535 lawmakers opposing it. Clinton, a Democrat, earlier this month said that times have changed since then and called for the law to be overturned. And the supremes are asking Obama lawyers what their test is that decides which laws they enforce or ignore Good question Federal Law is enforced like windsocks on a variable wind day.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
