Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2008 - 06:11pm PT
|
How would you feel being restricted to how many you could marry at once?
:-)
|
|
Josh
Trad climber
Watsonville, CA
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2008 - 06:17pm PT
|
I hear you. "I'm OK, you're not OK". I hear that a lot, from both sides. It encourages me that I don't hear it from our President-elect.
52% of the state are bigoted hateful as#@&%es? Or is it that they're just stupid? It's more discouraging to hear that rhetoric coming from my side, than to have to accept and respect that other people feel differently than I do.
|
|
More Air
Big Wall climber
S.L.C.
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2008 - 06:26pm PT
|
weschrist:
Your paragraph on Mormons & Blacks is full of misinformation. I'd discuss it with you but your in much to foul of a mood.
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2008 - 06:33pm PT
|
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1738C.html
Here is the other part of the law.
"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
So. Cal.
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2008 - 06:43pm PT
|
I'm going to go out on a limb and say we have Bill Clinton to thank for the Federal definition of marriage (one man, one woman).
The vote in Congress was almost 100% in favor.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2008 - 06:47pm PT
|
Sounds like TIG's typical, hall monitor shtick. I bet he's so proud...
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2008 - 07:48pm PT
|
OK. Chaz has one answer correct.
President Clinton signed the bill into law.
Freekin' neocon Democrat! Yikes! chuckle.. Nice guess Chaz.
Now, did we have a "super-majority"...?
Count in the house...
Senate...
I actually posted enough that you can find the answer with out any more searches... (Hint).
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2008 - 07:50pm PT
|
Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Does that mean all his writings about freedom and democracy are now null and void? Just checking. Elections over guys. Stop playing the "but dems did xxxx" whine shtick.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 11, 2008 - 07:53pm PT
|
TIG just likes playing "Do you know what I know?" games to show how smart he thinks he is.
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2008 - 08:29pm PT
|
Nah, man.
Just think if your for it, you should do it right.
Being gay married in Cally only is silly.
And I did not know the answers to these questions until this morning.
(I did know that the US Code defined marriage, husband, etc. some time ago.)
So dirtbag, stop deflecting.
You will especially like the name of the act of Congress...
:-)
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2008 - 09:15pm PT
|
wc - IANAL, but...
Correct as I see it from a federal standpoint. No same sex filing Federal tax return as married.
Depends on the state whether you could file a state tax return as married. Most states pretty much mirror federal tax returns, so most you would still file separate single returns.
If you are gay married in state A and move to state B, state B either follows federal law, or in some cases (?) its own, but does not recognize state A law, unless state B recognizes married for some particular purpose from any state...
So if you die in state B, then your state A spouse's rights are most likely not the rights he had in state A when he/she married.
Remember that the US Constitution grants certain rights to the federal government. All other rights are states. So, for the most part, family law is a state matter.
Yeah, not very freakin' clear, correct. So even if CA had a supermajority, blah, blah, allowing same sex marriage, no other state would have to recognize it, and most would not!
Social security ... no same sex survivor rights.
und so weiter...
EDIT...
Before 1996, there were virtually no same sex rights anyway!
See the name of the act for a hint.... :-)
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2008 - 10:47pm PT
|
True, maybe "political necessity",
especially since the initial vote was easily sufficient to override the veto.
Still, I think an objective analysis, is that the status in CA would have been weak even if the ban failed. Now it is part of the CA Constitution. Can Congress pass a law overriding a State Constitution on this issue?
At this point, it looks like the CA court ruling was an excellent example of the unintended consequences principle. What they sealed was the exact opposite of what was intended.
Wyoming was first to pass women's suffrage, but it was only a states' right issue. Others could do as they saw fit, and eventually followed.
The purpose of tossing out the US Code section was to get this thread off its silly "religious" argument, which was headed nowhere and to stimulate some pragmatic thought processes. Hopefully that worked.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2008 - 11:01pm PT
|
This whole issue is so simple its ridiculous. I've posted it before and I'll keep posting it. The issue is simply the WORD "MARRIAGE." That's the ENTIRE issue. A huge majority of Americans support legalized couplehood for homos of equal stature to that of heteros. Everyone just gets all tripped up with the religious connotation of the word marriage. Tell people that marriage of any kind should be left to churches and not governments and simply call all forms of legalized couplehood "civil unions" or "legal couple" or WHATEVER WHO FRIGGIN CARES?!
Problem solved. Everyone is happy and the politicians have an easy out. Why this has to descend into all kinds of craziness is beyond me. It's probably the simplest "hot button" issue on the table.
|
|
setherbugs
Social climber
Leuven, Belgium
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2008 - 04:20am PT
|
"Cristianity is suppsed to teach tolerance, I guess they all forgot about Jesus' lessons. It's tough to see through hate though, I feel compasion for the cristians' and their tiny little minds. Someday that religion will grow up!"
I'm curious to know where you found these lessons about tolerance? Maybe you can look it up for me? Do Christians hate gays, no certainly not, but do they tolerate gay marriage, definitely not, hence their strong opposition.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 14, 2008 - 11:33am PT
|
"sex she would tell me stories about young, hot blonds, with big boobs that she had de-virginized."
Please continue... :-)
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 14, 2008 - 12:55pm PT
|
setherbugs I've seen and heard about many Christians who do not like gays. In my neighborhood there many who hold this view. This goes beyond the punish the "sin" not the "sinner" stuff: they just don't like gays and don't believe they are equal. Some are quite vocal, others less so.
Christians can be just as hateful as anyone else.
|
|
WoodySt
Trad climber
Riverside
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2008 - 01:00pm PT
|
It will be interesting to see if the court gets back into this. Some of you, I'm sure, remember Rose Bird et al.
As I stated previously, the court jumping the gun is, in my opinion, one of the reasons 8 passed. 8 passed by only four percentage points. It would be interesting to have a poll attempting to determine how many voted for 8 to give the court a bloody nose.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 14, 2008 - 01:11pm PT
|
Yeah Woody, judicial oversight, checks and balances, what a horrible thing.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Which president signed this into law?
Let us know!