Defense of Marriage Act Ruled Unconstitutional

While I am in no way a supporter of Mormonism, this site does not permit racist and other such comments. Please do not attack minority groups with vitriol; it is unwarranted and not appreciated. Some of our posters may even be Mormons.

Mormons are not and will never be a "race". Mormonism is a set of ideas similar to socialism, jainism and scientology. If we were to interpret ideas as "races" then this forum would collapse and the racial prejudice against DArtagnan would lead to many bans.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
There is a lot of bad info posing as journalism. Another detail is that there are separate rulings/opinions on prop 8 vs doma. Different votes, rationale, briefs, etc. I think that's where we are crossing wires.

Probably so. Another interesting thing will be how existing 'Civil Unions' get handled. I imagine there will be renewed push to change those states to allow gay marriage, but interesting to see if they will consider them marriages or if the partners will have to still get a marriage license.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,353
Location
Austin, TX
Corwin dunno if your comment was aimed to my post, but I assure you I'm not a racist of any kind. Also I do respect other cultures and others' way of life. Honestly I could never ask for or support a law that would negate someone's rights, but I could and I can despise those ppl who do exactly that. At least till their tyrant wannabe brainset becomes gets recognized as a (hopefully curable) disease.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
Mormons are not and will never be a "race". Mormonism is a set of ideas similar to socialism, jainism and scientology. If we were to interpret ideas as "races" then this forum would collapse and the racial prejudice against DArtagnan would lead to many bans.
No shit, perfesser. I believe this particular situation would be tied to the "and other such comments" portion of his statement that you apparently skipped.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,535
Location
Illinois, USA
Honestly I could never ask for or support a law that would negate someone's rights, but I could and I can despise those ppl who do exactly that.
Oh please. You're just like each and every one of us- defend minority positions to which you are sympathetic as "limiting tyranny of the masses" while slamming minority positions that don't resonate as "negating someone's rights". Nothing to be ashamed of- it's human nature- but denying it just makes you look pathetic.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,535
Location
Illinois, USA
No dte, sorry.
I'm not sympathetic to anyone in this case. Well, maybe to judges who have to clean some others' mess.
I don't need any kind of feelings towards someone to have an attitude about the case. Instead I'm thinking about myself. Those ppl who want to ban some rights that are not important to me, tomorrow will want to ban other rights that are very important to me. Once bitten by a snake…

If that's pathetic in your eyes, fine by me. But I'm just looking after my (future?) interests.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
Probably so. Another interesting thing will be how existing 'Civil Unions' get handled. I imagine there will be renewed push to change those states to allow gay marriage, but interesting to see if they will consider them marriages or if the partners will have to still get a marriage license.

Marriage is a very loaded word, both in religious and legal circles. If we rewrote all our laws to use the word "domestic partner" rather than "marriage" you think that would satisfy the religious loonies? hahahaha
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
15,679
Location
Studio City, CA
OK, joxer, let's see. I'll even try to localize it a bit for you.

How do you feel about the treatment of Pussy Riot by the Russian courts?
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,535
Location
Illinois, USA
Marriage is a very loaded word, both in religious and legal circles. If we rewrote all otr laws to use the word "domestic partner" rather than "marriage" you think that would satisfy the religious loonies? hahahaha
I think he's more referring to the gay couples currently stuck in limbo. The "compromise" in place prior to this court ruling was civil unions rather than marriages. They became a legally recognized pair, but they did not get (and I'm pretty sure were not allowed to get) a marriage license, which is the standard legal document to cement such a pairing. Do all those existing civil unions have to go back to square one and get a standard marriage license (or risk losing the legal standing of their pairing), or do they get "grandfathered in", or does the legal concept of the marriage license get thrown in the shitter (which would then require all sorts of grandfathering for the millions of traditional marriages)? Major cluster there, me thinks.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,535
Location
Illinois, USA
Messy. Already, in California, a domestic partner has different rights than a spouse by marriage, I believe. But someone else can correct me if I'm wrong.

600
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
15,679
Location
Studio City, CA
More power to em. I guess we can welcome them to the marriage penalty. More taxes for the feds. Hurray!
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
1,397
Location
USA-Michigan
Marriage is a very loaded word, both in religious and legal circles. If we rewrote all our laws to use the word "domestic partner" rather than "marriage" you think that would satisfy the religious loonies? hahahaha

We really should. A marriage, legally, is just a contract between two individuals. I think they should, legally, reclassigy all marriages as civil unions and leave the term marriage to the faiths.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,353
Location
Austin, TX
No shit, perfesser. I believe this particular situation would be tied to the "and other such comments" portion of his statement that you apparently skipped.

d6b.gif
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
Messy. Already, in California, a domestic partner has different rights than a spouse by marriage, I believe. But someone else can correct me if I'm wrong.

Definitely was that way and still is in New York. Companies are obligated to provide benefits to spouses but not domestic partners, though many due. My old firm, BofA, did, and I was able to use it for my wife to get her health insurance before we got married, but the amount they paid was a taxable benefit to me.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,353
Location
Austin, TX
This may be the only time a non-American has used GWB in a positive manner on this site.

What can I say, GWB is one of the best American comedians of all time.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
rambling post - deleted.
For the good of everyone, the last thing I want to do is get stuck in P&R!

Carry on!
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
5,228
Location
San Diego, Ca
There was nothing wrong with your post lol except maybe your overuse of the word queer.
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,388
Back
Top Bottom