Appeals Court Rules Against Federal Marriage Act

[giblets]

I haven't been surprised in the last 10 years on this issue. SSDD. You wanna bet with me that we won't be seeing gay people petitioning individual states? I'll take your bet. How much you want to wager?

Petitioning individual states? This case has nothing to do with that, whatever it is. Once again you've wandered off into your own little alternate universe. This case concerns whether same-sex couples with valid marriage licenses from states that recognize their marriage are entitled to the same federal benefits as any other married couple. It's completely different from a supreme court case over whether "it's my religion" is a valid excuse for breaking the law.

[giblets]

Hey, here's something from Lawrence v. Texas:

Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct...what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "the liberty protected by the Constitution"? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.

Gee... I wonder if he'll change his mind?

[Ben Kenobi]

Petitioning individual states? This case has nothing to do with that, whatever it is. Once again you've wandered off into your own little alternate universe.

Already seen it happen. Assuring people that 'you absolutely won't be forced to recognise it'? Bull****.

[Ben Kenobi]

Gee... I wonder if he'll change his mind?

Scalia's been proven 100 percent right. See, that's the trouble I want to agree with Justice Thomas, but Justice Scalia called out exactly what has happened. To the letter. So I can only conclude that Scalia's concerns were valid and that his opposition to Lawrence vs Texas justified.

The gay marriage proponents are backstabbing Thomas everyday. Do you know how many conservatives out there favor Thomas over Scalia? A huge number, yet those are the ones being marginalized, and Scalia prescient.

Heck I used to be a gay marriage proponent, and not that long ago either.

[giblets]

Already seen it happen. Assuring people that 'you absolutely won't be forced to recognise it'? Bull****.

I still have no idea what you're talking about. I don't think the Supreme Court is going to rule that all states must offer marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Next time do your job, search for 'common law', within the opinion and save yourself the trouble. I hope you don't charge for your lawyering skills.

Reynolds goes on to state:



Then goes on to state the following:



Goes on to state:





This also refutes, quite succinctly what we are discussing here. You cannot have a plurality of laws on this particular manner.

None of that backs any of the arguments you are making (and I was pretty sure you'd attempt to make those exact phrases say what they are not - for one it is "exclusive dominion of the US" because it is, as stated by me and in the opinion itself a TERRITORY), but I am not surprised.

[Ben Kenobi]

None of that backs any of the arguments you are making (and I was pretty sure you'd attempt to make those exact phrases say what they are not - for one it is "exclusive dominion of the US" because it is, as stated by me and in the opinion itself a TERRITORY), but I am not surprised.

Then why did the US require Utah to forbid polygamy when they became a state?

[Ben Kenobi]

I still have no idea what you're talking about. I don't think the Supreme Court is going to rule that all states must offer marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

If they uphold this ruling, you will see states that do not want gay marriage forced to provide it and fund it. We are already seeing it in the US, and it was exactly how it went down in Canada.

But go ahead, reassure us how, 'we'll never be forced to do it.' Bull****. When mobs of people are trashing Catholic parishes in California when they lost, you can bet that they'll commit similar violence unless they get what they want.

[Felch]

Then why did the US require Utah to forbid polygamy when they became a state?

The US reserves the right to deny statehood applicants for whatever reason.

[giblets]

Then why did the US require Utah to forbid polygamy when they became a state?

Statehood requires authorization from Congress which means Congress can impose whatever requirements it wants for becoming a state. It could require Puerto Rico to only recognize English as its sole official language in order to become a state, but this wouldn't mean that already existing states can be forced to do that.

[Ben Kenobi]

The US reserves the right to deny statehood applicants for whatever reason.

So you're stating that effectively, the power to regulate marriage resides with the federal government? Thank you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Your idiocy is hitting new heights! Bravo

[loinburger]

So you're stating that effectively, the power to regulate marriage resides with the federal government? Thank you.

Yeah, the federal government reserves the right to revoke statehood of any states with divergent marriage regulations. This has happened no fewer than eight times in the past. Once the states correct their marriage regulations then they're re-admitted.

[giblets]

So you're stating that effectively, the power to regulate marriage resides with the federal government? Thank you.

They have the power to regulate it in federal territories... not in states. They couldn't kick out a state that legalized polygamy. Hurr durr.

[Ben Kenobi]

They have the power to regulate it in federal territories... not in states. They couldn't kick out a state that legalized polygamy. Hurr durr.

So why doesn't Utah a-ok Polygamy?