Courts now denying Democracy.

[ConHog]

an opinion substituting as fact is still an opinion.

2) It is not an opinion that the word marriage does not appear in the COTUS, it is a FACT. (1)it is not an opinon that our personal rights that are protected by the COTUS are enumerated within the COTUS, that is a fact.

3) One could make an argument that the government has the right to issue licenses, and that would be an opinion. My opinion is that because it is a fact that marriage is not mentioned in the COTUS that the government in fact has exceeded their authority by doing so. I am fine with debating whether that is true or not, but to argue that we have a constitutional right to marriage is silly.

1) The Constitution explicitly says to not do what you have done, "construed to deny or disparage" others rights not enumerated in the Constitution, but retained by the people.

2) didn't say that. please stop making up arguments. I'll bore too easily.

3) The Supreme Court of the US has said marriage is a fundamental right. Arguing that the state governments have no rights to issue licenses as you seem to be doing is not only silly, it approaches stupidity.

The states issue marriage licenses as it is not a duty given to the federal government. The states were issuing marriage licenses during the whole of US history, no?

1. The people is not the states, it is the people, meaning private citizens.

2. That was what I said originally to Syrenn when you responded with opinion. So of course it seemed that was what you were saying.

3. Again, fundamental right to marry=/= constitutional right to a government sanctioned marriage. There is no such right. Now if your argument is that the states don't have the right to prevent people from getting married, I agree. But states are not required by the COTUS to provide the mechanism for that marriage. A state could wholly and completely say "no we don't issue marriage licenses" and there is NOTHING in the COTUS to prevent them from doing so.

By the way, let me correct you on your history of marriage licenses in the US. As late as the 1920's only 38 states issued licenses and do you know why most of those states did so? So that they could dictate who could and could not get married ( IE inter racial marriages) prior to that common law marriage was pretty much the accepted way to marry, and in fact 11 states sill recognize common law marriages as being valid marriages , with the absence of ANY contract.

Marriage licence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feel free to educate yourself if you're interested.

You have no constitutional right to a state recognized marriage. Sorry but it is that simple.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why? marriage isn't mentioned ANYWHERE in the COTUS. It's simple. change the various requirements allowing anyone to have the privileges we now associate with marriage via a contract and do away with state supported marriage. You have no right to a government approved marriage, nor is that within their power to do anyway.

the arguments is a bogus philosophical circle jerk because there is no way in hell people would give up the so-called marriage penalties we heard conservative lying about a few years back.

I can't help what so called conservatives have lied about in the past. As you know I support allowing gays to marry. I simply think they should marry in a non state sanctioned marriage, the same as heterosexuals should. That's not discrimination at all., that's fair.

an opinion substituting as fact is still an opinion.

There is no opinion, the word MARRIAGE absolutely is not in the COTUS.

The Supreme Court of the US has stated otherwise, in numerous cases, with numerous reasoning, why marriage is a fundamental right.

fundamental right =/= constitutional right to a state endorsed marriage. No court ruling has ever EVER ruled that the government must allow everyone to get married, all they have ruled is that the government can't discriminate by picking and choosing who they allow to get married. A correct ruling, if you offer some privilege to one, you offer it to all, However there is nothing in any of the rulings or in the COTUS itself which would prevent a state from saying "we aren't issuing marriage licenses, get one from the church of your choice , or a private business for the heathens, or just have a civil contract and we will honor it but we won't issue state licenses at all."

your fundamental right only applies if the government starts throwing people in jail for being married, then you can say hey that's a violation.

The word 'marriage' is not in the Constitution. The previous sentence is meaningless.

States offer recognition of a union of marriage for multiple purposes which go to the heart of things. And again, no one is arguing a right to a state approved marriage, only that if there are state approved marriages the state needs an overriding interest if it is to discriminate -- as it does with polygamy and incest.

You keep re-framing things and making up your own arguments with yourself. It gets pretty weird. What you or I think the best policy would be is irrelevant.

---

error #1: "fundamental right =/= constitutional right to a state endorsed marriage."

the fix: only if the state issues marriage licenses. the recognition of unions between people, marriages, has been ruled to be in the state interest.
(the fix, I like that. lol)

as you say "there is nothing in any of the rulings or in the COTUS itself which would prevent a state from saying "we aren't issuing marriage licenses, get one from the church of your choice" and no one is disagreeing with you. You imagine (wrongly) that you have a solution to the legal battle. You do not. You have an idea that is irrelevant to the legal arguments and maybe irrelevant to most of the political ones too.

Chief Justice Margaret Marshall had it right in Massachusetts. Change the state constitutions, but that only addressed the issues on a state level. On the federal level we will eventually see gay marriages as equal to heterosexual marriages if only because both types of marriages are a union of two people.

Marriage has been ruled a fundamental right by the US Supreme Court. The SCOTUS does not concern itself with whether or not states issues licenses.

 

[ConHog]

the arguments is a bogus philosophical circle jerk because there is no way in hell people would give up the so-called marriage penalties we heard conservative lying about a few years back.

I can't help what so called conservatives have lied about in the past. As you know I support allowing gays to marry. I simply think they should marry in a non state sanctioned marriage, the same as heterosexuals should. That's not discrimination at all., that's fair.



There is no opinion, the word MARRIAGE absolutely is not in the COTUS.

The Supreme Court of the US has stated otherwise, in numerous cases, with numerous reasoning, why marriage is a fundamental right.

fundamental right =/= constitutional right to a state endorsed marriage. No court ruling has ever EVER ruled that the government must allow everyone to get married, all they have ruled is that the government can't discriminate by picking and choosing who they allow to get married. A correct ruling, if you offer some privilege to one, you offer it to all, However there is nothing in any of the rulings or in the COTUS itself which would prevent a state from saying "we aren't issuing marriage licenses, get one from the church of your choice , or a private business for the heathens, or just have a civil contract and we will honor it but we won't issue state licenses at all."

your fundamental right only applies if the government starts throwing people in jail for being married, then you can say hey that's a violation.

The word 'marriage' is not in the Constitution. The previous sentence is meaningless.

States offer recognition of a union of marriage for multiple purposes which go to the heart of things. And again, no one is arguing a right to a state approved marriage, only that if there are state approved marriages the state needs an overriding interest if it is to discriminate -- as it does with polygamy and incest.

You keep re-framing things and making up your own arguments with yourself. It gets pretty weird. What you or I think the best policy would be is irrelevant.

---

error #1: "fundamental right =/= constitutional right to a state endorsed marriage."

the fix: only if the state issues marriage licenses. the recognition of unions between people, marriages, has been ruled to be in the state interest.
(the fix, I like that. lol)

as you say "there is nothing in any of the rulings or in the COTUS itself which would prevent a state from saying "we aren't issuing marriage licenses, get one from the church of your choice" and no one is disagreeing with you. You imagine (wrongly) that you have a solution to the legal battle. You do not. You have an idea that is irrelevant to the legal arguments and maybe irrelevant to most of the political ones too.

Chief Justice Margaret Marshall had it right in Massachusetts. Change the state constitutions, but that only addressed the issues on a state level. On the federal level we will eventually see gay marriages as equal to heterosexual marriages if only because both types of marriages are a union of two people.

Marriage has been ruled a fundamental right by the US Supreme Court. The SCOTUS does not concern itself with whether or not states issues licenses.

Bullshit.

You,Syrenn and countless others on here have been screaming that you have a COTUS right to be married by the state since this became an issue. Don't deny it now that I have shown y ou that for the first 100 years of this country's history there was no such thing and in fact marriage licenses in the US were originally used as a form of bigotry.

That is the argument that was being made, otherwise why argue when I say the states aren't required to issue marriage licenses? I mean seriously Del, why would you argue with me if you weren't disagreeing with me?

Fundamental right? you have a fundamental right to have children to, does that mean a state has to give you a license to do so? Well actually, I might argue that would be a good idea, but you get what I'm saying.

Oh, and my solution would absolutely solve the problem. 100% .Go back to common law marriage , civil contracts, church ceremonies if you wish and call it a day.

Now I'm going to tell you. I'm sick of dishonesty and your claim that no one was arguing that they have a aright to a state issued license when that is exactly the argument that many are making has quite frankly disgusted me, and so I'm done having this discussion with you.

PS - The SCOTUS absolutely concerns itself with state issued marriage licenses.

Loving v Virginia was ENTIRELY about state issued marriage licenses, my God man the case banned all laws prohibiting states from making inter racial marriage illegal. if that isn't the Court taking an interest in state licenses I don't know what would be.

That being said, wallow in your dishonesty. I'm done.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Marriage licence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feel free to educate yourself if you're interested.

You have no constitutional right to a state recognized marriage. Sorry but it is that simple.

I never said the states issued licenses all along. It was a question. *sigh*
a question with a purpose.

Common law marriages were recognized by the state. You keep arguing over marriage licenses and no one else is. There is only a right to a marriage license if states issue them as states cannot discriminate.

Show me where I or anyone credible here (short list, I know) has mentioned a constitutional duty to a state issuing marriage licenses. The argument is misunderstood by you. You keep seeing an argument in a way that makes your solution credible and valid. It may be credible, but it is invalid as long as states issue licenses.

The right is to a state issued license only as long as states issue licenses.

you are going in small circles.

 

[HUGGY]

The Federal Judge that struck down Gay marriage ban AMENDMENT has stated that no one but the State of California has the right to appeal the ban. The Governor and the Attorney General both refuse to do so.

Unfucking believable.


We have a court illegally denying the citizens the Democratic process through the Courts. We have a Governor and an Attorney General refusing to do their obligated duty for the people of the State.

Judge doubts gay marriage ban's backers can appeal - Yahoo! News

Time for another recall of a California Governor.

Oh my.... all those millions invested by the stupid mormAns down the toilet.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Bullshit.

1) You,Syrenn and countless others on here have been screaming that you have a COTUS right to be married by the state since this became an issue. Don't deny it now that I have shown y ou that for the first 100 years of this country's history there was no such thing and in fact marriage licenses in the US were originally used as a form of bigotry.

That is the argument that was being made, otherwise why argue when I say the states aren't required to issue marriage licenses? I mean seriously Del, why would you argue with me if you weren't disagreeing with me?

Fundamental right? you have a fundamental right to have children to, does that mean a state has to give you a license to do so? Well actually, I might argue that would be a good idea, but you get what I'm saying.

Oh, and my solution would absolutely solve the problem. 100% .Go back to common law marriage , civil contracts, church ceremonies if you wish and call it a day.

Now I'm going to tell you. I'm sick of dishonesty and your claim that no one was arguing that they have a aright to a state issued license when that is exactly the argument that many are making has quite frankly disgusted me, and so I'm done having this discussion with you.

PS - The SCOTUS absolutely concerns itself with state issued marriage licenses.

Loving v Virginia was ENTIRELY about state issued marriage licenses, my God man the case banned all laws prohibiting states from making inter racial marriage illegal. if that isn't the Court taking an interest in state licenses I don't know what would be.

That being said, wallow in your dishonesty. I'm done.

Hogo, you have been having an internal argument for months now. An internal argument where you hear things through a faulty universal translator.

1) I never argued that there is a right to be married by the state and neither has anyone else on the short list (I can't comment on others because I ignore most of the silly arguments here -- except yours. lol). What has been argued is that there is a right for gays to be treated equally by the state. If the state stopped issuing licenses tomorrow there is no lobby arguing with me that would argue there is a right to licenses. do you get IT yet?


you did not point out common law marriages to me. I asked you a question and you took it as a statement. see? you are stuck on something and cannot see the forest for the trees.

your opinion that the states stop issuing licenses is one I've thought about -- ages ago, but that is NOT part of the legal argument,

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Federal Judge that struck down Gay marriage ban AMENDMENT has stated that no one but the State of California has the right to appeal the ban. The Governor and the Attorney General both refuse to do so.

Unfucking believable.


We have a court illegally denying the citizens the Democratic process through the Courts. We have a Governor and an Attorney General refusing to do their obligated duty for the people of the State.

Judge doubts gay marriage ban's backers can appeal - Yahoo! News

Time for another recall of a California Governor.

Oh my.... all those millions invested by the stupid mormAns down the toilet.

thank god. oops!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

PS - The SCOTUS absolutely concerns itself with state issued marriage licenses.

Loving v Virginia was ENTIRELY about state issued marriage licenses, my God man the case banned all laws prohibiting states from making inter racial marriage illegal. if that isn't the Court taking an interest in state licenses I don't know what would be.

That being said, wallow in your dishonesty. I'm done.

jesus, are you really this dense? The SCOTUS is not concerned about whether or not states issue licenses. It's not like they would order states to issue licenses if they stopped doing so. are you drinking again?

the feds interest is not in the licenses, it is in the area of equality (equal treatment) and due process.

dishonesty? you get drunk and imagine everyone is arguing with you in your head? I used to do that -- in my teens, on drugs,

 

[ConHog]

Marriage licence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feel free to educate yourself if you're interested.

You have no constitutional right to a state recognized marriage. Sorry but it is that simple.

I never said the states issued licenses all along. It was a question. *sigh*
a question with a purpose.

Common law marriages were recognized by the state. You keep arguing over marriage licenses and no one else is. There is only a right to a marriage license if states issue them as states cannot discriminate.

Show me where I or anyone credible here (short list, I know) has mentioned a constitutional duty to a state issuing marriage licenses. The argument is misunderstood by you. You keep seeing an argument in a way that makes your solution credible and valid. It may be credible, but it is invalid as long as states issue licenses.

The right is to a state issued license only as long as states issue licenses.

you are going in small circles.

I'm going in circles? you just argued your way into agreeing with me. LOL

Actually I just rearead this thread and you may jsut be confused.

Here is the post that led of the debate

Not a chance in hell.

Im not gay
I AM married
And it had NOTHING to do with any church.
We were married by the Chief Justice of the State of California.

Good point, and I should have clarified as I have in earlier threads. I'm fine with some private business issuing marriage licenses , I don't care. just get the state out of it.

To have a legal marriage you must have a licensee. For a marriage to be recognized nationally you need a license issued by the government.

Clearly that is not true, as common law marriages are still valid in this country, further you just agreed that there is no right to a state license to marry, BUT when Syrenn posted this and I posted that you weren't entitled to one, you came into her defense, signifying that you agreed with her position. Perhaps you don't , I don't know at this point. But your claim that no one said so is clearly wrong, and she has said so in numerous other threads , so have others.

If you weren't agreeing with her, then why would you have even posted that I was wrong. Clearly I am right, states are NOT constitutionally required to issue marriage licenses.

 

[ConHog]

PS - The SCOTUS absolutely concerns itself with state issued marriage licenses.

Loving v Virginia was ENTIRELY about state issued marriage licenses, my God man the case banned all laws prohibiting states from making inter racial marriage illegal. if that isn't the Court taking an interest in state licenses I don't know what would be.

That being said, wallow in your dishonesty. I'm done.

jesus, are you really this dense? The SCOTUS is not concerned about whether or not states issue licenses. It's not like they would order states to issue licenses if they stopped doing so. are you drinking again?

the feds interest is not in the licenses, it is in the area of equality (equal treatment) and due process.

dishonesty? you get drunk and imagine everyone is arguing with you in your head? I used to do that -- in my teens, on drugs,

That is exactly what I've been saying all along you fucking idiot.

 

[ConHog]

an opinion substituting as fact is still an opinion.

2) It is not an opinion that the word marriage does not appear in the COTUS, it is a FACT. (1)it is not an opinon that our personal rights that are protected by the COTUS are enumerated within the COTUS, that is a fact.

3) One could make an argument that the government has the right to issue licenses, and that would be an opinion. My opinion is that because it is a fact that marriage is not mentioned in the COTUS that the government in fact has exceeded their authority by doing so. I am fine with debating whether that is true or not, but to argue that we have a constitutional right to marriage is silly.

1) The Constitution explicitly says to not do what you have done, "construed to deny or disparage" others rights not enumerated in the Constitution, but retained by the people.

2) didn't say that. please stop making up arguments. I'll bore too easily.

3) The Supreme Court of the US has said marriage is a fundamental right. Arguing that the state governments have no rights to issue licenses as you seem to be doing is not only silly, it approaches stupidity.

The states issue marriage licenses as it is not a duty given to the federal government. The states were issuing marriage licenses during the whole of US history, no?

See here you are misconstruing to, on purpose or not I don't know. But I never argued that a state didn't have a right to choose to issue licenses, instead I have always argued that a state has the right to choose NOT to issue marriage licenses, do you see the difference in the two statements.

 

[goldcatt]

The problem with that argument though is twofold.

First, the vote was not nullified. The residents of the State voted to amend their state constitution. It was so amended. Once that happened, once the amendment was in place, the vote was honored and it is merely another part of the state constitution on the same level with any other part. The Court did not deny the existence of the amendment. It did not disregard the vote. It in fact acknowledged the validity of the vote by acknowledging the existence of the law. BUT...it makes no difference how that law came to be. The Court must treat it as any other law.

I understand the legal difference here, but the fact is that the vote was nullified. Everyone who is not a lawyer at heart knows this, and even if the lawyers stand there all explain that this is not what happened, they are wrong.

That said, can we skip this because this is not the point I am trying to make here.

I snipped off this portion because I think this is EXACTLY what you and the OP (and others) were trying to address here. I'll get back to the rest later when I have time, but I'll tackle this now.

You, the OP and others are saying, in essence, you understand the legal difference but the law and its process make no difference to popular perception - so the perception should win out over law in a court of law.

With all due respect, that is a ridiculous position.

Are we a nation of laws, of due process and the procedures that safeguard us from abuse? Or are we a nation of blowdried halfwit pundits telling us what to think and emotional knee-jerk responses to catch phrases? That sounds harsh and I know it, but think about what you're saying here and how it applies. Then back off and look at it again from your rational side.

The Courts are our last bastion against exactly the sort of mob rule you are advocating here. They operate, believe it or not, under strict procedural and jurisdictional limitations for a reason. Standing is one of those limitations. You may not agree with their decisions, hell I disagree with them as often as anybody else. But disagreeing with their decisions and denying their right to make them or the very existence of the rules by which they make them are two very, very different things.

When you disagree with what Congress does, why aren't you out railing to the heavens about their illegitimacy to pass law? When you disagree with a decision by the POTUS, why aren't you out crying about his illegitimacy to perform his tasks? (Unless you're a birfer, but that's a different thread. )

The Courts are a mystery to most people. The judges are unelected. They have arcane, highly theoretical and complicated procedures and a maze of rules even a lot of attorneys who don't deal with the Federal system on a regular basis can have trouble with. They work from a base of law, equity, history and precedent so vast and complex it seems sometimes they pull what are actually very sound decisions out of thin air. They apply interpretations from a broad range of mainstream paradigms, and there will always be disagreement over which interpretation should be used. Sometimes they screw the pooch royally. And we're told over and over again to fear them, that they're taking away our rights and destroying our principles rather than performing the task of upholding them as best they can against the galloping herd. I get it.

There's nothing I can say to combat the power of the fear machine, I get that too. Who am I but some ghost in the machine? But I will say this: If you can see the legal point, remember the Courts ONLY deal with law. They do not and cannot care about how you feel or perceive, that is not their job and is not within their power and quite frankly it should never be. They exist solely to address that legal point and resolve controversy in a civilized manner according to their rules and limitations. Period.

I said it on another thread to another poster earlier and I'll say it here, learn to separate out the issues.

 

[syrenn]

Marriage licence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feel free to educate yourself if you're interested.

You have no constitutional right to a state recognized marriage. Sorry but it is that simple.

I never said the states issued licenses all along. It was a question. *sigh*
a question with a purpose.

Common law marriages were recognized by the state. You keep arguing over marriage licenses and no one else is. There is only a right to a marriage license if states issue them as states cannot discriminate.

Show me where I or anyone credible here (short list, I know) has mentioned a constitutional duty to a state issuing marriage licenses. The argument is misunderstood by you. You keep seeing an argument in a way that makes your solution credible and valid. It may be credible, but it is invalid as long as states issue licenses.

The right is to a state issued license only as long as states issue licenses.

you are going in small circles.

I'm going in circles? you just argued your way into agreeing with me. LOL

Actually I just rearead this thread and you may jsut be confused.

Here is the post that led of the debate

Good point, and I should have clarified as I have in earlier threads. I'm fine with some private business issuing marriage licenses , I don't care. just get the state out of it.

To have a legal marriage you must have a licensee. For a marriage to be recognized nationally you need a license issued by the government.

Clearly that is not true, as common law marriages are still valid in this country, further you just agreed that there is no right to a state license to marry, BUT when Syrenn posted this and I posted that you weren't entitled to one, you came into her defense, signifying that you agreed with her position. Perhaps you don't , I don't know at this point. But your claim that no one said so is clearly wrong, and she has said so in numerous other threads , so have others.

If you weren't agreeing with her, then why would you have even posted that I was wrong. Clearly I am right, states are NOT constitutionally required to issue marriage licenses.

OK got it, you got a problem with the licence part. Fine

The government will always be in the "marriage business" so long as it is the government that married people NEED to have recognize the MARRIAGE.

I don't give a rats ass if god has sanctioned my marriage. I don't need god to recognize it. I do however NEED the government to recognize it and that puts the government in the marriage business.

Who do you file taxes with, god or the government? Is there a question on that form that uses the word "married"? Married means legal. Legal means government recognition of the marriage.

I have never argued that the word "married is in the COTUS. Married is a descriptive word that covers a union between two people, a word that the church does not have sole copy rights to.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

PS - The SCOTUS absolutely concerns itself with state issued marriage licenses.

Loving v Virginia was ENTIRELY about state issued marriage licenses, my God man the case banned all laws prohibiting states from making inter racial marriage illegal. if that isn't the Court taking an interest in state licenses I don't know what would be.

That being said, wallow in your dishonesty. I'm done.

jesus, are you really this dense? The SCOTUS is not concerned about whether or not states issue licenses. It's not like they would order states to issue licenses if they stopped doing so. are you drinking again?

the feds interest is not in the licenses, it is in the area of equality (equal treatment) and due process.

dishonesty? you get drunk and imagine everyone is arguing with you in your head? I used to do that -- in my teens, on drugs,

That is exactly what I've been saying all along you fucking idiot.

Dear dopey, I know and I have said so. What I have pointed out to you is that NO one is arguing with you.

The argument is an internal one -- with yourself.

You win!!!! against yourself.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Marriage licence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feel free to educate yourself if you're interested.

You have no constitutional right to a state recognized marriage. Sorry but it is that simple.

I never said the states issued licenses all along. It was a question. *sigh*
a question with a purpose.

Common law marriages were recognized by the state. You keep arguing over marriage licenses and no one else is. There is only a right to a marriage license if states issue them as states cannot discriminate.

Show me where I or anyone credible here (short list, I know) has mentioned a constitutional duty to a state issuing marriage licenses. The argument is misunderstood by you. You keep seeing an argument in a way that makes your solution credible and valid. It may be credible, but it is invalid as long as states issue licenses.

The right is to a state issued license only as long as states issue licenses.

you are going in small circles.

I'm going in circles? you just argued your way into agreeing with me. LOL

Actually I just rearead this thread and you may jsut be confused.

Here is the post that led of the debate

Good point, and I should have clarified as I have in earlier threads. I'm fine with some private business issuing marriage licenses , I don't care. just get the state out of it.

To have a legal marriage you must have a licensee. For a marriage to be recognized nationally you need a license issued by the government.

Clearly that is not true, as common law marriages are still valid in this country, further you just agreed that there is no right to a state license to marry, BUT when Syrenn posted this and I posted that you weren't entitled to one, you came into her defense, signifying that you agreed with her position. Perhaps you don't , I don't know at this point. But your claim that no one said so is clearly wrong, and she has said so in numerous other threads , so have others.

If you weren't agreeing with her, then why would you have even posted that I was wrong. Clearly I am right, states are NOT constitutionally required to issue marriage licenses.

btw, before my brother passed away, he legally married his common law wife.

I know common law marriages are not recognized in most cases, Try filing a joint tax form for starters.

Common-law marriage is not as common as many people believe. Living together does not mean you have a common-law marriage. There are strict requirements that have to be met for common-law marriages to be considered valid.

Additionally, only a few states in the United States recognize common-law marriages.

No one has come around to agreeing with you, because no one was disagreeing with you.

You are the one misconstruing things because when you hear people talk about marriage licenses you get stuck in a loop where you infer -- you alone infer -- that people are talking about a civil right to a state issued marriage license.

There is a right to a state issued marriage license, as long as the state issues them.

There is NO legal argument in the courts right now arguing for or against the 'right' of the states to issue marriage licenses.

In another post you write: "See here you are misconstruing to, on purpose or not I don't know. But I never argued that a state didn't have a right to choose to issue licenses, instead I have always argued that a state has the right to choose NOT to issue marriage licenses, do you see the difference in the two statements."

The legal argument in court is about this: the state does not have the right to choose who gets a marriage license as a way of discriminating against gay couples.

You have broadened the argument people are having and in doing so have ended up misconstruing things.
The internal argument you are having is frustrating you because you are having a difficult time getting people to argue with you. They can and will -- if you frame your argument well.

--

you get stuck in amazing ways. it is amusing to observe.

thank you for the entertainment

 

[CurveLight]

The Federal Judge that struck down Gay marriage ban AMENDMENT has stated that no one but the State of California has the right to appeal the ban. The Governor and the Attorney General both refuse to do so.

Unfucking believable.


We have a court illegally denying the citizens the Democratic process through the Courts. We have a Governor and an Attorney General refusing to do their obligated duty for the people of the State.

Judge doubts gay marriage ban's backers can appeal - Yahoo! News

Time for another recall of a California Governor.

Saudi Arabia Guide: Citizenship, Is it possible to become a national of Saudi Arabia?: As a foreigner, you

 

[ConHog]

I never said the states issued licenses all along. It was a question. *sigh*
a question with a purpose.

Common law marriages were recognized by the state. You keep arguing over marriage licenses and no one else is. There is only a right to a marriage license if states issue them as states cannot discriminate.

Show me where I or anyone credible here (short list, I know) has mentioned a constitutional duty to a state issuing marriage licenses. The argument is misunderstood by you. You keep seeing an argument in a way that makes your solution credible and valid. It may be credible, but it is invalid as long as states issue licenses.

The right is to a state issued license only as long as states issue licenses.

you are going in small circles.

I'm going in circles? you just argued your way into agreeing with me. LOL

Actually I just rearead this thread and you may jsut be confused.

Here is the post that led of the debate



Clearly that is not true, as common law marriages are still valid in this country, further you just agreed that there is no right to a state license to marry, BUT when Syrenn posted this and I posted that you weren't entitled to one, you came into her defense, signifying that you agreed with her position. Perhaps you don't , I don't know at this point. But your claim that no one said so is clearly wrong, and she has said so in numerous other threads , so have others.

If you weren't agreeing with her, then why would you have even posted that I was wrong. Clearly I am right, states are NOT constitutionally required to issue marriage licenses.

btw, before my brother passed away, he legally married his common law wife.

I know common law marriages are not recognized in most cases, Try filing a joint tax form for starters.

Common-law marriage is not as common as many people believe. Living together does not mean you have a common-law marriage. There are strict requirements that have to be met for common-law marriages to be considered valid.

Additionally, only a few states in the United States recognize common-law marriages.

No one has come around to agreeing with you, because no one was disagreeing with you.

You are the one misconstruing things because when you hear people talk about marriage licenses you get stuck in a loop where you infer -- you alone infer -- that people are talking about a civil right to a state issued marriage license.

There is a right to a state issued marriage license, as long as the state issues them.

There is NO legal argument in the courts right now arguing for or against the 'right' of the states to issue marriage licenses.

In another post you write: "See here you are misconstruing to, on purpose or not I don't know. But I never argued that a state didn't have a right to choose to issue licenses, instead I have always argued that a state has the right to choose NOT to issue marriage licenses, do you see the difference in the two statements."

The legal argument in court is about this: the state does not have the right to choose who gets a marriage license as a way of discriminating against gay couples.

You have broadened the argument people are having and in doing so have ended up misconstruing things.
The internal argument you are having is frustrating you because you are having a difficult time getting people to argue with you. They can and will -- if you frame your argument well.

--

you get stuck in amazing ways. it is amusing to observe.

thank you for the entertainment

You're an idiot. There are people all over this board arguing that they have a RIGHT to a state marriage license. How you deny people are arguing that is beyond me. Syrenn just argue it again.

I didn't think you were as stupid as people claim you are until this thread. I'm done.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You're an idiot. There are people all over this board arguing that they have a RIGHT to a state marriage license. How you deny people are arguing that is beyond me. Syrenn just argue it again.

I didn't think you were as stupid as people claim you are until this thread. I'm done.

They do have a right to a state marriage license, if the state is issuing licenses. You are mis-conhog-struing the issue.


seriously buddy, just move on. you are not wrong, just confused.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You're an idiot. There are people all over this board arguing that they have a RIGHT to a state marriage license. How you deny people are arguing that is beyond me. Syrenn just argue it again.

I didn't think you were as stupid as people claim you are until this thread. I'm done.

They do have a right to a state marriage license, if the state is issuing licenses. You are mis-conhog-struing the issue.


seriously buddy, just move on. you are not wrong, just confused.

hello?

 

[ConHog]

You're an idiot. There are people all over this board arguing that they have a RIGHT to a state marriage license. How you deny people are arguing that is beyond me. Syrenn just argue it again.

I didn't think you were as stupid as people claim you are until this thread. I'm done.

They do have a right to a state marriage license, if the state is issuing licenses. You are mis-conhog-struing the issue.


seriously buddy, just move on. you are not wrong, just confused.

No, YOU are confused. I have always maintained what you just said. BUT there are people in various threads arguing that the states MUST issue state licenses and that you have the right to one. You do NOT as you have agreed with me about so why are you fucking arguing? Other than you're an idiot.