WA bans gender terms from marriage certificates

[Luissa]

Actually it (Family Law stuff) was what was being discussed, which went right over your head, obviously.

Thus I responded, "Precisely," which is shorthand for "Indeed; you're clueless."

Does that clarify it for ya?

I will say huh again, because I was not involved a family law discussion.I was involved in a discussion about the Marriage license in Washington and the fact Steve was derailing the thread by discussing rape.
So in fact I think you are the one who is clueless and obviously can't follow threads.
For one you asked me if I needed a lesson on family in regards to a post where I said nothing about family law.
I never even brought the subject up because this thread was not about family law.
So If you want you can take your condescending attitude and shove it.... Well you get the picture.

Tip: marriage licenses are governed by Family Law.

So once again: Precisely! You're clueless. "Huh?" is thus quite an apt reply. Well done; knowing what we do not understand is the first step in understanding shit. You're on the right path.

Okay you got me, by why would you need to ask me that question if the only post I made on the subject was about the OP being a lie?
Don't think I am the clueless one.

 

[Koios]

I will say huh again, because I was not involved a family law discussion.I was involved in a discussion about the Marriage license in Washington and the fact Steve was derailing the thread by discussing rape.
So in fact I think you are the one who is clueless and obviously can't follow threads.
For one you asked me if I needed a lesson on family in regards to a post where I said nothing about family law.
I never even brought the subject up because this thread was not about family law.
So If you want you can take your condescending attitude and shove it.... Well you get the picture.

Tip: marriage licenses are governed by Family Law.

So once again: Precisely! You're clueless. "Huh?" is thus quite an apt reply. Well done; knowing what we do not understand is the first step in understanding shit. You're on the right path.

Okay you got me, by why would you need to ask me that question if the only post I made on the subject was about the OP being a lie?
Don't think I am the clueless one.

Why indeed, if it was as you say. But sorry, that's simply not true ... here's how it began:

Quote: Originally Posted by Koios
Quote: Originally Posted by novasteve
Binding contract my ass
Try breaking it, without a court order doing so, with provisions for any obligations still binding on the parties, upon exiting the BINDING CONTRACT.
Forgive him, he kind of falls apart once someone proves he has no clue what he is talking about.

You'll note the discussion was in regard to matters having to do with Family Law. And being either in hurry, or perhaps short of something to say of substance, or more likely a fucking idiot, you hop on board with some empty, mindless rhetoric in hope of somehow insulting me, which in fact, merely embarrasses you.

That clear it up? Or are you still in a state of bewilderment? (read: huh?)

 

[Luissa]

Tip: marriage licenses are governed by Family Law.

So once again: Precisely! You're clueless. "Huh?" is thus quite an apt reply. Well done; knowing what we do not understand is the first step in understanding shit. You're on the right path.

Okay you got me, by why would you need to ask me that question if the only post I made on the subject was about the OP being a lie?
Don't think I am the clueless one.

Why indeed, if it was as you say. But sorry, that's simply not true ... here's how it began:

Quote: Originally Posted by Koios
Quote: Originally Posted by novasteve
Binding contract my ass
Try breaking it, without a court order doing so, with provisions for any obligations still binding on the parties, upon exiting the BINDING CONTRACT.
Forgive him, he kind of falls apart once someone proves he has no clue what he is talking about.

You'll note the discussion was in regard to matters having to do with Family Law. And being either in hurry, or perhaps short of something to say of substance, or more likely a fucking idiot, you hop on board with some empty, mindless rhetoric in hope of somehow insulting me, which in fact, merely embarrasses you.

That clear it up? Or are you still in a state of bewilderment? (read: huh?)

The comment wasn't in regards to you, no clue why you thought it was.

 

[Luissa]

Who cares? Does it change marriage in any way? Do people now get less rights? Is anyone trying to force you not recognize your partner as husband/wife?

This isn't something I would advocate, but it's pretty stupid to get worked up over it.

In fact, it would accomplish just the opposite.

Marriage between men and women have a 50% fail rate and yet the homophobe haters say the marriages of others will threaten their own.

What a lot of to-do over nothing.

Why shouldn't all US citizens have the same rights?

I agree, however, did you know that they won't have to pay the marriage penalty the rest of us pay? I think that's unfair. Why should they be able to have all the benefits but none of the negatives?

They don't have all the benefits you have, and won't until their marriage is federally recognized. Which is why they don't have to pay the penalty. Seems fair to me.

 

[Koios]

Okay you got me, by why would you need to ask me that question if the only post I made on the subject was about the OP being a lie?
Don't think I am the clueless one.

Why indeed, if it was as you say. But sorry, that's simply not true ... here's how it began:

Quote: Originally Posted by Koios
Quote: Originally Posted by novasteve
Binding contract my ass
Try breaking it, without a court order doing so, with provisions for any obligations still binding on the parties, upon exiting the BINDING CONTRACT.
Forgive him, he kind of falls apart once someone proves he has no clue what he is talking about.

You'll note the discussion was in regard to matters having to do with Family Law. And being either in hurry, or perhaps short of something to say of substance, or more likely a fucking idiot, you hop on board with some empty, mindless rhetoric in hope of somehow insulting me, which in fact, merely embarrasses you.

That clear it up? Or are you still in a state of bewilderment? (read: huh?)

The comment wasn't in regards to you, no clue why you thought it was.

It was quoting me and thus I thought it pertained to me. Try less ambiguous terms, such as my or the other's handle.

That said, indeed the discussion pertained to Family Law when you jumped in. Do you dispute that, now, in light of the truth?

 

[Luissa]

Why indeed, if it was as you say. But sorry, that's simply not true ... here's how it began:



You'll note the discussion was in regard to matters having to do with Family Law. And being either in hurry, or perhaps short of something to say of substance, or more likely a fucking idiot, you hop on board with some empty, mindless rhetoric in hope of somehow insulting me, which in fact, merely embarrasses you.

That clear it up? Or are you still in a state of bewilderment? (read: huh?)

The comment wasn't in regards to you, no clue why you thought it was.

It was quoting me and thus I thought it pertained to me. Try less ambiguous terms, such as my or the other's handle.

That said, indeed the discussion pertained to Family Law when you jumped in. Do you dispute that, now, in light of the truth?

You were quoting another poster, which is why I said he. If it was directed at you, one would think I would use you, your, or you're, like most people around here I don't usually respond in third person.
I guess it is a Seattle thing.

 

[Koios]

The comment wasn't in regards to you, no clue why you thought it was.

It was quoting me and thus I thought it pertained to me. Try less ambiguous terms, such as my or the other's handle.

That said, indeed the discussion pertained to Family Law when you jumped in. Do you dispute that, now, in light of the truth?

You were quoting another poster, which is why I said he. If it was directed at you, one would think I would use you, your, or you're, like most people around here I don't usually respond in third person.
I guess it is a Seattle thing.

Fair enough. I misinterpretted.

Meanwhile, can we admit that Family Law was the topic, from beginning to end, virtually?

Whadaya think?

 

[Luissa]

Why indeed, if it was as you say. But sorry, that's simply not true ... here's how it began:



You'll note the discussion was in regard to matters having to do with Family Law. And being either in hurry, or perhaps short of something to say of substance, or more likely a fucking idiot, you hop on board with some empty, mindless rhetoric in hope of somehow insulting me, which in fact, merely embarrasses you.

That clear it up? Or are you still in a state of bewilderment? (read: huh?)

The comment wasn't in regards to you, no clue why you thought it was.

It was quoting me and thus I thought it pertained to me. Try less ambiguous terms, such as my or the other's handle.

That said, indeed the discussion pertained to Family Law when you jumped in. Do you dispute that, now, in light of the truth?

And second, unless you posted something before the Kirkland post, I was posting in this thread before you. So no I didn't just jump in.

And I guess you got me on the family law, which I already stated a few posts back. I am sorry it is so hard for you to follow a thread.

 

[Luissa]

It was quoting me and thus I thought it pertained to me. Try less ambiguous terms, such as my or the other's handle.

That said, indeed the discussion pertained to Family Law when you jumped in. Do you dispute that, now, in light of the truth?

You were quoting another poster, which is why I said he. If it was directed at you, one would think I would use you, your, or you're, like most people around here I don't usually respond in third person.
I guess it is a Seattle thing.

Fair enough. I misinterpretted.

Meanwhile, can we admit that Family Law was the topic, from beginning to end, virtually?

Whadaya think?

Already did, sorry you missed it.

 

[Luissa]

See post 201, I think you even quoted it.


Now, that is all for me. This is like arguing with QW. Ugh

 

[Koios]

You were quoting another poster, which is why I said he. If it was directed at you, one would think I would use you, your, or you're, like most people around here I don't usually respond in third person.
I guess it is a Seattle thing.

Fair enough. I misinterpretted.

Meanwhile, can we admit that Family Law was the topic, from beginning to end, virtually?

Whadaya think?

Already did, sorry you missed it.

I was following where the discussion went, and bitch-slapped this (empasis added to what prompted my retort):

"Okay you got me, by why would you need to ask me that question if the only post I made on the subject was about the OP being a lie?

 

[Luissa]

 

[Koios]

Surely you can do better. Maybe a PNG with less lossy than a JPEG for higher quality viewing?

Just a thought.

 

[Luissa]

Surely you can do better. Maybe a PNG with less lossy than a JPEG for higher quality viewing?

Just a thought.

You are for sure from the Westside.

 

[Koios]

Surely you can do better. Maybe a PNG with less lossy than a JPEG for higher quality viewing?

Just a thought.

You are for sure from the Westside.

Indeed; proudly so. But hopefully, your Inland-ness brings you some pride as well. Imagine. You're nowhere near as clueless as them Seattle Elitist assholes living better, eating better and making more.

Lucky you.

 

[mjollnir]

 

[Unkotare]

Someone else remembers you~