And another one down: U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages

[Seawytch]

Yes the gays want to use the term marriage to force church's to accept them and punish them for looking at their lifestyle as evil.

Why not push for civil unions that do the same thing? Why call it marriage?

Then again this goes to show that many that claim they want a separation of church and state only do so when it is convenient for them to use that talking point.

No, actually, we don't. We really don't care what it is called. Change the name, go ahead. Call it chicken noodle soup...just make it equal.

What you cannot do is have civil marriage for the straights and civil unions for the gheys. That's unconstitutional, but we would be perfectly fine with Civil Unions for all.

Get on it!

Then why aren't you pushing for Civil Unions and insist on calling it "Marriage"?

If they really didn't care then we would see a big push for Civil Unions instead of "Marriage", now wouldn't we?

I am all for removing "Marriage" form government and leaving it in religion and calling it civil unions on the legal/government side of things. It is a win for everyone, you would figure those that claim it is not about the term "Marriage" would be preaching such a message. The far left does not think things through when trying to tell you what "rights" you supposedly should be fighting for. Don't be a far left tool.

And yes this would allow you to money grab your partners Social Security as that is the only thing that the so called "Marriage" is supposed to give you. Other than it is still nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Because that's not our responsibility. We seek access to existing laws and protections. The licenses granted by the state are called marriage licenses. If you don't like us getting marriage licenses, it's up to YOU to change it, not us.

If you don't want "the gheys" getting marriage licenses then the onus is on YOU to change it.

By the way, it's not the gheys saying no to civil unions. I bet you can't find a single state where gays voted down civil unions, but I can find quite a few states that prohibit anything that even looks vaguely like a marriage, like civil unions or partner benefits.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yes the gays want to use the term marriage to force church's to accept them and punish them for looking at their lifestyle as evil.

Why not push for civil unions that do the same thing? Why call it marriage?

Then again this goes to show that many that claim they want a separation of church and state only do so when it is convenient for them to use that talking point.

No, actually, we don't. We really don't care what it is called. Change the name, go ahead. Call it chicken noodle soup...just make it equal.

What you cannot do is have civil marriage for the straights and civil unions for the gheys. That's unconstitutional, but we would be perfectly fine with Civil Unions for all.

Get on it!

Then why aren't you pushing for Civil Unions and insist on calling it "Marriage"?

If they really didn't care then we would see a big push for Civil Unions instead of "Marriage", now wouldn't we?

I am all for removing "Marriage" form government and leaving it in religion and calling it civil unions on the legal/government side of things. It is a win for everyone, you would figure those that claim it is not about the term "Marriage" would be preaching such a message. The far left does not think things through when trying to tell you what "rights" you supposedly should be fighting for. Don't be a far left tool.

And yes this would allow you to money grab your partners Social Security as that is the only thing that the so called "Marriage" is supposed to give you. Other than it is still nothing but smoke and mirrors.

My wife and I have this odd little document from the state, it's a contract actually, signed by a judge. It says, Marriage License. See the problem now?

 

[Kosh]

No, actually, we don't. We really don't care what it is called. Change the name, go ahead. Call it chicken noodle soup...just make it equal.

What you cannot do is have civil marriage for the straights and civil unions for the gheys. That's unconstitutional, but we would be perfectly fine with Civil Unions for all.

Get on it!

Then why aren't you pushing for Civil Unions and insist on calling it "Marriage"?

If they really didn't care then we would see a big push for Civil Unions instead of "Marriage", now wouldn't we?

I am all for removing "Marriage" form government and leaving it in religion and calling it civil unions on the legal/government side of things. It is a win for everyone, you would figure those that claim it is not about the term "Marriage" would be preaching such a message. The far left does not think things through when trying to tell you what "rights" you supposedly should be fighting for. Don't be a far left tool.

And yes this would allow you to money grab your partners Social Security as that is the only thing that the so called "Marriage" is supposed to give you. Other than it is still nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Because that's not our responsibility. We seek access to existing laws and protections. The licenses granted by the state are called marriage licenses. If you don't like us getting marriage licenses, it's up to YOU to change it, not us.

If you don't want "the gheys" getting marriage licenses then the onus is on YOU to change it.

By the way, it's not the gheys saying no to civil unions. I bet you can't find a single state where gays voted down civil unions, but I can find quite a few states that prohibit anything that even looks vaguely like a marriage, like civil unions or partner benefits.

Oh my the far left has you programmed well.

It is responsibility if you claim you are not being treated equal, it is your responsibility to hold your own far left groups in check and focus on "rights" not a word.

But then again it has already been established long ago the only so called "right" that gays don't get (because of "Marriage") is access to their partners Social Security, everything else can be done legally and it is what everyone else has do as well.

 

[Kosh]

No, actually, we don't. We really don't care what it is called. Change the name, go ahead. Call it chicken noodle soup...just make it equal.

What you cannot do is have civil marriage for the straights and civil unions for the gheys. That's unconstitutional, but we would be perfectly fine with Civil Unions for all.

Get on it!

Then why aren't you pushing for Civil Unions and insist on calling it "Marriage"?

If they really didn't care then we would see a big push for Civil Unions instead of "Marriage", now wouldn't we?

I am all for removing "Marriage" form government and leaving it in religion and calling it civil unions on the legal/government side of things. It is a win for everyone, you would figure those that claim it is not about the term "Marriage" would be preaching such a message. The far left does not think things through when trying to tell you what "rights" you supposedly should be fighting for. Don't be a far left tool.

And yes this would allow you to money grab your partners Social Security as that is the only thing that the so called "Marriage" is supposed to give you. Other than it is still nothing but smoke and mirrors.

My wife and I have this odd little document from the state, it's a contract actually, signed by a judge. It says, Marriage License. See the problem now?

Which means what? You have a piece of paper? Big deal. Do you rely on that paper to take care of your wife after your passing or do you have other legal documents such as a will?

 

[paperview]

Married couples have 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities such as:

• Social Security benefits upon death, disability or retirement of spouse, as well as benefits for minor children.
• Family and Medical Leave protections to care for a new child or a sick or injured family member
• Workers' Compensation protections for the family of a worker injured on the job
• Access to COBRA insurance benefits so the family doesn't lose health insurance when one spouse is laid off
• ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) protections such as the ability to leave a pension, other than Social Security, to your spouse
• Exemptions from penalties on IRA and pension rollovers
• Exemptions from estate taxes when a spouse dies
• Exemptions from federal income taxes on spouse's health insurance
• The right to visit a sick or injured loved one, have a say in life and death matters during hospitalization. LINK

I suspect you knew this though.

 

[Seawytch]

Then why aren't you pushing for Civil Unions and insist on calling it "Marriage"?

If they really didn't care then we would see a big push for Civil Unions instead of "Marriage", now wouldn't we?

I am all for removing "Marriage" form government and leaving it in religion and calling it civil unions on the legal/government side of things. It is a win for everyone, you would figure those that claim it is not about the term "Marriage" would be preaching such a message. The far left does not think things through when trying to tell you what "rights" you supposedly should be fighting for. Don't be a far left tool.

And yes this would allow you to money grab your partners Social Security as that is the only thing that the so called "Marriage" is supposed to give you. Other than it is still nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Because that's not our responsibility. We seek access to existing laws and protections. The licenses granted by the state are called marriage licenses. If you don't like us getting marriage licenses, it's up to YOU to change it, not us.

If you don't want "the gheys" getting marriage licenses then the onus is on YOU to change it.

By the way, it's not the gheys saying no to civil unions. I bet you can't find a single state where gays voted down civil unions, but I can find quite a few states that prohibit anything that even looks vaguely like a marriage, like civil unions or partner benefits.

Oh my the far left has you programmed well.

It is responsibility if you claim you are not being treated equal, it is your responsibility to hold your own far left groups in check and focus on "rights" not a word.

But then again it has already been established long ago the only so called "right" that gays don't get (because of "Marriage") is access to their partners Social Security, everything else can be done legally and it is what everyone else has do as well.

No, that's not all, but Fox has programmed you well.

DOMA changed a lot for me personally, but I'm a retired military veteran so the striking down of DOMA meant that my legal spouse can now get a dependent ID card. She's now entitled to my military retirement upon my untimely demise as well as my SS. She can shop at the commissary now instead of me. When we go on vacation, the whole family can take Space A to travel instead of just me and the kids taking Space A and sending her commercial. It means we got to file joint Federal taxes for the first time. That was a big ******* deal. It means we get lower insurance rates as a "married couple".

Paperview gave you a list of over 1,000 Federal benefits and privileges alone...and that's just the Feds.

We don't care what you call the license granted by the state, you do. Who do you think should change it then?

 

[Freewill]

(Reuters) - A U.S. judge ordered Kentucky on Thursday to recognize the legal same-sex marriages of residents who wed elsewhere, the latest in a string of court victories for gay rights advocates.


U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II said the Kentucky laws that deny the marriages of same-sex couples "violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and they are void and unenforceable."

https://news.yahoo.com/u-judge-orders-kentucky-recognize-same-sex-marriages-003438666--finance.html


How many states does this make it? I'm losing track. It seems like a couple a week now. And so many red states. Ouch.

Bad couple of months for the anti-equality crowd.

Yes, the judicial branches are certainly going against the will of the people no doubt. One man gets to decide what is right for people who have already decided, that is tyranny.

 

[paperview]

One man.

 

[paperview]

T y r A N n Y Y y Y Y y Y Y y Y Y y!!!111!!!

 

[Freewill]

Married couples have 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities such as:

• Social Security benefits upon death, disability or retirement of spouse, as well as benefits for minor children.
• Family and Medical Leave protections to care for a new child or a sick or injured family member
• Workers' Compensation protections for the family of a worker injured on the job
• Access to COBRA insurance benefits so the family doesn't lose health insurance when one spouse is laid off
• ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) protections such as the ability to leave a pension, other than Social Security, to your spouse
• Exemptions from penalties on IRA and pension rollovers
• Exemptions from estate taxes when a spouse dies
• Exemptions from federal income taxes on spouse's health insurance
• The right to visit a sick or injured loved one, have a say in life and death matters during hospitalization. LINK

I suspect you knew this though.

Those are not rights. What is wrong with you people who argue stuff and you don't even know the definition of rights? Here is a very, very easy challenge for you. Show me where heterosexual marriage is defined as a right. Show me where a right requires a license.

What you side is doing with the wrong use of the word right is being disingenuous. You want it to be a right then there can be no argument against. But marriage IS NOT A
RIGHT.

Liberals are like a poker player who ever so often reaches over to the person next to him and takes chips because it isn't fair that the other player is a better poker player.

 

[Seawytch]

(Reuters) - A U.S. judge ordered Kentucky on Thursday to recognize the legal same-sex marriages of residents who wed elsewhere, the latest in a string of court victories for gay rights advocates.


U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II said the Kentucky laws that deny the marriages of same-sex couples "violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and they are void and unenforceable."

https://news.yahoo.com/u-judge-orders-kentucky-recognize-same-sex-marriages-003438666--finance.html


How many states does this make it? I'm losing track. It seems like a couple a week now. And so many red states. Ouch.

Bad couple of months for the anti-equality crowd.

Yes, the judicial branches are certainly going against the will of the people no doubt. One man gets to decide what is right for people who have already decided, that is tyranny.

Yes, the Judicial goes against the "will of the people" when the people's will violates the US Constitution. Need an example?

Any idea when Loving v Virginia was decided? Look LOW on the graph...

 

[deltex1]

Usmb should create a "homo board" to discuss gay issues. Quite frankly I am tired of the subject.

 

[Seawytch]

One man.

Heh heh...I know, right? How many judges have upheld the Constitutionality of anti gay marriage laws? How many have struck them down?

Over a half dozen different judges appointed by different presidents that are finding these laws unconstitutional. Yeah, the USMB yahoos have it right and judges have it wrong.

 

[Freewill]

One man.

From you article: A U.S. judge ordered Kentucky on Thursday to recognize the legal same-sex marriages of residents who wed elsewhere, the latest in a string of court victories for gay rights advocates.

What is confusing you? The definition of "A?" I thought it surprising that you don't know the definition of rights but A???? At least Clinton didn't understand a two letter word.

 

[Seawytch]

Usmb should create a "homo board" to discuss gay issues. Quite frankly I am tired of the subject.

You know what I do when there are dozens of threads on subjects I have no interest in? I don't click on them and comment in them.

 

[Freewill]

https://news.yahoo.com/u-judge-orders-kentucky-recognize-same-sex-marriages-003438666--finance.html


How many states does this make it? I'm losing track. It seems like a couple a week now. And so many red states. Ouch.

Bad couple of months for the anti-equality crowd.

Yes, the judicial branches are certainly going against the will of the people no doubt. One man gets to decide what is right for people who have already decided, that is tyranny.

Yes, the Judicial goes against the "will of the people" when the people's will violates the US Constitution. Need an example?

Any idea when Loving v Virginia was decided? Look LOW on the graph...

WTF does that have to do with law? So what if people didn't think interracial marriage was right? And what the hell does interracial marriage has to do with gay marriage? I wonder how blacks feel about such comparisons. You do realize that when the percentage is 4 percent that is pretty much everyone, black white, liberal conservative.

Where in the US constitution do you find the right of marriage? You don't it ain't a right.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes, the judicial branches are certainly going against the will of the people no doubt. One man gets to decide what is right for people who have already decided, that is tyranny.

Yes, the Judicial goes against the "will of the people" when the people's will violates the US Constitution. Need an example?

Any idea when Loving v Virginia was decided? Look LOW on the graph...

WTF does that have to do with law? So what if people didn't think interracial marriage was right? And what the hell does interracial marriage has to do with gay marriage? I wonder how blacks feel about such comparisons. You do realize that when the percentage is 4 percent that is pretty much everyone, black white, liberal conservative.

Where in the US constitution do you find the right of marriage? You don't it ain't a right.

You were the one just sniveling about the tyranny of activist judges going against "the will of the people" were you not? The SCOTUS went against the "will of the people" in Loving v Virginia...by a large margin. Less than 20% of the nation approved of relationships between blacks and whites when the SCOTUS declared marriage a fundamental right. Look it up!

 

[Listening]

Usmb should create a "homo board" to discuss gay issues. Quite frankly I am tired of the subject.

You know what I do when there are dozens of threads on subjects I have no interest in? I don't click on them and comment in them.

But you still have to sort through them to find the ones that are relevant.

Courtesy....like not having this in a Gay Parade......

Wildest Gay Pride Parade Pictures - chicagotribune.com

Yeah...not only going to have a parade...but piss you off in the process.

 

[paperview]

One man.

From you article: A U.S. judge ordered Kentucky on Thursday to recognize the legal same-sex marriages of residents who wed elsewhere, the latest in a string of court victories for gay rights advocates.

What is confusing you? The definition of "A?" I thought it surprising that you don't know the definition of rights but A???? At least Clinton didn't understand a two letter word.

Focus on these two words: string

and

judges. That means more than one man. There are these decisions being made all over the country now. Hell, Texas was a few days ago. Texas!

Also too: voter referendums that are now passing allowing same sex marriages, letting the people decide. Legislatures have also passed laws allowing it in some states.

It's a hellalot more than one man.

But you keep on crying T y r A N n Y Y y Y Y y Y Y y Y Y y!!!111!!!

and we'll keep laughing.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Then why aren't you pushing for Civil Unions and insist on calling it "Marriage"?

If they really didn't care then we would see a big push for Civil Unions instead of "Marriage", now wouldn't we?

I am all for removing "Marriage" form government and leaving it in religion and calling it civil unions on the legal/government side of things. It is a win for everyone, you would figure those that claim it is not about the term "Marriage" would be preaching such a message. The far left does not think things through when trying to tell you what "rights" you supposedly should be fighting for. Don't be a far left tool.

And yes this would allow you to money grab your partners Social Security as that is the only thing that the so called "Marriage" is supposed to give you. Other than it is still nothing but smoke and mirrors.

My wife and I have this odd little document from the state, it's a contract actually, signed by a judge. It says, Marriage License. See the problem now?

Which means what? You have a piece of paper? Big deal. Do you rely on that paper to take care of your wife after your passing or do you have other legal documents such as a will?

Nope, no Wills. Don't need them in my case. That Marriage License from the state gives me all the access I need to her estate should she die. Pretty powerful eh? And I got it, from the State for $25, and they call it a Marriage License. Now wouldn't that be a nice thing to offer to any other two adults who wanted such a thing? That seems fair right?