Maybe the SCOTUS is about to connect some more dots!

[Rogue AI]

You really don't understand much about how things work , do you??

That would be you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Last count there were about 1,100 federal laws that pertained to Federal rights, responsibilities, benefits or that were impacted by marital status. Such as:

Some example:

• Military service and the relocation of the spouse when the military member receives orders.
• Immigration status for those married to a US Citizen, and special consideration for acquiring citizenship
• Social Security benefits and being able to draw a spouses SS if higher than their own
• Medicaid/Medicare
• Income Tax
• Joint filing of bankruptcy
• Federal recognition of parental rights of a spouse married when a child is born
• Federal recognition rights for spouses concerning visitation on Federal hospitals
• Domestic violence prevention
• Preferential hiring of spouses for government jobs where the spouse is relocated on official orders
• Probate proceedings in the event of the death of a spouse
• Federal bereavement leave for the loss of a family member on the spouses side of the family
• Family Medical Leave for those whose spouse has a child
• Recognition of certain insurance, coverage, eligibility. For example my Wife is allowed to be the "Survivor" on my military retirement pension receiving a portion of my retirement if I pass.
• Home sale exemption where the spouse can claim up to $500,000 on the "profit" on the sale of a home for up to 2 years after the death of the spouse. Without spousal recognition the amount is limited to $250,000.
• Legal authorization to make spousal medical decision in the event of incapacity.
• Etc. Just to name a few.

Without spousal recognition at the Federal level, these a just a few of the impacts.

So again, should the Federal government recognize all Civil Marriage licenses issued by a State?

WW

Fair question.

Sincerely, because I believe the States each have a right to define what they will and will not recognize what qualifications are for "marriages" in each State, Federal Lawmakers could and per your list, probably should define what qualifications the Federal Government will use to define what the Federal Government will recognize as a "marriage."

Not as a dictate for how the States must define it, but as a qualification for Federal recognitions and programs, benefits, etc.

Which is my question.

In you view, should the Federal government recognize a Civil Marriage entered into under the laws of the issuing State?

Or, should the federal government ignore Civil Marriage legally entered into and define their own version of Civil Marriage where they can reject legal Civil Marriages?

WW

 

[Couchpotato]

Ok, AI agreed with me, so there's that.

Grok also thought "he" was Mecha Hitler from Castle Wolfenstein, so there's that.

 

[Chuz Life]

Which is my question.

In you view, should the Federal government recognize a Civil Marriage entered into under the laws of the issuing State?

Or, should the federal government ignore Civil Marriage legally entered into and define their own version of Civil Marriage where they can reject legal Civil Marriages?

WW

I thought I answered this.

I think the Federal Government should establish its own standards (as each State can and should) and then use the Federal standards to accept or disqualify accordingly.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Fair question.

Sincerely, because I believe the States each have a right to define what they will and will not recognize what qualifications are for "marriages" in each State, Federal Lawmakers could and per your list, probably should define what qualifications the Federal Government will use to define what the Federal Government will recognize as a "marriage."

Not as a dictate for how the States must define it, but as a qualification for Federal recognitions and programs, benefits, etc.

You people just keep throwing a lot of dung at the wall hoping that something will stick while endlessly complicating the issue. Yet you can't answer a simple question. Why can't you just leave it the **** alone.? They are not bothering you!

That states rights ploy is obvious bullshit. I don't believe for a nanosecond that you don't understand that the states must abide by the constitution that requires equal protection under the law

The fact is that you are just bigots who will try anything and everything to justify denying marriage to gays . I would have slightly more respect for you if you would just cut the bullshit and be honest about what you're doing

 

[Chuz Life]

Grok also thought "he" was Mecha Hitler from Castle Wolfenstein, so there's that.

Wrong in one instance (which has been corrected) means forever wrong in every other circumstance.

Got it.

 

[Chuz Life]

You people just keep throwing a lot of dung at the wall hoping that something will stick while endlessly complicating the issue. Yet you can't answer a simple question. Why can't you just leave it the **** alone.? They are not bothering you!

That states rights ploy is obvious bullshit. I don't believe for a nanosecond that you don't understand that the states must abide by the constitution that requires equal protection under the law

The fact is that you are just bigots who will try anything and everything to justify denying marriage to gays . I would have slightly more respect for you if you would just cut the bullshit and be honest about what you're doing

Wow!

Those are wordz!

To the point of this thread and the op. . .

Is it "bigoted" to deny that a child is a child or to have the definitions for what the FEDERAL government will recognize as a person vary from one State to another?

 

[Couchpotato]

Wrong in one instance (which has been corrected) means forever wrong in every other circumstance.

Got it.

Not what I said. AI is answering based on the fact that states are currently issuing marriage licenses. In that case you have a right to apply and get one. That doesnt mean you have a right to get married, only the right to engage with the system and avail yourself of it's services like everyone else. If the system doesn't offer that service (in this case marriage) can you compel it through the courts to do so? The answer is no. And therefore not a right.

 

[Chuz Life]

Not what I said. AI is answering based on the fact that states are currently issuing marriage licenses. In that case you have a right to apply and get one. That doesnt mean you have a right to get married, only the right to engage with the system and avail yourself of it's services like everyone else. If the system doesn't offer that service (in this case marriage) can you compel it through the courts to do so? The answer is no. And therefore not a right.

Yeah, we both already said all of that.

Not seeing why it needs to be said again.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Wow!

Those are wordz!

To the point of this thread and the op. . .

Is it "bigoted" to deny that a child is a child or to have the definitions for what the FEDERAL government will recognize as a person vary from one State to another?

View attachment 1149480

You're still doing the same shit! Be honest and cut the crap. What can't you just leave them alone? The system is working fine the way it is. How are they bothering you? You said that you're not religious. So what the **** is you're major malfunction?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Not what I said. AI is answering based on the fact that states are currently issuing marriage licenses. In that case you have a right to apply and get one. That doesnt mean you have a right to get married, only the right to engage with the system and avail yourself of it's services like everyone else. If the system doesn't offer that service (in this case marriage) can you compel it through the courts to do so? The answer is no. And therefore not a right.

The answer is No? Ask Kim Davis.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I thought I answered this.

I think the Federal Government should establish its own standards (as each State can and should) and then use the Federal standards to accept or disqualify accordingly.

Not really. You are trying to, for some reason, side step the question.

I’m asking if you think the Federal government should recognize legal Civil Marriages. Not if the Feds should look at it.

I’m asking if YOU would support the Feds either recognizing the marriage or giving if the Feds should ignore legal Civil Marriages for the items and others previously listed.

Why not answer the simple question?

WW

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm not religious and that is a big part of your personal attack.

Yet you have the dusty religious bigotry propaganda right at hand. Which is what I took issue with.

 

[Chuz Life]

You're still doing the same shit! Be honest and cut the crap. What can't you just leave them alone? The system is working fine the way it is. How are they bothering you? You said that you're not religious. So what the **** is you're major malfunction?

Basically, I think (as Roberts Thomas and Alito indicated) the State's right to determine what marriage is to be, was circumvented (probably unConstitutionally) by the divided SCOTUS ruling that is being challenged.

obergefell v hodges

 

[Chuz Life]

Yet you have the dusty religious bigotry propaganda right at hand. Which is what I took issue with.

As I'm not religious, I have no idea what "propaganda" you are accusing me of.

 

[Chuz Life]

Not really. You are trying to, for some reason, side step the question.

I’m asking if you think the Federal government should recognize legal Civil Marriages. Not if the Feds should look at it.

I’m asking if YOU would support the Feds either recognizing the marriage or giving if the Feds should ignore legal Civil Marriages for the items and others previously listed.

Why not answer the simple question?

WW

I think the Federal Government needs a legislative point of reference because the Constitution does not define marriage for them. So, they need to pass some kind of legislation FIRST and then recognize and or not recognize what marriages they want to, accordingly to that legislation.

It is not a side step in any way. It is my suggestion about how I think this issue should be resolved - in accordance with the Constitution.

After all, we ARE a representative republic are we not?

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Being married in one state and not when you cross a state line is not workable

What is the courts plan for those who are already married?

.

Don't like what's going to happen when you cross the line?

Don't cross the line.

Easy-peasy.





.

 

[IM2]

More fascism.

 

[Concerned American]

Who the **** are YOU to decide who can and cannot be married. Don't give me "God's Law" shit either. We are a secular nation. You do have any right to decide how other's live their own private lives. It does not matter that brain dead homophobic butt wad full of hate. Which is what you are.

Public displays of degenerate actions and nudity are not "private lives" moron. If you kept your degenerate sexuality private, there would be no complaint.

 

[rightwinger]

.

Don't like what's going to happen when you cross the line?

Don't cross the line.

Easy-peasy.





.

Some country you are creating