MarcATL
Diamond Member
- Aug 12, 2009
- 41,333
- 20,700
- 2,605
Why would you want to restrict that?Should all (adult )citizens be free to marry whoever they want, assuming that all parties to the marriage consent?
I believe in freedom, so yes.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why would you want to restrict that?Should all (adult )citizens be free to marry whoever they want, assuming that all parties to the marriage consent?
I think you may be right in that some states may pass laws so that it's not called "marriage" and call it a civil union instead; however, a civil union will simply be marriage by another name making such legislation pointless.
Does that include sheep? What the hell, if I can marry another man, why can't marry the animal of my choice?Unfortunately, the TRUMPCourt made passing this bill essential
I applaud the bipartisan support of all marriages
Why would you want to restrict that?
I believe in freedom, so yes.
Does that include sheep? What the hell, if I can marry another man, why can't marry the animal of my choice?
What is stupid is the act of responding to stupid. I will try to ignore you stupid in the future.
Why do you guys always revert to stupid?
When are you moving to a 1/2 Black neighborhood?Unfortunately, the TRUMPCourt made passing this bill essential
I applaud the bipartisan support of all marriages
There are many LibBots who are already consorting with their pets.Does that include sheep? What the hell, if I can marry another man, why can't marry the animal of my choice?
No, your comment was incredibly stupid but a typical taunt of gaysWhat is stupid is the act of responding to stupid. I will try to ignore you stupid in the future.
I learned everything I know about stupid from you.No, your comment was incredibly stupid but a typical taunt of gays
Most Americans are against Gay Marriage, RW.
So can I kiss you now
You would think thatDon't any of you fukkers comprehend the Full Faith & Credit clause?
EVERY State is obliged, under the U.S. Constitution to recognize and accept the legal acts of every other State. That is to say, if a gay couple from Iowa gets married in Massachusetts (while vacationing), Iowa is compelled to recognize that marriage. And that means that Iowa has to recognize that marriage with respect to inheritance, child support, alimony, the whole package.
Because of this fact, no state would even attempt to roll back its marriage laws to eliminate gay marriages within its borders. It would be pointless and ineffective.
The Supreme Court CANNOT change direction on this, with any impact.
Yes. Overturning legalized baby murder was Trumps legacy. Good job , Donald. Abortion is EVIL.Roe v Wade was a done deal
TRUMP judges said it was not
To codify the law so a radical Supreme Court like we have now won't ignore 50 years of precedent to do the political bidding of their appointer.Same-sex marriage legislation clears key Senate hurdle
Democrats delayed consideration of the legislation until after the midterm elections, hoping that would relieve political pressure for some Republicans who might be wavering on the bill.www.post-gazette.com
"The legislation would repeal the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act and require states to recognize all marriages that were legal where they were performed. The new Respect for Marriage Act would also protect interracial marriages by requiring states to recognize legal marriages regardless of 'sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin.'"
Article IV, Section 1, U.S. Constitution: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." [NOTE FOR THE CONSTITUTIONALLY ILLITERATE: Every State must recognize any marriage that is valid in the state where it was made.]
So here we have an intrepid group of Congress-persons who are prepared to go out on a limb and RE-STATE WHAT THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION ALREADY SAYS!
The purpose of this law, for those who have not already figured out, is to give Democrats ammunition in the next election cycle to excoriate those Congress-persons who voted against the law (because it is superfluous) as being antagonistic to "gay rights" and miscegenatious marriages. It has no effect and no other purpose.
Proponents neurotically cite Justice Thomas' recent statement that, given the nullification of the fictitious "right of privacy," which was mentioned in the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges case, that holding might require a second look - not to nullify existing marriages, but to clarify the state of affairs going forward. Same-sex marriage and inter-racial marriage are legal...end of story.
As worthless as Congress is for the first 23 months of every session, that standard goes out the window during the "lame duck" session, which in a sane world would not exist.
What, exactly, do we pay these people for?
What news organization published that headline? You will be wrong until you post it.The headlines have already started. "Mitch McConnell, married to an Asian woman, votes against interracial marriage!"
Was I right or was I right?