| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Do I hear Wedding Bells for Kenny? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 15 2008, 10:11 AM (1,677 Views) | |
| pianojerome | May 15 2008, 12:39 PM Post #26 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
We've never been and never will be a complete democracy -- the government decides what to do regardless of popular vote, which is why political candidates all say "when I'm in office I'll do this," and "when I'm in office I'll do that" -- what if the people don't want that? Doesn't matter, right? But anyway, "what the people wants" is a myth anyway, because 300 million people will never agree on everything.... try getting 3 people to agree on everything! |
| Sam | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | May 15 2008, 12:41 PM Post #27 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
We are a republic. Not a democracy. |
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Riley | May 15 2008, 12:42 PM Post #28 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
So did I. :lol: |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 15 2008, 12:59 PM Post #29 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
There is no one to overturn it. The California Supreme Court is the last word on the California Constitution. Since it's not a federal issue, the U.S. Supreme Court has no authority to review it. The only way to change it is to change the California Constitution. Good luck with that. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 15 2008, 01:01 PM Post #30 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
It's like a law, Ax. Except the Constitution supercedes any conflicting law. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Kincaid | May 15 2008, 01:04 PM Post #31 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I can't wait to hear an analysis of the justices' decision. |
| Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006. | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | May 15 2008, 01:29 PM Post #32 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
What about reciprocity between states? |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| pianojerome | May 15 2008, 01:44 PM Post #33 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Then how would non-religious people get married, if the government can't regulate marriage? Remember that once you were not religious -- how would you have gotten married, if you felt uncomfortable with a religious ceremony, and the government couldn't get involved? |
| Sam | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 15 2008, 01:44 PM Post #34 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Ever hear of the full faith and credit clause?
Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Nevertheless, I expect Congress will provide that no state is required to honor a marriage entered into in any other state. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | May 15 2008, 01:46 PM Post #35 |
|
MAMIL
|
We lie. Since we're not religious it comes very easily. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | May 15 2008, 01:56 PM Post #36 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
The California chief justice, I forget his name - Ron something I believe - wrote the majority opinion, harkening back to a similar decision in 1846 that overturned a law against interracial marriages. He's a conservative appointed by conservatives. This one will stick. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| OperaTenor | May 15 2008, 02:17 PM Post #37 |
|
Pisa-Carp
|
Yup, out here in the wild, untamed West..... |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | May 15 2008, 02:22 PM Post #38 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
How is it then that a resident of *the state of ABC, USA* marry someone in another country and return home with their spouse with a marriage certificate that may be internationally valid only selectively recognized in ABC? For that matter, what compels individual states to recognize any marriage that was solemnized outside its jurisdiction? |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 15 2008, 02:37 PM Post #39 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
It's an interesting question, and a quagmire. I don't know about marriages, but I do know that states don't always recognize foreign divorces.
There are a couple of legal principles at play. One is full faith and credit, which I mentioned above, which applies to things that occur in other states. The other is the principle of comity ... which says, basically, if we want other jurisdictions to recognize our laws and decisions, we have to recognize theirs, absent a damn good reason not to. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | May 15 2008, 03:27 PM Post #40 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
So a state that solemnized and recognized same sex marriages, could theoretically retaliate against other jurisdictions by denying recognition of any marriages (including those of its own residents who moved there from out of state or were married in another state) from other states that refused to recognize same sex marriages. In otherwords married Texans who moved to California would have to get remarried in California in order to retain married status? |
![]() |
|
| Kincaid | May 15 2008, 03:39 PM Post #41 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Anyone want to say "can of worms"? Genie out of the bottle? Pandora's box? |
| Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | May 15 2008, 05:17 PM Post #42 |
|
Cheers
|
How about the look on their faces when we told them a black man was running for president. Either way, fcuk them. They're dead. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| Bernard | May 15 2008, 05:27 PM Post #43 |
|
Senior Carp
|
It goes beyond semantics and law. In the words of Andrew Sullivan today: "What is critical in this ruling is that the court understands that granting gay couples a "separate and distinct" institution, domestic partnership, inherently asserts our inferiority as family members and citizens. It violates our core dignity. The m word matters -- not just in law, not just for the federal government, but also in our souls and psyches. |
![]() |
|
| Copper | May 15 2008, 05:30 PM Post #44 |
|
Shortstop
|
OK, Larry and Quirt can speak for me. Once they get everything worked out that will make 3. |
|
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | May 15 2008, 05:33 PM Post #45 |
|
Cheers
|
LOL Copper! |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| pianojerome | May 15 2008, 05:41 PM Post #46 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I don't know if it asserts "inferiority as family members and citizens" -- just difference. It seems to imply that they are both recognized as legal relationships, but simply as different kinds, and they aren't the only two kinds of relationships. Of course, I know not everyone agrees that homosexual and heterosexual marriages are different kinds of relationships. I would say that yes, definitely they are different kinds of relationships, despite similarities, because otherwise there would be no controversy. Homosexuality is certainly not new in America, but homosexual marriage is. |
| Sam | |
![]() |
|
| Bernard | May 15 2008, 06:07 PM Post #47 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Yes, different kinds: straight marriage and gay marriage, but marriage none the less. I do not view gay relationships and straight relationships as necessarily being the 'same', which is why I would call one gay marriage and the other straight marriage. But the question is 'same as what?' Keep in mind that there is not one type of gay relationship. There are many many kinds, just as there are many kinds of straight relationships that are recognized as marriage by the state. It's a funny sort of debate in a way, because speaking for myself if I were to meet Mr. Right and we found a church to marry us, I would consider myself married and I would be happy and proud in that, and I would not need the state to recognize it in order to make it legit. As far as I am concerned, the only business of the state in marriage is well--business. Spiritually I'd be married whether a lot of narrow, petty minds accepted it or not. However, as the state is unable to make any compelling argument against gay marriage I would find it unacceptable to not have the same benefits as are bestowed upon married straight couples, including the recognition of being married. Exactly what concern the state has in not calling it 'marriage' is unfathomable to me and it certainly looks mean and petty. I take comfort in knowing that we will get there--eventually. |
![]() |
|
| pianojerome | May 15 2008, 06:20 PM Post #48 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I agree with you 100% there. Marriage is spiritual, not legal. The legal benefits are nice, though. I think an important question is, why does the government give these benefits to (heterosexual) married couples? Certainly two roommates who have no intention of marrying each other, but live together for a number of years, would greatly appreciate such legal benefits, but they don't get them. Certainly a separated couple that had children out of wedlock, and decided to help each other raise the kids, would greatly appreciate such benefits, but they don't get them. So there are reasons (I don't know what they are!) why the government has chosen to give these special benefits to one kind of relationship, but not to others. Is it in part a way for the government to encourage (heterosexual) marriage? Or is it simply a recognition of and provision for special financial/medical/family needs, but in that case why aren't those benefits also given to roommates, non-married heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, polygamists, etc? I'm not saying there is a slippery slope here -- I'm not saying that if we give benefits to gays then we have to give benefits to polygamists. And I'm certainly not comparing those different kinds of relationships. All I'm saying, or rather asking, is why are there these unique benefits for heterosexual marriage in the first place? Is it a judgment call, maybe partly, or is it something else? |
| Sam | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | May 15 2008, 07:20 PM Post #49 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
|
![]() |
|
| Jolly | May 15 2008, 07:35 PM Post #50 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Fvck 'em? If that be the case, I need to start stockpiling ammo now. It's going to be bad, it's going to be brutal, and it's going to make the first one look like a walk in the park... |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |







I thought you were referring to his current visit to Canada.




4:59 PM Jul 10