Gay Marriage - Legal Question

Right then Jack--thanks. It's NO. That's the "settled law" as it stands. Why do people argue "settled law" when it says NO and use the "settled law" argument that it is YES. They have me confused. Which is not a particularly unusual state of affairs.

Prop 8 was in California. With Massachusetts I suppose with 6,953, 587 folk cooped up in 10, 555 square miles anything might be expected especially as it is an area well known for its high proportions of intellectals and sailors. The density of people in MA is nearly 4 times that of Cal.

In England we are even more cooped up but we have our literature so we are a special case. Behavioral science doesn't apply to us as much as a result.

But psychological science does apply to you, and not necessarily to all Brits.

huh? i don't hang in gay bars, dude.

Settled law, or stare decisis, means that judges must respect the precedent established by prior decisions. That means what the decision is and not how it was reached. Each superior court's decisions bind the lower courts.

I just have a question. Namely, me and my girlfriend are looking for a gay guy or a gay couple to help each others legalize the immigration status in US. I have a green card but my gf is illegally here. Maybe u know someone or a gay couple where one guy need a green card too?

Why are you people making thing so complicated?!?!?! It's extremely simple. Banning same sex marriages is a form of discrimination, there for is a clear violation of the constitution. There is nothing more to discuss, it violates the basic building blocks of our government.

Why are you making this so complicated?!?!?!?! All of you are missing one crucial factor! Banning same sex marriage is discrimination. Discrimination is a violation of the United States Constitution. No more thinking has to go into this. It's as simple as that. No state or federal government may instate a law that violates the constitution.

It is not that simple as the SC had never rule in that manner to date and same sex marriages are inherently not the same as non same sex marriage because the fact no such unions can produce children inside of it.

Such unions as a class therefore do not have a massively impacts on the welfare of the next generation of citizens.

By granting such unions special treatments such as tax breaks without the fact of the state having such special interests in maintaining such relationships long term it is discrimination toward single men and women either gay or straight over gay couples.

If it is a form of discrimination and a violation of the constitution it has been going on a long time. And the building blocks of government seem pretty solidly built to me.

I think that officially sanctioning how homosexuals operate has gone to their heads.

There is plenty to discuss. Most of it is obviously stuff you have never heard of.

How is it not a form of discrimination against gay couples? It's denying them to have the same rights as straight couples. Here is a textbook definition of discrimination.
"treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination."
There is no question that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is discrimination.

Sorry gays couples are not by their very nature the same as straight couples in the most important reasons for licensing marriages in the first place or why the society as a whole should care about or encourage such relationships.

Suppose a female wishes to be known as a man or a man a woman? Is there discrimination in athletics. Why should there be women's sport at all?

A social system with no discrimination is fatuous. Uni-sex toilets and clothes shops. Are there any international passenger jet flights on which both pilot and co-pilot are female? If not then the female pilot is tokenism.

"no person or group should suffer legal, economic or administrative discrimination."
That pretty much says it all.

Nobody takes any notice of that sort of wishy-washy claptrap. It just sounds good if you like a sardonic laugh.

You see, I actually presented the argument that it's discrimination. Discrimination on it's own is not a crime, but in federal and state law it is. No government can put a law into place that is discriminatory in nature. You did not deny this, you just insulted me because you were wrong.

As a reply toward your previous quote there is a difference between discrimination in a public activity such as sports. And discrimination in federal and state legislature.

That's because women can look good in federal and state legislatures and are hopeless at sport. Sport is much more objective than speechifying. More scientific if you know what that means.

And now Michele Bachmann wins Iowa straw poll.

We are going under lads. Get your tin hats out of the attic.

I agree, duck and cover. ****'s about to go down. I still don't get the straw pole, they pay you to promise to vote for them? Really?

Yeah--with your own money too.