ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2015 10:01 pm
@thack45,
apparently that poster is Canajun

http://able2know.org/topic/215417-7#post-5980163

where we've had same-sex marriage federally for a decade and longer in some provinces

______

can't imagine where he thinks he's going to move



thack45
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2015 10:16 pm
@ehBeth,
Sounds like he'd fit right in with the MENA set. Here's hoping...
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2015 10:42 pm
@ehBeth,
The GOP is now looking at developing a campaign that , in effect says, "We were for you all the time, we were just testing the courts resolve to back us "

RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2015 11:14 pm
@farmerman,
Bet you'll be surprised how many citizens will buy into their shyt.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2015 02:23 am
In sort-of related news, Seoul has finally allowed its first LGBT parade to be held after blocking the organizers' attempts for years. It's going down (!) today and it may leak into tomorrow. If I'd known the date in advance, I'd have run up there and shown my support. Or at least flipped off all the religious fundies who were planning to stage a protest over it.

And I notice that there's no story about it in the local papers...
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2015 07:17 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

The GOP is now looking at developing a campaign that , in effect says, "We were for you all the time, we were just testing the courts resolve to back us"

That's actually not too far from the truth. We see that kind of backfilling in the dissents of Scalia and Roberts. Scalia starts off his dissent by stating: "The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me." Roberts's argument, in short, is that gays were just on the verge of winning through the political process, and they should feel bad that the supreme court has now taken away their chance to gain a legislative victory.

I think Republican politicians will increasingly take the same approach as Scalia and Roberts. In sum: "gay marriage isn't a big deal to me, I just think it should have been left to the state legislatures." Jeb Bush is already almost there. I expect other candidates who are not on the lunatic-fundie-right, like Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, will take similar stances.
0 Replies
 
carloslebaron
 
  -4  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2015 07:18 am
@ehBeth,
From now on the judge will say the following to the different kind of couples:

"I declared you husband and wife" to straight couples.

"I declared you gay spouse #1 and gay spouse #2" to male homosexuals.

"I declared you lesbiasn spouse #1 and lesbian spouse #2" to lesbians.

"I declare you husband and male transgender" to a man marrying a male transgender.

"I declare you female transgender and wife" to a female transgender marrying a woman.


There is no reason to hide the real identity of the persons getting married, on the contrary, their identity must be exposed to society as the best way of acceptance of their sexual orientation.

To hide their sexual orientation making mandatory a sole expression as "I declare you spouse #1 and spouse #1" suggest the idea that there is shame of what the couple really is.

Being inclusive is not changing the established rules but expanding them.

There is no reason to "punish" straight couples by calling them "spouse #1 and spouse #2" when they have the constitutional right to be recognized by everybody as "husband and wife".
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2015 09:02 am
@FBM,
Put on your rainbow t-shirt and just wear it all about.

I'm super-excited about tomorow's parade here. It's going to be amazing!
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2015 09:20 am
@ehBeth,
But I don't have a rainbow shirt or a rainbow anything. And they sure as hell don't sell them around here. Sad
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2015 09:22 am
@FBM,
really? they must send them all here

K-town is full of rainbow souvenir stuff
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2015 09:30 am
@ehBeth,
OK, to be honest, I haven't been looking. But it would make sense for them to manufacture them here for overseas orders. I guess I'll have to keep an eye out for them now.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2015 10:48 am
@MrGiggles25,
MrGiggles25 wrote:

First of all why do they have to make this a law, answer me that.


Have you read the complaint, the decision and the dissents?

(the decision and dissents are linked in this thread - you'll have to find/read the complaint yourself)

Once you've read them, come back and tell us what the answer to your question is.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2015 10:49 am
@MrGiggles25,
MrGiggles25 wrote:
And who the hec are nine elderly judges to decide for a whopping 50 states.


Have you studied American history/law yet?

Once you have, come back and answer the question - with details.
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2015 10:49 am
@ehBeth,
If you check their prior post history, the responder is a 16-yr-old male who is begging for any attention at all. Just consider the source.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2015 10:52 am
@Ragman,
I'm aware of that. That is why I'd like the poster to do the research - learn more about America while they're on their summer break.
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2015 11:06 am
@ehBeth,
Sounds good to me. Tnx for explaining.
0 Replies
 
thack45
 
  3  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2015 11:27 am
@MrGiggles25,
MrGiggles25 wrote:
And who the hec are nine elderly judges to decide for a whopping 50 states.


Who them? They're the justices of the US Supreme Court, "established pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution in 1789", the "highest federal court of the United States", holding "ultimate (and largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and over state court cases involving issues of federal law".

Don't be a lemming. Educate yourself. http://www.giraffeboards.com/images/smilies/thumbs_up_smiley.gif
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2015 11:32 am
@thack45,
thack45 wrote:
Educate yourself. http://www.giraffeboards.com/images/smilies/thumbs_up_smiley.gif


he's 16 - I sincerely hope he does
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2015 05:11 pm
@carloslebaron,
How about husband #1 and wife #2 or Husband #2 and Wife #1, and so and on?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Say yes!
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/23/2020 at 06:28:10