Topic: So what happened with the supreme court and same-sex marriage?
Anonymous A started this discussion 13 years ago #26,687
Can fags get married yet?
squeegee joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later[^] [v] #403,143
No, and neither can infertile couples or people over the age of 55. Pretty much the only reason to get married is to have kids, so, if you can't have kids or don't want to have kids you have no right to be married. Gay or straight.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #403,144
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 46 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #403,156
Why can't they just reword DOMA to say something like "two consenting people over the age of consent"?
(Edited 44 seconds later.)
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #403,160
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #403,161
@403,156 (A)
> two consenting people over the age of consent, consenting to consent to be married to each other by consent. Even.
> two consenting people over the age of consent, consenting to consent to be married to each other by consent. Even.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #403,163
@403,156 (A)
There wouldnt be a point. They dont want gays to be able to marry. If that wasnt the issue, than DOMA wouldn't need to exist at all.
There wouldnt be a point. They dont want gays to be able to marry. If that wasnt the issue, than DOMA wouldn't need to exist at all.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 8 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #403,164
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #403,165
@previous (F)
The Defense of Marriage Act is a law that says states/the fed. gov't don't have to recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states. Would you want it to say that states/the fed. gov't don't have to recognize marriages between "two consenting people over the age of consent"?
The Defense of Marriage Act is a law that says states/the fed. gov't don't have to recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states. Would you want it to say that states/the fed. gov't don't have to recognize marriages between "two consenting people over the age of consent"?
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #403,167
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #403,169
@previous (F)
Equal rights for all, at least.
Do you think it's widely known that overturning DOMA would *not* legalize gay marriage in the US?
Equal rights for all, at least.
Do you think it's widely known that overturning DOMA would *not* legalize gay marriage in the US?
Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #403,173
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #403,174
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #403,175
> conservative fuckwits argue with logically-thinking pro-rights activists
Meanwhile, no-fault divorce continues to defile the sanctity of marriage in far worse ways than how letting the gays marry each other.
Meanwhile, no-fault divorce continues to defile the sanctity of marriage in far worse ways than how letting the gays marry each other.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #403,177
@previous (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
True. Also a record number of Catholics are getting annulments.
True. Also a record number of Catholics are getting annulments.
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 13 years ago, 24 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #403,192
@403,173 (F)
I should add that the Court could rule on the California Proposition 8 case in a way that would legalize same-sex marriage, just not DOMA.
I should add that the Court could rule on the California Proposition 8 case in a way that would legalize same-sex marriage, just not DOMA.
Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #403,194
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #403,196
Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #403,198
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #403,203
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #403,206
Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #403,207
@403,203 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
Damnit Becky, you're meant to know these things, what with your legal background powers.
@previous (A)
Bloody hell...
Damnit Becky, you're meant to know these things, what with your legal background powers.
@previous (A)
Bloody hell...
Syntax joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #403,241
The two separate cases before the court - The Pundits with serious backgrounds in the law as well as the Supreme court say in unison - The justices act as if neither case should be cases for the court to rule on. Not all agree exactly as I rote it but most at least lean in that direction.
Court clearly not happy getting either case.
Court clearly not happy getting either case.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #403,304
@403,175 (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
> one error justifies another
@403,177 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
> getting annulments
> getting the validity of their marriages investigated
> one error justifies another
@403,177 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
> getting annulments
> getting the validity of their marriages investigated
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 27 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #403,314
@previous (I)
Wow, there must be so many mentally incompetent people. Otherwise the annulments wouldnt be at a record high. Do most Catholics have mental issues?
Wow, there must be so many mentally incompetent people. Otherwise the annulments wouldnt be at a record high. Do most Catholics have mental issues?
Anonymous I replied with this 13 years ago, 10 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #403,317
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #403,324
Anonymous I replied with this 13 years ago, 43 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #403,330
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
yeah i think you're a little confused on the matter when you use phrases like that.
yeah i think you're a little confused on the matter when you use phrases like that.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 8 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #403,333
Anonymous I replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #403,360
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 11 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #403,437
Anonymous I replied with this 13 years ago, 8 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #403,580
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
The Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. That does not mean that people he appoints to positions in the Church will never sin.
The Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. That does not mean that people he appoints to positions in the Church will never sin.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #403,585
Anonymous I replied with this 13 years ago, 36 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #403,600
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
You use weird phrases like "represent the Church" that indicate you don't really understand the nature of things. But no, I just gave the criteria of infallibility. Please pay attention.
You use weird phrases like "represent the Church" that indicate you don't really understand the nature of things. But no, I just gave the criteria of infallibility. Please pay attention.