Defending the Truth

Articles | Interviews | Politicians | Groups | Arcade | Experience | Donate
  Defending the Truth > Political Issues > Gay Marriage
Common sense reigns supreme.

Gay Marriage Debate and defend your political beliefs as to whether or not marriage should be only defined as a union between a man and a woman.

Reply
Page 4 of 8 < 123 4 5678 >
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-09-2007, 02:24 PM   #31 (permalink)
Council Member
 
forester814's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago 'burbs
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,265
Country:
Points: 9,921, Level: 66
Points: 9,921, Level: 66 Points: 9,921, Level: 66 Points: 9,921, Level: 66
Level up: 68%, 129 Points needed
Level up: 68% Level up: 68% Level up: 68%
Activity: 27%
Activity: 27% Activity: 27% Activity: 27%
Send a message via Yahoo to forester814
forester814 is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun View Post
The law in RI doesn't forbid it but they do specifically limit it to man and woman. So they can't legally recognize the marriage in that state.

If RI had allowed the divorce, they would have opened a "back door" to allowing gay marriage in that state by creating that precident.
Actually, that's not true. The RI Attorney General was pretty clear about opening the FRONT door not too long ago. The marriage does have legal standing in RI.

Courts | Rhode Island news | projo.com | The Providence Journal

"Thursday, February 22, 2007
PROVIDENCE — In a legal opinion issued yesterday, Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch said the state will recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in Massachusetts — making Rhode Island the first state to take that step."

So we have a weird legal situation here, RI honoring MA marriages, but NOT honoring divorces to those marriages.
There is NOTHING common sensical about this situation.
Last edited by forester814; 12-09-2007 at 02:28 PM.
Sponsored Links
Old 12-09-2007, 02:31 PM   #32 (permalink)
Council Member
 
forester814's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago 'burbs
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,265
Country:
Points: 9,921, Level: 66
Points: 9,921, Level: 66 Points: 9,921, Level: 66 Points: 9,921, Level: 66
Level up: 68%, 129 Points needed
Level up: 68% Level up: 68% Level up: 68%
Activity: 27%
Activity: 27% Activity: 27% Activity: 27%
Send a message via Yahoo to forester814
forester814 is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtdmski View Post
Perhaps they should consider the law of RI before they got married.

dmk
Regarding the marriage, RI is on their side, DMK. See my reply to Fxashun regarding the RI Attorney General's opinion on the matter.

But because we do not have one nationwide standard on the subject, legal paradoxes like this are flourishing.
Old 12-09-2007, 05:38 PM   #33 (permalink)
SIMPLETON
Premium Member
 
fxashun's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my skin
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,619
Country:
Points: 24,240, Level: 94
Points: 24,240, Level: 94 Points: 24,240, Level: 94 Points: 24,240, Level: 94
Level up: 89%, 110 Points needed
Level up: 89% Level up: 89% Level up: 89%
Activity: 100%
Activity: 100% Activity: 100% Activity: 100%
fxashun is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin View Post
bull - you confusing history

a. black men had the vote long before interracial marriages were legal

b. white men married asian women, latin women, indian women ... it was BLACK women that he couldn't legally marry.
You my good sir are the one that needs to "get with it" on the history books. The laws came after the U.S. was formed....Here's a link and some C@P's.
The American Melting Pot? Miscegenation Laws in the United States | Barbara C. Cruz and Michael J. Berson | OAH Magazine of History
First came the realization that some interratiol marriages might happen..
In colonial Jamestown, the first biracial Americans were the children of white-black, white-Indian, and black-Indian unions. By the time of the American Revolution, somewhere between 60,000 and 120,000 people of “mixed” heritage resided in the colonies.
Then came the first laws...
in 1661 Virginia passed legislation prohibiting interracial marriage and later passed a law that prohibited ministers from marrying racially mixed couples. The fine was ten thousand pounds of tobacco
Then they expanded them...
While the original statutes were directed wholly against black-white unions, the legislation had extended to unions between whites and Mongolians, Malayans, Mulattos, and Native Americans (13).
Maybe you need to get with some history lessons.

Here's a link showing where some states included Asian Americans as well..
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/aspi02.htm
The seven states applying their prohibitions to people of Asian descent were Arizona, California, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Utah.

So again it seems white folk just didn't want no race mixin'. Even among themselves...
Theodore Roosevelt, for example, repeatedly expressed his belief that the Irish were of an inferior race, that Asians should not be allowed to enter the U.S.

Although modern U.S. society considers people of Irish, Italian, Polish, and English descent “white,” in 1911 these four European nationalities were considered separate “races” (11).
Old 12-09-2007, 05:40 PM   #34 (permalink)
SIMPLETON
Premium Member
 
fxashun's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my skin
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,619
Country:
Points: 24,240, Level: 94
Points: 24,240, Level: 94 Points: 24,240, Level: 94 Points: 24,240, Level: 94
Level up: 89%, 110 Points needed
Level up: 89% Level up: 89% Level up: 89%
Activity: 100%
Activity: 100% Activity: 100% Activity: 100%
fxashun is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by forester814 View Post
Actually, that's not true. The RI Attorney General was pretty clear about opening the FRONT door not too long ago. The marriage does have legal standing in RI.

Courts | Rhode Island news | projo.com | The Providence Journal

"Thursday, February 22, 2007
PROVIDENCE — In a legal opinion issued yesterday, Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch said the state will recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in Massachusetts — making Rhode Island the first state to take that step."

So we have a weird legal situation here, RI honoring MA marriages, but NOT honoring divorces to those marriages.
There is NOTHING common sensical about this situation.
But did the legislature actually move forward? Their Attorney General had been making that statement for years. I haven't seen any official notice that the state DID recognize the marriages. It seems by the Supreme Court's decision that they didn't.
Old 12-09-2007, 07:30 PM   #35 (permalink)
Partisan
Premium Member
 
garysher's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,961
Country:
Points: 31,191, Level: 100
Points: 31,191, Level: 100 Points: 31,191, Level: 100 Points: 31,191, Level: 100
Level up: 0%, 0 Points needed
Level up: 0% Level up: 0% Level up: 0%
Activity: 100%
Activity: 100% Activity: 100% Activity: 100%
garysher is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by forester814 View Post
Actually, that's not true. The RI Attorney General was pretty clear about opening the FRONT door not too long ago. The marriage does have legal standing in RI.

Courts | Rhode Island news | projo.com | The Providence Journal

"Thursday, February 22, 2007
PROVIDENCE — In a legal opinion issued yesterday, Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch said the state will recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in Massachusetts — making Rhode Island the first state to take that step."

So we have a weird legal situation here, RI honoring MA marriages, but NOT honoring divorces to those marriages.
There is NOTHING common sensical about this situation.
There is NOTHING common sensical about homosexuality, or homosexual "marriage" - but that's another matter.

If this couple got "married" in Mass then they should go back there to get "divorced". After all it's only a short distance away.

Even if RI recognises these homosexual marriages (a mistake in many peoples' opinion) it is no different from recognising say a MA driving licence as well as one from RI. You would still have to return to MA to renew your MA driving licence.

Clearly this is yet another attempt by the homosexual lobby to create problems and waste public money.

They try their best to win a counter-intuitive argument, but are not succeeding
Old 12-09-2007, 07:36 PM   #36 (permalink)
Partisan
Premium Member
 
garysher's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,961
Country:
Points: 31,191, Level: 100
Points: 31,191, Level: 100 Points: 31,191, Level: 100 Points: 31,191, Level: 100
Level up: 0%, 0 Points needed
Level up: 0% Level up: 0% Level up: 0%
Activity: 100%
Activity: 100% Activity: 100% Activity: 100%
garysher is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin View Post
it's not a law - it's a requirement which people are working to change - though if it WERE a law, people can certainly work to change unfair and unjust laws.

If it's not against the law to have a homosexual marriage then what's stopping two homosexuals from having one?




your "temporarily" has been being used for five years now - isn't a little tired now?
It took over 200 years to abolish slavery and over 20 years to abolish prohibition.

Time is on our side to get this undemocratic situation corrected, by an Amendment at state or Federal level
Old 12-09-2007, 09:20 PM   #37 (permalink)
Council Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,245
Points: 5,523, Level: 47
Points: 5,523, Level: 47 Points: 5,523, Level: 47 Points: 5,523, Level: 47
Level up: 87%, 27 Points needed
Level up: 87% Level up: 87% Level up: 87%
Activity: 2%
Activity: 2% Activity: 2% Activity: 2%
nuttyjoe is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun View Post
The thing about that was that those laws were made to keep white people from marrying ANY race. Not necessarily limited to black people. Additionally those laws served many other functions. It kept the government from recognizing black men as citizens, since if a black man married a white woman, the government would have to recognize him. How can one black man be considered a slave, yet another a full citizen married to a white woman.

THIS country created those laws in the first place. They didn't bring them over from the colonies. Homosexuality is punishable by death in some countries. Ignored in others. And forbidden to marry in nearly all. Comparing that fact to the relative local phenomena of miscegenation is kinda a long stretch. Especially when "British Law" back then allowed marriage to 10 year olds, even a black one.
That was a stretch; but in the whole it said what I'm trying to impart: Until the state (or the US Supreme Court) changes it's law or strikes it down as unconstitutional, the law (whatever it is)will remain. My ex is originally from MA; and there; I'm told, it is not referred to as a "gay" or "homosexual" marraige. They are called same sex unions. Can somebody please give me the legal definition of "gay" or "homosexual" and quote me what law these are actually defined? Not the popular definition as we think it to be; but a law which actually defines these two terms.
Gary, until these laws are changed; quite simply: they will remain. However long it takes.
Last edited by nuttyjoe; 12-09-2007 at 09:22 PM.
Old 12-09-2007, 09:49 PM   #38 (permalink)
Partisan
Premium Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,676
Country:
Points: 46,827, Level: 100
Points: 46,827, Level: 100 Points: 46,827, Level: 100 Points: 46,827, Level: 100
Level up: 0%, 0 Points needed
Level up: 0% Level up: 0% Level up: 0%
Activity: 100%
Activity: 100% Activity: 100% Activity: 100%
Send a message via Yahoo to tristanrobin
tristanrobin is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
I spend a lot of time with people from MA - I don't know anybody who calls the legal marriages (gay or straight) anything other than marriages.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Conservatism: Self-centered mean-spiritedness fueled by ignorance and misguided self-importance.

Bigotry is a social disease.
Old 12-09-2007, 10:30 PM   #39 (permalink)
The Man You Love to Hate
Premium Member
 
sgtdmski's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ketchikan, AK
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,818
Country:
Points: 7,052, Level: 55
Points: 7,052, Level: 55 Points: 7,052, Level: 55 Points: 7,052, Level: 55
Level up: 51%, 98 Points needed
Level up: 51% Level up: 51% Level up: 51%
Activity: 26%
Activity: 26% Activity: 26% Activity: 26%
Send a message via MSN to sgtdmski Send a message via Yahoo to sgtdmski
sgtdmski is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun View Post
Mass changed their law to allow anyone to get married in that state whose state doesn't explicitly forbid "gay marriage". The law in RI doesn't forbid it but they do specifically limit it to man and woman. So they can't legally recognize the marriage in that state. This couple would have to be a resident of Mass for a year before they are eligible for a divorce there. THAT is one of the reasons that Mass has a lower divorce rate, only residents are able get them.
If RI had allowed the divorce, they would have opened a "back door" to allowing gay marriage in that state by creating that precident.
So, let me get this straight, in Massachusetts you can get married if your state does not explicitly forbid gay marriages. Hmmm, RI law recognizes marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The couple in question were a woman and a woman, which according to RI would not be recognized. So unless they were not originally from RI, and only moved there after their marriage, Massachusetts allowed them to married with no regard for the laws of their neighboring state, thus violating the law of Massachusetts. Hey what do you know they don't need a divorce, the marriage was never legal in the first place.

dmk
Conservatism, I repeat is not an ideology. It does not breed fanatics....But if you want men who seek, reasonably and prudently, to reconcile the best in wisdom of our ancestors with the change which is essential to a vigorous civil social existence, then you will do well to turn to conservative principles
-Russell Kirk-
Old 12-10-2007, 06:20 AM   #40 (permalink)
SIMPLETON
Premium Member
 
fxashun's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my skin
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,619
Country:
Points: 24,240, Level: 94
Points: 24,240, Level: 94 Points: 24,240, Level: 94 Points: 24,240, Level: 94
Level up: 89%, 110 Points needed
Level up: 89% Level up: 89% Level up: 89%
Activity: 100%
Activity: 100% Activity: 100% Activity: 100%
fxashun is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtdmski View Post
So, let me get this straight, in Massachusetts you can get married if your state does not explicitly forbid gay marriages. Hmmm, RI law recognizes marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The couple in question were a woman and a woman, which according to RI would not be recognized. So unless they were not originally from RI, and only moved there after their marriage, Massachusetts allowed them to married with no regard for the laws of their neighboring state, thus violating the law of Massachusetts. Hey what do you know they don't need a divorce, the marriage was never legal in the first place.

dmk
What happened was, a judge in Mass decided that the wording in the RI law doesn't specifically forbid gay marriage so he gave the RI residents a marriage license. But RI doesn't legally recognize either so they aren't really married in RI, so they can't get a divorce.
But to get a divorce in MA, you have to be a resident for a year. So this couple screwed themselves.
Reply
Page 4 of 8 < 123 4 5678 >

Bookmarks

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:46 AM.

Defending the Truth - FAQ - Contact Us - Donate - Archive - Top

 Top Political Sites
Poltical Topsites 

Recommended Sites