why bother settling custody in a divorce then if there are no "marriage rights"?
moondog Send a noteboard - 22/10/2012 06:38:14 PM
if there are no such things as marriage rights, then why bother working out custody in a divorce proceeding? just have a coin toss, winner keeps the kids/house/car and the loser simply goes away. by your reasoning, you have no right to visit your children you had with your ex because there are no marriage rights whatsoever. your ex can just keep all your joint possessions because she won the coin toss.
obviously it does not work this way and you are fooling yourself if you think there are no such things as marriage rights.
obviously it does not work this way and you are fooling yourself if you think there are no such things as marriage rights.
"The RIAA has shown a certain disregard for the creative people of the industry in their eagerness to protect the revenues of the record companies." -- Frank Zappa
"That's the trouble with political jokes in this country... they get elected!" -- Dave Lippman
"That's the trouble with political jokes in this country... they get elected!" -- Dave Lippman
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM
972 Views
Completely unsurprising since the Justice department refuses to defend the law.
- 18/10/2012 09:05:16 PM
561 Views
For a moment there I thought you were saying the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 09:10:16 PM
601 Views
Do you know if there's a case about DOMA and the "full faith and credit" clause?
- 18/10/2012 10:05:11 PM
673 Views
I don't know offhand, but my gchat friend will. If she pops on again, I'll ask her. But...
- 18/10/2012 10:37:09 PM
692 Views
I asked her about pending cases taking on Section 2. "None that I know of," she answered. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 12:46:21 AM
245 Views
I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM
627 Views
Re: I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 01:18:22 AM
612 Views
Either a ban discriminates against those affected more than those unaffected, or it does not.
- 19/10/2012 03:48:32 PM
508 Views
Gun control laws can equally affect everyone, though, is my point.
- 20/10/2012 10:52:41 PM
610 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it.
- 19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM
670 Views
I just have to note in passing that Ted Olsons memoires will make fascinating reading.
- 19/10/2012 04:44:15 PM
704 Views
Also, hooray! Let's hope SCOTUS adheres (if you use that term over there). *NM*
- 18/10/2012 10:59:14 PM
264 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause
- 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM
751 Views
Not really
- 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM
672 Views
Then by the "legal argument" you all propose I should have the "right" to marry a spoon...
- 19/10/2012 05:48:32 PM
589 Views
if your spoon or dog is capable of making power of attorney decisions then by all means do so *NM*
- 19/10/2012 06:41:43 PM
272 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM
263 Views
provide for us a legal reason why marrying a corporation should be recognized by the US gov't
- 19/10/2012 08:09:08 PM
664 Views
The argument above was that there was no jsutification it should not, thus it should be allowed.
- 19/10/2012 10:57:16 PM
667 Views
you are only offering your own emotional take on a legal decision there is no logic in your posts
- 19/10/2012 11:12:17 PM
571 Views
Wrong. I do not have an emotional stake in this, I am simply using logic. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 03:59:08 PM
276 Views
saying you should be able to marry a spoon or corporation is not logical reasoning. try again *NM*
- 22/10/2012 06:19:29 PM
258 Views
EXACTLY, and that was the point I was making. Congratualtions for figuring that out. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:34:46 PM
247 Views
you are obviously using some humpty dumpty definition of "logic" then *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:40:12 PM
259 Views
No, you apparently failed reading comprehension in school.
- 23/10/2012 03:08:44 PM
594 Views
#1: fuck you. #2: you are still not using logic
- 23/10/2012 05:50:14 PM
558 Views
Ah yes, the fuck you argument... the height of all intelectual persuits... and you call ME emotional
- 23/10/2012 06:47:21 PM
629 Views
i see -- it's ok to be insulting as long as the "f-bomb" is not used. got it.
- 23/10/2012 10:27:54 PM
705 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM
267 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white?
- 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM
544 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully
- 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM
523 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument.
- 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM
537 Views
No, I am not, try reading everything I have written on the subject before jumping to conclusions.
- 22/10/2012 11:41:05 PM
692 Views
It was only a matter of time.
- 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM
598 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion.
- 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM
750 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb.
- 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM
671 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself
- 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM
637 Views
There is no right being denied...
- 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM
604 Views
that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
- 19/10/2012 08:06:54 PM
669 Views
Re: that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
- 19/10/2012 11:11:55 PM
726 Views
nobody is arguing the legal right to marry, they are arguing about the legal rights marriage gives
- 19/10/2012 11:37:14 PM
564 Views
There are no "marriage rights" NONE, zip, ziltch, nada...
- 22/10/2012 04:18:15 PM
605 Views
why bother settling custody in a divorce then if there are no "marriage rights"?
- 22/10/2012 06:38:14 PM
505 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument:
- 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM
623 Views