That iternet **** is going to your head.
The law is not retroactive, you and your husband's marriage is still legal.
The law is not retroactive, you and your husband's marriage is still legal.
Quote:
As far as the IBTL, if you won the state lottery last year and spent all of the money in a lump some, would it be right if the state said they ****ed up the drawing and wanted all of the money back?
Fair is fair. If the state ****ed up it's laws, it's not right for them to retroactively punish whomever benefited from it.
We're still a secular nation despite what many people think, so I wouldn't be surprised if this issue resurfaces in another form next election.
Originally Posted by Superglue WRX
"So let it be written, so let it be done."As far as the IBTL, if you won the state lottery last year and spent all of the money in a lump some, would it be right if the state said they ****ed up the drawing and wanted all of the money back?
Fair is fair. If the state ****ed up it's laws, it's not right for them to retroactively punish whomever benefited from it.
We're still a secular nation despite what many people think, so I wouldn't be surprised if this issue resurfaces in another form next election.
Registered User
Quote:
Consistency ftw...
Awesome.Originally Posted by medicSTi
Seriously... Imagine our kids' generation having to explain to their kids that people haven't always been allowed multiple wives or husbands... Consistency ftw...
Registered User
Quote:
So we're stupid because banging clams can't lead to procreation?Originally Posted by R-Dub
I'm interested to see how I will try to explain to my kids how the generation before me was stupid because they didn't allow whites to marry blacks whilst my generation seemingly can't allow people of the same sex to marry and not have my child call MY generation stupid.
Registered User
Quote:
gay tears, and buckets of them.
Originally Posted by Mr. Xevious
this will end in tearsgay tears, and buckets of them.
When the tear gas and bean bags are released.
Registered User
Quote:
Bravo to you, sir.Originally Posted by Paul@dbtuned
And as long as all parties remain peaceful, protest away: yell, scream, etc.
Initially, I've misjudged you; wrongly interpreted some of the remarks (sarcasm, no doubt), as confirmed statements.
I'm ashamed..... LOL
Having read your past & recent replies, I must say - and give credit where credit's due - that it's good to see there are folks that still practice what they believe/preach.
+100000000
Registered User
Quote:
The law is not retroactive, you and your husband's marriage is still legal.
Yes, but this crazy liberal wont stop until I can legally be married to him, you, and my neighbors dog. Because that's logically the next step.Originally Posted by Paul@dbtuned
That iternet **** is going to your head.The law is not retroactive, you and your husband's marriage is still legal.
Registered User
Quote:
As a "liberal" , I don't have a problem with this decision. This is definitely a states rights issue and thus belongs to the people. If the constituency was tasked with deciding what is right for itself via ballot initiative, then that is all she wrote. We cannot have the courts operating under a "We know you like your little democratic circle jerks, but we don't grant them authority" trajectory.
If the gay marriage rights supporters want to try again with the ballot, I say let them go for it. I'll do my part to support via voting, but I don't want said vote to be abrogated after the fact because of sour grapes.
How much would you care to wager a good number of BAers had to resort to online dictionary the terms used in the statement above in order to comprehend points conveyed? Originally Posted by STiForFun
The people who were legally married deserve to have that status retained. However...As a "liberal" , I don't have a problem with this decision. This is definitely a states rights issue and thus belongs to the people. If the constituency was tasked with deciding what is right for itself via ballot initiative, then that is all she wrote. We cannot have the courts operating under a "We know you like your little democratic circle jerks, but we don't grant them authority" trajectory.
If the gay marriage rights supporters want to try again with the ballot, I say let them go for it. I'll do my part to support via voting, but I don't want said vote to be abrogated after the fact because of sour grapes.
Oops.... Sorry... That's a different topic altogether... LOL
VIP Member
I just wish states would get out of the marriage business all-together. Civil Unions for all. If you want a "marriage" go to your church and get your "marriage"
Registered User
Quote:
As juvenile as a response; the answer is: No. We are stupid because we are treating a group of people like second class citizens who simply deserve and want the same basic rights as all other citizens.Originally Posted by HellaDumb
So we're stupid because banging clams can't lead to procreation?
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverScoober02
I just wish states would get out of the marriage business all-together. Civil Unions for all. If you want a "marriage" go to your church and get your "marriage"
I agree wholly.
The government should handle the unions and it should have all the legal benefits that come with it.
"Marriage" on the other hand should just be a religious ceremony and left at that - you get all the religious benefits of it and if you don't want to - don't do it.
I really am tired of hearing about how religions 'own' marriage and how it is 'theirs' to dictate whom can or cannot union.