The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

ClockworkHouse wrote:

In America, too.

Huh. Didn't know that. Consider me schooled

Yeah, when this movie came out, and Michael Jackson did the song, there was much joking had.

IMAGE(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b5/Free_willy.jpg/220px-Free_willy.jpg)

krev82 wrote:

If god is so concerned about how the penis is used why is putting it in any other hole even physically possible? It doesn't seem like it would take a great feat of design/engineering to have made it fit solely into a human vagina and nothing else.

Spoiler:

I do not think one is supposed to think about it enough to ask these sorts of questions.

I couldn't help but think of one of those block toys for kids that is supposed to teach shapes. I want a star shaped penis.

obirano wrote:
krev82 wrote:

If god is so concerned about how the penis is used why is putting it in any other hole even physically possible? It doesn't seem like it would take a great feat of design/engineering to have made it fit solely into a human vagina and nothing else.

Spoiler:

I do not think one is supposed to think about it enough to ask these sorts of questions.

I couldn't help but think of one of those block toys for kids that is supposed to teach shapes. I want a star shaped penis.

I dunno man. Can't help but feel that my current vagina-shaped one might be of more utility, albeit less capable of breaking the ice at parties with.

Jonman wrote:
obirano wrote:
krev82 wrote:

If god is so concerned about how the penis is used why is putting it in any other hole even physically possible? It doesn't seem like it would take a great feat of design/engineering to have made it fit solely into a human vagina and nothing else.

Spoiler:

I do not think one is supposed to think about it enough to ask these sorts of questions.

I couldn't help but think of one of those block toys for kids that is supposed to teach shapes. I want a star shaped penis.

I dunno man. Can't help but feel that my current vagina-shaped one might be of more utility, albeit less capable of breaking the ice at parties with.

"I HAVE A STAR-SHAPED PENIS, WANT TO SEE IT?"

::crickets::

McIrishJihad wrote:
Jonman wrote:
obirano wrote:
krev82 wrote:

If god is so concerned about how the penis is used why is putting it in any other hole even physically possible? It doesn't seem like it would take a great feat of design/engineering to have made it fit solely into a human vagina and nothing else.

Spoiler:

I do not think one is supposed to think about it enough to ask these sorts of questions.

I couldn't help but think of one of those block toys for kids that is supposed to teach shapes. I want a star shaped penis.

I dunno man. Can't help but feel that my current vagina-shaped one might be of more utility, albeit less capable of breaking the ice at parties with.

"I HAVE A STAR-SHAPED PENIS, WANT TO SEE IT?"

::crickets::

If crickets like seeing oddly-shaped wangs, who am I to judge?

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
McIrishJihad wrote:
Jonman wrote:
obirano wrote:
krev82 wrote:

If god is so concerned about how the penis is used why is putting it in any other hole even physically possible? It doesn't seem like it would take a great feat of design/engineering to have made it fit solely into a human vagina and nothing else.

Spoiler:

I do not think one is supposed to think about it enough to ask these sorts of questions.

I couldn't help but think of one of those block toys for kids that is supposed to teach shapes. I want a star shaped penis.

I dunno man. Can't help but feel that my current vagina-shaped one might be of more utility, albeit less capable of breaking the ice at parties with.

"I HAVE A STAR-SHAPED PENIS, WANT TO SEE IT?"

::crickets::

If crickets like seeing oddly-shaped wangs, who am I to judge?

Are you calling me a cricket? I think you're calling me a cricket.

Think of all the star-nosed mole jokes you could make.

I don't even know where to start with the update...

I guess here is the best place:

As we all know, the polling on gay marriage has radically shifted over the past five years. No one in 2008 would have even guessed that 13 states and DC would have marriage equality, but the polls have indicated that the American public is moving rapidly to embracing marriage equality.

Oh, but someone has penned a column for the National Review Online to say that the polls are problematic and the research is questionable at best. Here's the link, BUT BEFORE YOU CLICK IT, think about who could author such a column and, therefore, push the irony meter into the red zone so hard that the meter exploded.

Spoiler:

The author is... Mark Regnerus.

Congratulations, man. You broke the irony meter.

----------

Dean Young, a congressional candidate in Alabama, is demanding that his fellow GOP candidates sign the following pledge:

1. I believe that the only marriage is between one man and one woman.

2. I believe the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality and thereby gay marriage.

3. The tenants of my church oppose gay marriage.

4. I oppose gay marriage.

5. As a member of Congress, I shall take active steps to oppose gay marriage.

6. I support the by-law change to expel any member of the Republican Executive Committee who opposes the party position by supporting gay marriage."

Forgetting the fact that both the Alabama and the U.S. Constitution forbid any religious litmus test in order to run for or be elected to office, I am supporting Young's call. I want to see all of the GOP candidates sign that pledge so that we know how hateful and homophobic they truly are. Then, we don't have to worry about them saying that they were taken out of context or the like.

----------

In a unanimous opinion, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that a photography company violated New Mexico law by refusing to photograph a gay commitment ceremony. The Court rejected the claim that the photography company owner's religious rights were being violated.

I am sick of these businesses and the notion that they can reap the benefits of capital but shun a portion of the public because they don't like them.

Here's a thought: if you don't like working with the public - all of the public - get the hell out of operating a business that caters to the public.

I'm not clicking that ducking link.

As an aside, 596 same sex weddings in 50 largest cities in France have been celebrated since the law passed three months ago. This is about 1% of all weddings. Paris of course comes in first with Nice and Toulouse taking 2nd and 3rd place.

Bottom line, numbers are kinda low, lower than expected, especially if you compare them to the numbers of civil unions (PACS) and Spain's numbers. Analysts suspect that there still is some covert resistance in city halls, despite the law compelling mayors to defer to colleagues if they do not believe in same sex marriage. We've still a way to go, but we're getting there.

Attorneys General in New Mexico are refusing to impose an unconstitutional ban on same sex marriage, and as a result, judges are starting to order clerks to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. First, in Doña Ana County, where Santa Fe is located, and now in Bernalillo County, the state's most populous county.

It makes me happy to see this change occurring in my lifetime.

NSMike wrote:

Attorneys General in New Mexico are refusing to impose an unconstitutional ban on same sex marriage, and as a result, judges are starting to order clerks to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. First, in Doña Ana County, where Santa Fe is located, and now in Bernalillo County, the state's most populous county.

Awesome as this is... does an Attorney General have the right to make that decision?

RoughneckGeek wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
NSMike wrote:

Attorneys General in New Mexico are refusing to impose an unconstitutional ban on same sex marriage, and as a result, judges are starting to order clerks to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. First, in Doña Ana County, where Santa Fe is located, and now in Bernalillo County, the state's most populous county.

Awesome as this is... does an Attorney General have the right to make that decision?

Who else would? The New Mexico marriage law is gender non-specific. There is no ban against same sex marriage in the state nor is there a law explicitly allowing for same sex marriage. He's making this call based on the non-discrimination clause in the state constitution.

So... now I'm confused... there was no ban? ...so what is he saying shouldn't be enforced? My brain hurts.

Married same-sex couples gain equal tax benefits

CNN Money wrote:

Two months after the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, the Treasury Department on Thursday ruled that legally married same-sex couples will be treated as married for federal tax purposes.

[...]
It affects how couples will be treated in terms of all federal taxes, including income taxes, estate and gift taxes, health insurance, retirement accounts and employee benefits.

The ruling applies to any same-sex couple legally married in any state, the District of Columbia, a U.S. territory or foreign country. It does not apply to registered domestic partnerships, civil unions or other formal relationships recognized under state laws.

Wow. Corbett is such a winner. Really.

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Marriage licenses given to same-sex couples in the state are invalid because the couples were barred from marrying, just like 12-year-olds, Republican Gov. Tom Corbett's attorneys said Wednesday.

Hypatian wrote:

Wow. Corbett is such a winner. Really.

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Marriage licenses given to same-sex couples in the state are invalid because the couples were barred from marrying, just like 12-year-olds, Republican Gov. Tom Corbett's attorneys said Wednesday.

12 year olds had their chance a handful of centuries ago! Then they stopped putting in the effort and decided to wait until their teens for their careers and education and such!

Katy wrote:

Married same-sex couples gain equal tax benefits

CNN Money wrote:

Two months after the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, the Treasury Department on Thursday ruled that legally married same-sex couples will be treated as married for federal tax purposes.

[...]
It affects how couples will be treated in terms of all federal taxes, including income taxes, estate and gift taxes, health insurance, retirement accounts and employee benefits.

The ruling applies to any same-sex couple legally married in any state, the District of Columbia, a U.S. territory or foreign country. It does not apply to registered domestic partnerships, civil unions or other formal relationships recognized under state laws.

This seems like a pretty big step. Living in Kansas it means there is a benefit to us travelling to say Iowa to get married. We would still have to file state returns as single/HOH, but would have federal protection and file federal taxes together. I also believe it means that Social Security benefits are included or are close to follow.

One step forward, one step back:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=218599595

From the article:
"The Texas National Guard refused to process requests from same-sex couples for benefits on Tuesday despite a Pentagon directive to do so, while Mississippi won't issue applications from state-owned offices."

and keep in mind this doesn't mean they won't still get their benefits, they just have to go through hoops straight couples wouldn't have to go through:

"she was turned away from the Texas Military Forces headquarters in Austin early Tuesday and advised to get her ID card at Fort Hood, an Army post 90 miles away. She married her spouse — an Iraq war veteran — in California in 2009, and they have a 5-month-old child."

Rahmen wrote:

One step forward, one step back:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=218599595

From the article:
"The Texas National Guard refused to process requests from same-sex couples for benefits on Tuesday despite a Pentagon directive to do so, while Mississippi won't issue applications from state-owned offices."

and keep in mind this doesn't mean they won't still get their benefits, they just have to go through hoops straight couples wouldn't have to go through:

"she was turned away from the Texas Military Forces headquarters in Austin early Tuesday and advised to get her ID card at Fort Hood, an Army post 90 miles away. She married her spouse — an Iraq war veteran — in California in 2009, and they have a 5-month-old child."

And there's your next lawsuit. Thank you Texas National Guard for being stupid enough to think your "stand" was going to help you make the country a "better place" rather than help the gay rights movement ACTUALLY make the country a better place. Dumbasses.

Demosthenes wrote:
Rahmen wrote:

One step forward, one step back:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=218599595

From the article:
"The Texas National Guard refused to process requests from same-sex couples for benefits on Tuesday despite a Pentagon directive to do so, while Mississippi won't issue applications from state-owned offices."

and keep in mind this doesn't mean they won't still get their benefits, they just have to go through hoops straight couples wouldn't have to go through:

"she was turned away from the Texas Military Forces headquarters in Austin early Tuesday and advised to get her ID card at Fort Hood, an Army post 90 miles away. She married her spouse — an Iraq war veteran — in California in 2009, and they have a 5-month-old child."

And there's your next lawsuit. Thank you Texas National Guard for being stupid enough to think your "stand" was going to help you make the country a "better place" rather than help the gay rights movement ACTUALLY make the country a better place. Dumbasses.

That's how I see it too. It's a bit funny to think that, by demonstrating intolerance, Texas may be placed among the first states where tolerance is legally enforced.

This isn't a step back in my mind. It's actually a step forward. In order to confront a problem it must be brought forward in a way where action can be taken. The Texas National Guard just lit the fuse to a bomb that's going to blow up in their face.

Devil's Avocado, and all that, isn't the Texan National Guard in somewhat of a bind given that there's a contradiction between state and federal law?

Of is that an obvious gimme that federal law trumps state law?

The world National is in their name... does that count for anything?

Demosthenes wrote:

The world National Texas is in their name... does that count for anything? :lol:

Precisely my point

IMAGE(http://www.darktexas.com/storage/beer%20lone%20star.jpg)

Jonman wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

The world National Texas is in their name... does that count for anything? :lol:

Precisely my point

Son of a!

In all seriousness to the question now... aren't national guards kind of considered a branch of the army?

Demosthenes wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

The world National Texas is in their name... does that count for anything? :lol:

Precisely my point

Son of a!

In all seriousness to the question now... aren't national guards kind of considered a branch of the army?

Kinda.

So, in short, Texas, you are a big stupid-head!

And while I'm not a lawyer, preemption seems to be specifically about a situation like this one where the federal mandate is in conflict with the state mandate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...

But we ignore federal preemption for marijuana and gay marriage (iffy on the last one).