1/2/2014 3:35 PM

ND shouldn't play this silly game.    They should issue marriage licenses and let the person commit a crime.   Then lock his *** up.   Problem solved.

1/2/2014 3:36 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/2/2014 3:35:00 PM (view original):

ND shouldn't play this silly game.    They should issue marriage licenses and let the person commit a crime.   Then lock his *** up.   Problem solved.

What would they lock him up for???
1/2/2014 3:54 PM
***** and giggles.
1/2/2014 3:57 PM
Should this thread be euthanized?


Votes: 3
(Last vote received: 1/2/2014 6:10 PM)
1/2/2014 4:04 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/2/2014 3:54:00 PM (view original):
***** and giggles.
Serious question. What crime is he committing?
1/2/2014 4:54 PM
Cocksuckery of the third degree.
1/2/2014 5:41 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/2/2014 3:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 1/2/2014 2:58:00 PM (view original):
Are we going to play the "marriage is about benefits" card?

I argued earlier in this thread that civil unions / domestic partnerships with all the same legal benefits of marriage, just without the word "marriage", should satisfy most people.

I recall that BL said that benefits wasn't enough, they needed the term "marriage" too.
The issue ND is having is about the ramifications of allowing people to get married who consider themselves married already through SSM.  Right?  That's what you said the issue is.  So...you can't get married if you already have something you call a marriage because of the issues stated re: benefits.  There is an entity that considers your SSM a marriage, so for that reason, we can't give you a marriage license because of the benefits you're getting.
I don't think ND is saying "Hey, we have a problem that needs to be fixed  OMG, whatever shall we do?".

I think it's other people who are pointing out the potential scenario that can play out under current laws of the states.  A scenario which never existed before SSM became trendy and vogue, and all the lib-tards pushed to make it happen.
1/2/2014 5:49 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 1/2/2014 5:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/2/2014 3:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 1/2/2014 2:58:00 PM (view original):
Are we going to play the "marriage is about benefits" card?

I argued earlier in this thread that civil unions / domestic partnerships with all the same legal benefits of marriage, just without the word "marriage", should satisfy most people.

I recall that BL said that benefits wasn't enough, they needed the term "marriage" too.
The issue ND is having is about the ramifications of allowing people to get married who consider themselves married already through SSM.  Right?  That's what you said the issue is.  So...you can't get married if you already have something you call a marriage because of the issues stated re: benefits.  There is an entity that considers your SSM a marriage, so for that reason, we can't give you a marriage license because of the benefits you're getting.
I don't think ND is saying "Hey, we have a problem that needs to be fixed  OMG, whatever shall we do?".

I think it's other people who are pointing out the potential scenario that can play out under current laws of the states.  A scenario which never existed before SSM became trendy and vogue, and all the lib-tards pushed to make it happen.
The scenario isn't a big deal and easily fixed if ND chooses to do so.
1/2/2014 5:54 PM
Assuming ND feels that it's not their problem to fix . . . then what?
1/2/2014 6:06 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 1/2/2014 5:54:00 PM (view original):
Assuming ND feels that it's not their problem to fix . . . then what?
Then nothing.

I laid out the options before. ND can:

1) Do nothing and deal with the unlikely possibility that a gay person married to another gay person in a different state will marry a straight person in ND.
2) Close the loophole without recognizing gay marriage.
3) Recognize gay marriage.
1/3/2014 2:21 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 1/2/2014 5:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/2/2014 3:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 1/2/2014 2:58:00 PM (view original):
Are we going to play the "marriage is about benefits" card?

I argued earlier in this thread that civil unions / domestic partnerships with all the same legal benefits of marriage, just without the word "marriage", should satisfy most people.

I recall that BL said that benefits wasn't enough, they needed the term "marriage" too.
The issue ND is having is about the ramifications of allowing people to get married who consider themselves married already through SSM.  Right?  That's what you said the issue is.  So...you can't get married if you already have something you call a marriage because of the issues stated re: benefits.  There is an entity that considers your SSM a marriage, so for that reason, we can't give you a marriage license because of the benefits you're getting.
I don't think ND is saying "Hey, we have a problem that needs to be fixed  OMG, whatever shall we do?".

I think it's other people who are pointing out the potential scenario that can play out under current laws of the states.  A scenario which never existed before SSM became trendy and vogue, and all the lib-tards pushed to make it happen.
A scenario that's easily rectified.  Or ignored.  Or whatever.
1/3/2014 3:04 PM
Then why was it made public knowledge?  I sure as hell wouldn't have known about ND marriage laws without it.
1/3/2014 3:15 PM
It's somewhat interesting.  Or at least tec thought it was.  I don't know, people make big deals out of things that aren't big deals all the time.
1/3/2014 3:22 PM
I thought it was interesting because BL kept insisting "There's no harm in allowing SSM?".  Apparently, there is.
1/3/2014 3:27 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 3:15:00 PM (view original):
It's somewhat interesting.  Or at least tec thought it was.  I don't know, people make big deals out of things that aren't big deals all the time.
So do you also plan on pretending that the anonymous caller, with the perfect scenario, wasn't a SSM advocate looking to make a court case?
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.