I guess we have to deal with it now.   Wasn't that the argument?  "We'll deal with it when the time comes"?

Why isn't BL dealing with this yet?

He'll deal with it next year.    Seriously, do you want to have 200 pages of "What's so bad about polygamy?" arguments between now and 2014?

Posted by tecwrg on 12/23/2013 6:21:00 PM (view original):
Remember when BL insisted "what could possibly go wrong?" by allowing same-sex marriage?

I present to you: North Dakota.

It seems like less of a gay marriage issue and more of a "things can get messy when different states have different laws" issue.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/27/2013 5:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/23/2013 6:21:00 PM (view original):
Remember when BL insisted "what could possibly go wrong?" by allowing same-sex marriage?

I present to you: North Dakota.

It seems like less of a gay marriage issue and more of a "things can get messy when different states have different laws" issue.

But what about "what's the harm in allowing gay marriage?"

It doesn't look like anyone has been harmed.

Great!

Bend over.

Do I have to give a gay wedding?  Do I have to bake a gay cake?  Do I have to get a physical 3 months early so I don't lose my CDL?  Do I have to buy health care?  Do I have to give up my doctor?  Do I have to lose my hospital?  Do I have to hand out birth control?  Do I have to be taxed for global warming?  Why can't I have a pipeline?  Why can't  I have a big gulp?  Why can't I buy a light bulb?  Why can't I leave my inheritance?  Why does my boss have to deny me a raise because he has to give money to people that don't work?  Why does as union get a job before a citizen does?  Why can people just walk across the border?  How comes a union gets paid more for doing the same thing?  Why can't we get the job and do it for less?  Where's my pension from private citizen taxes?  Where's there bus that comes by my house every ten minutes I'm paying for to take me to work?  Why does some secret society get to print money at will and unelected committees get to write law without representation?  Whatever happened to the contract we made with ourselves over 200 years ago?

Move along now peoples.  Nothing happening here.

It doesn't look like anyone has been harmed.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/27/2013 10:54:00 PM (view original):
It doesn't look like anyone has been harmed.

So you think it's OK for a person to be legally married to a man in one state and to a woman in another?

Posted by tecwrg on 12/28/2013 11:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/27/2013 10:54:00 PM (view original):
It doesn't look like anyone has been harmed.

So you think it's OK for a person to be legally married to a man in one state and to a woman in another?

I don't think it's actually happened yet and all they have to do is change the application or the rule so that no one in the state can marry someone if they are legally married to someone else in another state. Problem solved. No one harmed.

So are you saying that North Dakota should be forced to recognize same-sex marriages in other states?

Posted by tecwrg on 12/28/2013 11:29:00 PM (view original):
So are you saying that North Dakota should be forced to recognize same-sex marriages in other states?

precisely the goal of the move.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/28/2013 11:29:00 PM (view original):
So are you saying that North Dakota should be forced to recognize same-sex marriages in other states?

They aren't being forced to recognize anything. They just have to forbid someone from marrying if they have a marriage valid in another state.

So if the "marriage valid in another state" is a SSM, you're saying they should be forced to recognize that?

Posted by tecwrg on 12/29/2013 8:03:00 AM (view original):
So if the "marriage valid in another state" is a SSM, you're saying they should be forced to recognize that?

State recognition of a marriage in another state means that the couple is granted all the rights of a married couple. This wouldn't be the case in ND. The couple would simply be forbidden from marrying again.

Who is being harmed by that?

Now you're saying that North Dakota should recognize SSM marriage in other states, but does not have to grant those people rights, and nobody is being harmed?

Huh?