DOMA & Prop 8 Topic

bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 4:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/3/2014 4:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 4:27:00 PM (view original):
I'm starting to think BL is hardcore trolling now.

A) Polygamy is a felony.
B) Allow SSM because otherwise I can be married to 2 people at once.  If you allow SSM on the federal level, we don't have the issue anymore.

I'm not following you. Who/what am I trolling?
Mike has answered the questions a few times, and you're missing them completely or trolling.  I couldn't imagine someone could miss the points over and over.
He never actually made the point. You said yourself you weren't following.

Mike insists that this is part of an activist plot to sue ND but there's nothing for anyone to sue for.
1/3/2014 4:42 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 1/3/2014 4:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/3/2014 4:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 1/3/2014 3:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/3/2014 3:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 1/3/2014 3:22:00 PM (view original):
I thought it was interesting because BL kept insisting "There's no harm in allowing SSM?".  Apparently, there is.
Who is being harmed?
Joe legally marries Pete in Massachusetts.

Joe legally marries Linda in North Dakota.

Since polygamy is not recognized in any of the 50 states, I would assume that each state is only going to recognize either Pete or Linda as Joe's legal spouse.

Whoever is not recognized by <insert state name here> is "harmed".
That has nothing to do with gay marriage and everything to do with Joe marrying two different people.
Has this or does this happen without gay marriage?

Please provide examples.

Thanks in advance.
This only happens if someone marries two different people. A normal gay marriage doesn't cause this.

But I'm glad you're on board with the idea that one state not honoring another state's legal marriage causes harm to the married couple.
1/3/2014 4:45 PM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/2/2014 1:09:00 PM (view original):
ND will have to refuse a marriage license based on the legal marriage in another state(thus recognizing it as a legal marriage).  Then it becomes a spousal benefit issue.

ND could issue a marriage license based on the fact that they don't recognize SSM in other states.   That would create a polygamy issue.

ND could just cave and allow SSM because they can't win the other two in court.


As for who would take ND to court, it would be the individual being denied or SSM advocates.
He's made the point.  It could be seen as a complicated issue because ND could make multiple decisions, each that contradict themselves in some way.  If they just allowed SSM, the issues go away.  Someone could try to fight ND on this, and maybe ND takes "the easy way out" and allows SSM.
1/3/2014 4:53 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 4:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/2/2014 1:09:00 PM (view original):
ND will have to refuse a marriage license based on the legal marriage in another state(thus recognizing it as a legal marriage).  Then it becomes a spousal benefit issue.

ND could issue a marriage license based on the fact that they don't recognize SSM in other states.   That would create a polygamy issue.

ND could just cave and allow SSM because they can't win the other two in court.


As for who would take ND to court, it would be the individual being denied or SSM advocates.
He's made the point.  It could be seen as a complicated issue because ND could make multiple decisions, each that contradict themselves in some way.  If they just allowed SSM, the issues go away.  Someone could try to fight ND on this, and maybe ND takes "the easy way out" and allows SSM.
But let's really look at this.

How does this bring up a spousal benefit issue? ND denies legal recognition to ALL gay marriages. It never grants spousal benefits to gay couples. If someone wanted to sue over that, they could (and they'd lose), regardless of the loophole.

If they issue the license, it isn't a polygamy issue in ND because ND doesn't recognize the gay marriage. There would be only one valid marriage in ND. What's the case here? Is Bill going to sue the state for allowing him to enter into a marriage?

There's no angle here. Someone figured something out, brought it to the attention of state officials, and it made a blurb on Reuters.
1/3/2014 4:59 PM
DougOut
Posts: 43797 (1)
Hall of Famer
123
Prospect

1/3/2014 5:42 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

For ****'s sake.

1.  No, you cannot have a marriage license as you're legally married in another state.
2.  No, you cannot give spousal benefits to your husband because we do not recognize SSM in this state.

See the contradiction?  

Dumbass.

1/4/2014 7:51 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/3/2014 4:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/3/2014 4:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/3/2014 4:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 4:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/3/2014 4:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 3:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/3/2014 3:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 3:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/3/2014 3:27:00 PM (view original):
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?
I could argue it was someone like you making the case that we shouldn't be allowing SSM because it will lead to polygamy.  
I could accept that argument.    Either way, I doubt it was a man who was married to another man asking if he could marry a woman in ND but couldn't get a divorce from the man because they both lived in states that didn't recognize SSM.
So really, there's no issue right now, as the person who's fighting to be married to a straight woman in one state while married to a gay man in another state doesn't exist.
An issue is being made or I never hear about the non-existent person.    Do you disagree?
A hypothetical was brought up.  Someone found a loophole that nobody's tried to jump through yet.
Do you think they won't?

Seriously, this is borderline retarded.   Activists are looking for a fight for their cause.    This one was found.
So what is the argument the activists will make???
That polesmoking is fun for the whole family.  Like Yahtzee.
And this is comedic gold.  You're all ******** for not acknowledging the funny.
1/4/2014 7:52 AM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/4/2014 7:51:00 AM (view original):

For ****'s sake.

1.  No, you cannot have a marriage license as you're legally married in another state.
2.  No, you cannot give spousal benefits to your husband because we do not recognize SSM in this state.

See the contradiction?  

Dumbass.

How does marrying a new person have anything to do with being able to give spousal benefits to your first spouse?

Even if they grant you #1, you can't have #2.
1/4/2014 10:33 AM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
And anyway, right now you can get #1.
1/4/2014 10:35 AM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
I do understand the point you're trying to make, that North Dakota is saying "you're married" and "you're not married" at the same time. But Bill and Mike are married in California. That's a fact. North Dakota doesn't recognize the marriage but is well within its rights to deny marriage licenses to people who are married in other states.
1/4/2014 11:04 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 1/4/2014 11:04:00 AM (view original):
I do understand the point you're trying to make, that North Dakota is saying "you're married" and "you're not married" at the same time. But Bill and Mike are married in California. That's a fact. North Dakota doesn't recognize the marriage but is well within its rights to deny marriage licenses to people who are married in other states.
That's incredibly stupid, you know.
1/4/2014 11:51 AM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 1/4/2014 11:51:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/4/2014 11:04:00 AM (view original):
I do understand the point you're trying to make, that North Dakota is saying "you're married" and "you're not married" at the same time. But Bill and Mike are married in California. That's a fact. North Dakota doesn't recognize the marriage but is well within its rights to deny marriage licenses to people who are married in other states.
That's incredibly stupid, you know.
I don't know. Explain.
1/4/2014 12:15 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
LOL @ SSM in Utah.
1/6/2014 2:52 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
LOL at people who don't realize that gay marriage is going to be 50 state legal in their lifetime.
1/6/2014 2:56 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
1/6/2014 5:10 PM
◂ Prev 1...355|356|357|358 Next ▸
DOMA & Prop 8 Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 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.