100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Same-sex marriage! | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I think it needs to be recognized constitutionally so that they do receive all benefits, including medical, insurance and various and assorted legalities that a hetero couple receive. Not all states recognize common-law, and some states will nitpick it. Texas supposedly does, unless there really isn't children involved. The divorce lawyer I spoke with rolled his eyes at me, when I had to ask because the ex wanted to claim we were common-lawed to get half of my things. He told me that it wasn't, and the ex was a nut, basically. They WILL NOT recognize common-law for gay couples. The neighbors behind us have to very carefully detail everything out for legal issues, but they're basically screwed since that can't be and will not be legally recognized unless the federal government makes a change. im not sure if you have ever heard of palamony which is like alomony but with palamony if your with someone for 2yrs or more you can get money when you split up a friend of mine yrs ago mention that I have heard of the difference. But the lawyer had said there was no need to deal with any of it as the state wouldn't pay attention to it. No kids, and basically I left with all of the stuff I went in with. I left him everything he came in with, and the few things we had together. I got screwed with the bills, though. There wasn't much, since we didn't have an apartment for an overly long time, and mostly lived in hotels. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you guys think that the constitution of the US should consider same sex marriage under the equal protection clause? I do not understand why people dislike homosexuals; they share the same rights since they are also human beings. the equal protection clause reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. by this definition, same sex marriage would be an EXTRA privilege, as it stands , the marital privilge IS already afforded to everyone provided they dont marry someone with the same anatomy or same parents,,,,those are the guidelines for EVERYONE and therefore not discriminatory,,,,,,imho |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my country, despite being a predominantly Roman Catholic country sanctions same-sex marriage..why? by taking the "moral" debate out of the picture, it becomes simple, the law applies to EVERYONE, marriage sanctioned by the state comes with many benefits for both parties..nobody has the right to exclude anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you guys think that the constitution of the US should consider same sex marriage under the equal protection clause? I do not understand why people dislike homosexuals; they share the same rights since they are also human beings. the equal protection clause reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. by this definition, same sex marriage would be an EXTRA privilege, as it stands , the marital privilge IS already afforded to everyone provided they dont marry someone with the same anatomy or same parents,,,,those are the guidelines for EVERYONE and therefore not discriminatory,,,,,,imho I concur! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you guys think that the constitution of the US should consider same sex marriage under the equal protection clause? I do not understand why people dislike homosexuals; they share the same rights since they are also human beings. marriage is not a 'right'... It is a state of mutually agreed upon affairs between a man and a woman. That said... A 'same sex' couple should have the same community privileges as any other couple. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my country, despite being a predominantly Roman Catholic country sanctions same-sex marriage..why? by taking the "moral" debate out of the picture, it becomes simple, the law applies to EVERYONE, marriage sanctioned by the state comes with many benefits for both parties..nobody has the right to exclude anyone. great for your country, will they continue the trend by allowing minors and relatives to marry as well? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Thu 03/31/11 07:21 PM
|
|
Do you guys think that the constitution of the US should consider same sex marriage under the equal protection clause? I do not understand why people dislike homosexuals; they share the same rights since they are also human beings. the equal protection clause reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. by this definition, same sex marriage would be an EXTRA privilege, as it stands , the marital privilge IS already afforded to everyone provided they dont marry someone with the same anatomy or same parents,,,,those are the guidelines for EVERYONE and therefore not discriminatory,,,,,,imho And the only law that EVER suggested that marriage as defined for State and Federal purposes is only between 1 man and 1 woman, was not even enacted until Bush - DOMA - and when it's repealed the Federal government will no longer have a reason to reject the legal marriages of same-sex partners from other states. After that, it's just a matter of time before the Supreme Court must rule on the constitutionality of DOMA type laws by individual states. The “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution requires each state to give “full faith and credit” to the laws of other states. THAT is the reason why any straight marriage is even recognized in every state no matter in which state the couple was married. Thus it would seem that some states would be discriminating – big time - and of course the only path to resolution would be the Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The more the young are brainwashed into believing homosex is a good thang, the more like Sodom we become.
I can see the biology books now explaining how daddy squirted him out or explaining what part a dildo has in reproduction between two women. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you guys think that the constitution of the US should consider same sex marriage under the equal protection clause? I do not understand why people dislike homosexuals; they share the same rights since they are also human beings. the equal protection clause reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. by this definition, same sex marriage would be an EXTRA privilege, as it stands , the marital privilge IS already afforded to everyone provided they dont marry someone with the same anatomy or same parents,,,,those are the guidelines for EVERYONE and therefore not discriminatory,,,,,,imho And the only law that EVER suggested that marriage as defined for State and Federal purposes is only between 1 man and 1 woman, was not even enacted until Bush - DOMA - and when it's repealed the Federal government will no longer have a reason to reject the legal marriages of same-sex partners from other states. After that, it's just a matter of time before the Supreme Court must rule on the constitutionality of DOMA type laws by individual states. The “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution requires each state to give “full faith and credit” to the laws of other states. THAT is the reason why any straight marriage is even recognized in every state no matter in which state the couple was married. Thus it would seem that some states would be discriminating – big time - and of course the only path to resolution would be the Supreme Court. time will tell, I see it opening a door to remove any and all restrictions between adults though,, opening incestuous and emancipated minor/old perv marriages,,, |
|
|
|
|
