*** Marriage Ruling in Federal Court

[the canadian dream]

Definitions change all the time. That's one of the weakest arguments of all made by those who argue against *** marriage. Society creates and modifies definitions every day. Time to change the definition of marriage. It's long over due.



I would like to know if Funk and Wagner defined marriage as a union between "two people" if those who use the definition argument would find another means to argue against *** marriage. My gutt tells me they would try.



I don't buy into the definition argument. I find it extremely weak.

 

[LordKOTL]

I say attack this issue from the other end of the spectrum:



Make marriages have NO legal standing whatsoever, and have Civil Unions have all of the legals standing, and right now any two adults regardless of gender or anything can get unionized.



Catholic priest marries you? Don't mean jack or shit unless a justice of the peace notarizes it as a civil union.



The religions don't like this? **** 'em.

 

[jaxhawksfan]

[quote name="puckjim"]



What???? Are you kidding????



How about the definition of MARRIAGE is between one person and another.



You only need one meaning. Not sure how you get to ********** as the next step.



Kinda fucked up that you can, though.[/quote]



Why are you so hung up on the man marries animal example? I never said it was the NEXT step. I said it was a possibility if you start changing definitions.

 

[jaxhawksfan]

[quote name="LordKOTL"]I say attack this issue from the other end of the spectrum:



Make marriages have NO legal standing whatsoever, and have Civil Unions have all of the legals standing, and right now any two adults regardless of gender or anything can get unionized.



Catholic priest marries you? Don't mean jack or shit unless a justice of the peace notarizes it as a civil union.



The religions don't like this? **** 'em.[/quote]



This is more along my lines of thinking. I personally don't care about *** marriage. I have no dog in the race. I do understand that there is a big difference in marriage in the eyes of God vs. marriage in the eyes of the state. I personally don't understand why the state is involved at all.

 

[puckjim]

Actually, the religious argument is irrelevant. I'm sure homosexuals aren't holding their breath that they'll get to be marrried in a church/synagogue/mosque.



The issue is strictly aboot the legal benefits afforded married couples. Tax benefits, insurance, medical decisions, child custody, reciprocity, etc.



Take God oot of it, and marriage is a legal arrangement/partnership, nothing more.



And if you make the partnership about two PEOPLE rather than one man and one woman, how can that definition change?

 

[Variable]

It's just used as an excuse. There are no solid reasons against *** marriage. Just make it equal and live with it. Seriously, you'd think we would know better by now. You'd think that after all the history we've been through with equal rights, that this shouldn't be a problem today, no, not in our civilized world. Yeah well, doesn't look like it. We're barely out of the jungle.

 

[jaxhawksfan]

[quote name="puckjim"]Actually, the religious argument is irrelevant. I'm sure homosexuals aren't holding their breath that they'll get to be marrried in a church/synagogue/mosque.



The issue is strictly aboot the legal benefits afforded married couples. Tax benefits, insurance, medical decisions, child custody, reciprocity, etc.



Take God oot of it, and marriage is a legal arrangement/partnership, nothing more.



And if you make the partnership about two PEOPLE rather than one man and one woman, how can that definition change?[/quote]



And I am not a tax attorney or expert but I was under the impression that married folks pay a tax penalty, not a benefit. Everything else you listed can be dealt with legally and binding without being married. Period. It is called a living will and/or Power Of Attorney.



Let's get this straight once and for all: I have nothing against *** folks. I have several friends who are ***. The marriage issue for me is not an issue at all. This is not "emotional" for me at all. You asked for facts (not including God or religion) so I provided them. If you don't agree or don't understand the facts then I am not here to change anyone's mind.

 

[puckjim]

[quote name="jaxhawksfan"]



And I am not a tax attorney or expert but I was under the impression that married folks pay a tax penalty, not a benefit. Everything else you listed can be dealt with legally and binding without being married. Period. It is called a living will and/or Power Of Attorney.



Let's get this straight once and for all: I have nothing against *** folks. I have several friends who are ***. The marriage issue for me is not an issue at all. This is not "emotional" for me at all. You asked for facts (not including God or religion) so I provided them. If you don't agree or don't understand the facts then I am not here to change anyone's mind.[/quote]



I'm not a tax attorney either, but I don't believe all couples pay a marriage penalty. I also don't believe that living wills/powers of attorney offer the same protection to domestic partners as does a marriage license. I could be wrong, though.



Even if you can replicate the benefits of a marriage license with other legal arrangements, the cost is sure as hell a lot more expensive than going to city hall and buying a marriage license. I'm not sure if the reciprocity exists for those other legal means as it does for marriage licenses. Perhaps Noon or Mikita's Helmut could weigh in.



Regardless, separate but equal has never been a fair way of doing things.

 

[LordKOTL]

[quote name="puckjim"]



I'm not a tax attorney either, but I don't believe all couples pay a marriage penalty. I also don't believe that living wills/powers of attorney offer the same protection to domestic partners as does a marriage license. I could be wrong, though.



Even if you can replicate the benefits of a marriage license with other legal arrangements, the cost is sure as hell a lot more expensive than going to city hall and buying a marriage license. I'm not sure if the reciprocity exists for those other legal means as it does for marriage licenses. Perhaps Noon or Mikita's Helmut could weigh in.



Regardless, separate but equal has never been a fair way of doing things.[/quote]



Bingo. Plus, I wonder if, legally, "spousal privelege" <sp?> extends to civil unions. If not then it truly isn't equal. Of course, since there is clerical privelege, one could claim the other is thier padwan and be done with it.

 

[TSD]

[quote name="jaxhawksfan"]



And I am not a tax attorney or expert but I was under the impression that married folks pay a tax penalty, not a benefit. Everything else you listed can be dealt with legally and binding without being married. Period. It is called a living will and/or Power Of Attorney.



Let's get this straight once and for all: I have nothing against *** folks. I have several friends who are ***. The marriage issue for me is not an issue at all. This is not "emotional" for me at all. You asked for facts (not including God or religion) so I provided them. If you don't agree or don't understand the facts then I am not here to change anyone's mind.[/quote]



Then whats the big deal if they are married? If you have no problem with them having all the benefits/non-benefits what have you. Then why do you have a problem with them simply giving them they ability to get married?



So in that respect, why do you have an issue with *** people being married in the eyes of the state?



To *** people being able to afford themselves all of the area's associated with marriage, they want to be married. Giving them power of attorney, bla bla bla. Doesn't make them married. they want the title as much as they want what comes with that title.



i simply cant see a logical explanation why not, except people keep bring up the slippery slope and throw lassie in there.

 

[LordKOTL]

[quote name="TSD"]

Then whats the big deal if they are married? If you have no problem with them having all the benefits/non-benefits what have you. Then why do you have a problem with them simply giving them they ability to get married?



So in that respect, why do you have an issue with *** people being married in the eyes of the state?



To *** people being able to afford themselves all of the area's associated with marriage, they want to be married. Giving them power of attorney, bla bla bla. Doesn't make them married. they want the title as much as they want what comes with that title.



i simply cant see a logical explanation why not, except people keep bring up the slippery slope and throw lassie in there.[/quote]

Exactly. It's grasping at straws. Who someone falls in love with and engages in sexual acts with should be none of anyone else's business, and they should be granted the full rights and priveleges of anyone else. If your deity has problesm with who's falling in love with who, let the diety handle it and you get on with your life.

 

[The Count Dante]

Why people care what other people do with their naughty bits is beyond me.



If everyone is an adult and consenting, who cares if gays OR heteros get married or not?



It does truly baffle me.

 

[JOVE23]

BUT DEM DER GHEYS IS AN 'BOMINATION BEFORE THE LAWD AND WE ALL GONNA GO TO HELL IF'N THEY MURRY

 

[Variable]

[quote name="THe Count Dante"]Why people care what other people do with their naughty bits is beyond me.



If everyone is an adult and consenting, who cares if gays OR heteros get married or not?



It does truly baffle me.[/quote]



Don't you see how you're opening the door to marrying animals next?!? EVERYTHING IS GUNNA CHANGE!



I love how people keep saying it's not an "emotional" thing for them, or it's not an "issue" for them whatsoever, but they come up with stupid horseshit like that and because why? Because it somehow lessens the marriage you are in? It lessens the meaning of marriage? It slightly alters the definition? Seriously, these things actually impact your lives? Give me a break.

 

[jakobeast]

I am still waiting for an intelligent argument that doesn't involve religion against *** marriage.

 

[mikita's helmet]

The Ninth Circuit stayed the August 4, 2010 Northern District of California order ruling Prop 8 unconstitutional, and expedited the case, setting a briefing schedule that does not allow for extensions and scheduling oral argument the week of December 6, 2010.



Long story short, no *** marriage in California until the Circuit Court hears the District Court appeal and releases its opinion (reaches its decision).



Perry v. Schwarzenegger No. 10-16696



"Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.



Appellants’ motion for a stay of the district court’s order of August 4, 2010 pending appeal is GRANTED. The court sua sponte orders that this appeal be expedited pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2. The provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a) (pertaining to grants of time extensions) shall not apply to this appeal. This appeal shall be calendared during the week of December 6, 2010, at The James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, California.



The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010. In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997).



IT IS SO ORDERED."





http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/g ... n_stay.pdf

 

[bri]

[quote name="Mikita's Helmet"]The Ninth Circuit stayed the August 4, 2010 Northern District of California order ruling Prop 8 unconstitutional, and expedited the case, setting a briefing schedule that does not allow for extensions and scheduling oral argument the week of December 6, 2010.



Long story short, no *** marriage in California until the Circuit Court hears the District Court appeal and releases its opinion (reaches its decision).



Perry v. Schwarzenegger No. 10-16696



"Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.



Appellants’ motion for a stay of the district court’s order of August 4, 2010 pending appeal is GRANTED. The court sua sponte orders that this appeal be expedited pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2. The provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a) (pertaining to grants of time extensions) shall not apply to this appeal. This appeal shall be calendared during the week of December 6, 2010, at The James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, California.



The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010. In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997).



IT IS SO ORDERED."





http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/g ... n_stay.pdf[/quote]





Hun, I didn't know you were a lawyer.

 

[mikita's helmet]

[quote name="bri"]



Hun, I didn't know you were a lawyer.[/quote]



Yep, 13+ years, now.

 

[bri]

[quote name="Mikita's Helmet"]



Yep, 13+ years, now.[/quote]





But you seem so nice. Just kidding

 

[mikita's helmet]

[quote name="bri"]





But you seem so nice. Just kidding [/quote]



Are you saying that I don't really seem nice?



RE Lawyers: I didn't like a lot of the people I went to law school with and took two years off after I finished law school - sold books and movies at Borders :lol: - before practicing law.