Supreme Court.......STRIKES DOWN...Defence of Marriage Act !

[EastUS1]

 Not all contracts/licenses are marriages.  

 
Quit squirming around and just tell us all what you honestly believe constitutes a "marriage"....? What are the needed elements to define any transaction as such?

 

[delldude]

All marriages require a licence (to be recognized by the state/nation) and bind you legally (contract).  Not all contracts/licenses are marriages.  

 
BS.....you ever hear of common law?
 
No license issue that equals married in a court of law and finance.

 

[EastUS1]

 
BS.....you ever hear of common law?
 
No license issue that equals married in a court of law and finance.

 
Indeed Dell. How many legal contracts are otherwise ever established by way of simple cohabition? It would then seem that society/law views the term marriage in other lights than merely being a legal contract.
 
Now then. The gay marriage notion introduces a whole new set of concerns. Should/could anyone that was even a college dorm roomate of another, be now able to file suit/"divorce" proceedings/etc, based on common law notions, against any s/he cohabitated with for, say, a year in school, by simply now claiming they were a gay couple? Could/should, even any soldier that shares so much as a tent with another in BumFuk Sandboxville for 6 months/a year/whatever or more be able to initiate "divorce" proeeedings upon completion of their deployment?  Need even the USA's military now billet only one person to any in-the-field (or even anywhere) "home" to avoid the issue? If not: WHY not? I've no doubt lawyers are , as always, salivating everywhere to sue. Even if one goes with "marriage" being but a "legal contract"....it would seem that a great many issues could (and doubtless will) be raised. It's yet another, truly brilliant stroke of social engineering that we've chosen to inflict such insane BS on our society.
 
Bottom Line, as yet unanswered by liberal proponents and/or the courts = WHAT elements actually define "marriage", and how should society and our courts define it?

 

[Ms Tree]

Other than comon law marriages I'm not aware of any.  
 
Common law marriages must be validated by the courts as I recall.  Not just a matter of saying we lived together and now we are married.  I also believe both parties must agree to the marriage.
 
Common law in TX
 
Wiki on Common law
 
As far as I am concerned marriage requires 2 (or more) consenting adults and a license.  Beyond that I am not sure what you are seeking in terms of a definition.  

 

[EastUS1]

Common law marriages must be validated by the courts as I recall.n.  

 
 Sigh! That's a real relief then! Seriously Tree: No undue offence, but can you even read? The whole, last point of my expressed concern was about likely litigation, and you "brilliantly" note such is an issue to "be validated by the courts"? Words simply fail me here. Sigh! Thanks for alleviating any/all reasonable concerns though! "And I say to myself...What a wonderful world" 🙂 Really: What was I thinking? Lawyers are all reasonable and caring sorts, never, ever out for personal gain, and all just want to see peace, harmony, and everyone holding hands anyway, so what could possibly go wrong here?
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtsDvawLkc8

 

[Ms Tree]

Are you even capable of not being a obnoxious prick?
 
Common law marriages have been around for quite some time so I do not see what your issue is.  Just as with conventional marriages, both parties must consent.  Has it been litigated?  Is it an issue of concern in the US?  How will same sex marriage change anything?
 
I also fail to see the link between common law and same sex marriage.  

 

[southwind]

If you and your cronies could have one instated........you would![/qluote]

So in other words not a damn thing. You were talking out of your ass yet again.
 
So your saying that when you think of a group that wants to ban gay marriage, White Christians are not the first ones to pop into your libtard brain?..................Right!

 

[EastUS1]

I also fail to see the link between common law and same sex marriage.  

 That fails to surprise, as you've demonstrated an utterly amazing capacity to fail to see much of anything thus far. 😉 Would not potentially same sex "marriages" also fall under common law doctrine? If not: WHY not?
 
Ms Tree: "Are you even capable of not being a obnoxious prick?" Aww...shucks. What so quickly happened to your earlier, pretentiously condescending and wholly infantile arrogance, via "The republic thanks you.."? Now you've hurt my feelings..Sniffle/etc... 🙂

 

[Ms Tree]

OK, so that would be a no.  Got it.
 
If same sex marriage is legal the same laws will apply to all people.
 
Just dishing a bit of your arrogance back to you.  And believe what you want, I was actually being sincere.  I do thank you for your service.  I just believe some of your beliefs are out dated.

 

[EastUS1]

If same sex marriage is legal the same laws will apply to all people.
 
I just believe some of your beliefs are out dated.

 
 
1) Indeed, and welcome to the discussion...finally!
 
2) Should I care? My core beliefs have stood through the sometimes extremely harsh, practical testing of human nature and experience in now over 6 decades of real life, in this "Best Of All Possible Worlds"...and yours? 😉 I'm of the "Don't trust anyone over 30" generation that's since seen 2 newer generations born and raised.  I've long ago learned not to deny the existence of gravity, or any other aspect of reality that might "offend" me, but was none-the-less irrevocably true, regardless of current popularity at any given time. 🙂

 

[delldude]

OK, so that would be a no.  Got it.
 
If same sex marriage is legal the same laws will apply to all people.
 
Just dishing a bit of your arrogance back to you.  And believe what you want, I was actually being sincere.  I do thank you for your service.  I just believe some of your beliefs are out dated.

I don't believe they address the SSM issue at all.....only length of time of cohabitation.
 
Could be an interesting Hmmmmmm....

 

[EastUS1]

I don't believe they address the SSM issue at all.....only length of time of cohabitation.
 
Could be an interesting Hmmmmmm....

 
 
"Could be" Dell? That's a bit subtle for these boards, and we both know better than that. It will be. I'd wish it otherwise though, but I suppose even lawyers need to eat...  😉

 

[Ms Tree]

 
 
1) Indeed, and welcome to the discussion...finally!
 
2) Should I care? My beliefs have stood through the sometimes extremely harsh, practical testing of human nature and experience in now over 6 decades of real life in this "Best Of All Possible Worlds"...and yours? 😉 I've long ago learned not to deny the existence of gravity, regardless of it's current popularity at any given time. 🙂

Exactly what discussion is that?  If the common law litigation is not an issue now, what affect would same sex marriage have?  
 
No more than I should care about your opinions. mine have endured for nearly 50 years.  Gravity exists with or with out human acknowledgement.  The same cannot be said for marriage or any other idea contrived by man.

 

[EastUS1]

 If the common law litigation is not an issue now, what affect would same sex marriage have?  

 
Wow! You've an inherent ability to completely miss the point of anything, it sadly seems. Please reference again the examples of same billited students or soldiers, and then get back to us all. If you can't (or simply won't) see the obvious potential for excessive and arguably bizzare litigation from legally validating same sex marriages, then you're either being willfully obtuse, or, well...I'll just be kind here and await fruther explanation of your apparent "innocence" of how things work in the real world of courts/lawyers/etc.
 
Student "A" lives in the same room as student "B" for a year or more. Student "B", since same-sex/etc, now claims a common law "marriage" exists and sues for "divorce" and settlement. Are you at least able to follow that?

 

[Ms Tree]

No idea what point you're trying to make.