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

[EastUS1]

No idea what point you're trying to make.

 No real surprise there. Far be it for me to note the obvious opening of Pandora's Box to those who refuse to see...or are blind by nature. No worries, as many lawyers will be happy to provide you with examples fairly shortly. If still playing on this silly board: Let's revisit this in a year or two at most. 😉 There will be no shortage of established examples by then.

 

[Ms Tree]

 
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?

Yes I am able to follow that.  How does that differ from A and B  male/female cohabitation? 

 

[EastUS1]

Yes I am able to follow that.  How does that differ from A and B  male/female cohabitation? 

 
Again: Let's revisit this in a year or two at most. 😉 There will be no shortage of established examples by then.
 
You argue from purely personal theory, and methinks, merely wishful thinking. I'm burdened with having arguably more directly studied human nature. Honestly Tree? I hope I'm wrong here, but it'd be a big surprise in this instance.
 
Ever having any notion(s) that things will turn to crap, and afterwards being proved "right", offers no sane person any joy. I'd much rather see people be happy, always, but that simply isn't the nature of our species.
 
There's abundant greatness and even love in mankind's nature. BUT....Without our constant dissatisfaction at "how things are, but should be better", we'd never have much advanced out of trees and caves, much less put footprints on the moon, BUT again, that goes with some decidedly "unpleasant"aspects as well = What's in it for MEEE? How can I take MORE? Poland and France are just lying there. Why not take them?/etc.
 
Bottom Line here? =  Lawyers will have an eventual field day with same-sex "marriage".

 

[Ms Tree]

Common law marriage has been around for quite some time now.  There have been no issues on some large scale.  Since there have been no issues with it there is no logical reason to believe that there will be any issues in the future with a larger pool of people.  Same sex partners are not more prone to law suits than opposite sex partners.  At one point marriages were only allowed between the same races.  When inter-racial marriages were allowed, nothing changed in terms of law suits or anything else relating to marriage.
 
On what basis do believe that opening up same sex marriage will open up a Pandora box to legal issues?  There is no history to support it.
 
Even if you are right, law suits are a legal right in this country to seek redress.  Is that a basis for denying individuals constitutional rights under the 14th amendment?  If there are law suits, so be it.  That's what the courts are for.  A few cases will end up before a judge, appellate court and SCOTUS, they will be decided and precedent will be set.  Then people will know what the boundaries are.

 

[Ms Tree]

Besides, having a 50% failure rate in hetero marriages does not really seem to lend an support to the idea that marriages in the US are some sort of sacrosanct institution not to be messed with. 
 
Marriage in the US is a hobby or sport, not an institution, at least not any more.

 

[EastUS1]

Common law marriage has been around for quite some time now.  There have been no issues on some large scale.

 
Nothing ever constitutes a "large scale" until it involves a given person's interests. Are you/can you be now suggesting that same-sex marriage won't be duly subjected to whimsical or even flat-out fraudulent suits/etc? Dream on. The family has Florida property that includes swampland. Care to buy a yet unseen parcel?  😉 Just one more tool in the box has been made available for lawyers.

 

[EastUS1]

Besides, having a 50% failure rate in hetero marriages does not really seem to lend an support to the idea that marriages in the US are some sort of sacrosanct institution not to be messed with. 
 
Marriage in the US is a hobby or sport, not an institution, at least not any more.

 No argument, and more's the pity for our Nation and society. What's your point here? Since it's down and nearly out; why not just nail the coffin shut?

 

[Ms Tree]

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!

Two seperate issues. The conservative right want to ban same sex marrige. Cite me one proposed law that seeks to compel a religious institution to conduct same sex marriage. Such a law would be in clear violation of the COTUS.

 

[EastUS1]

So in other words not a damn thing. You were talking out of your ass yet again.

 
 I'll leave with your last, both pithy and most erudite observation, and bid you a good night. 😉

 

[Ms Tree]

 
Nothing ever constitutes a "large scale" until it involves a given person's interests. Are you/can you be now suggesting that same-sex marriage won't be duly subjected to whimsical or even flat-out fraudulent suits/etc? Dream on. The family has Florida property that includes swampland. Care to buy a yet unseen parcel?  😉 Just one more tool in the box has been made available for lawyers.

I would assume the same law suits that affect heteros will affect same sex. Is that a legal basis to deprive them of their equal rights?

Nothing to do with nails in a coffin. My argument is that opening up marriage to all will have no effect on marriage.

 

[Ms Tree]

 
 I'll leave with your last, both pithy and most erudite observation, and bid you a good night. 😉

That was addressed to South for making stuff up with no support.

 

[EastUS1]

 My argument is that opening up marriage to all will have no effect on marriage.

 
Wonderfull! I've had my eye on this cute little ewe for awhile...Should I now announce the planned nuptials? 😉
 
The internet's been an educational experience for me. I'd previously encountered too few individuals that, by genetic limitations/injuries/etc, were made incurable morons. Unless you've kept something hidden from us all...You've no honest excuses for your supposed "thought". Thanks for the laughs. 🙂

 

[Ms Tree]

You have not provided anything to support your theory and Im the morron. That makes sense.

So Ill ask again. How will same sex marriage affect the institution and on what do you base that conclusion. It cant be history since there is none yet. So what do you have?

 

[EastUS1]

On what basis do believe that opening up same sex marriage will open up a Pandora box to legal issues?  There is no history to support it.

 
 
Umm...Are you even the least bit serious here? Of course "There is no history" you moron. This is newly invented nonsense for the Nation.

 

[Ms Tree]

When did we abandon the concept of consent?