I can only imagine IvyLeague's reaction.

(Seriously what's up with Utah? Using a gay marriage ruling to try to legalize polygamy in a recent ruling I'm sure the gays will let that state have that as long as SSM gets struck down. Deal?)

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57291925-78/marriage-utah-case-judge.html.csp

so gays can't get married but polygamist can buy peoples childred off the street

i know somebody that sold her kid to some weirdos in utah

there's some ackward shit transpiring in the pacific northwest

dawg, utah ain't be located in da pacifik norfwess, ya feel me?

My blood is still boiling from this. Even the biggest supporter of gay marriage, if they're honest, have to admit that there's something wrong with the system when one arrogant, designing judge can overrule the will of the people in an entire state and it's constitution. But this is exactly what the liberal, secular, Godless Left does. They usually cannot win in the "court of public opinion" so they force their agenda down everyone's throats through corrupt lawyers and judges.

As I've pointed out before, and which nobody can argue against, is the utter hypocrisy here. Years ago, this nation already decided what it considered marriage when it ruled against polygamy...despite polygamy (or plural marriage) being part of a people's religion and it actually being protected by the Constitution. But now, we're suddenly supposed to turn everything on it's head in favor of gays having the "right" to marry, despite there being nothing to support that? Many on the Left will pay lip service to agreeing for polygamy now but I think it's only because they don't want to appear inconsistent. They couldn't care less about equal protection, the Constitution, etc. It's about getting their agenda through.

This issue should be like what abortion should have been - left up to the states on a state level. Hopefully the state succeeds in getting this ridiculous ruling held off.


And now behold, I say unto you, the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges. - Alma 10:27

I live in Massachusetts...as liberal of a state as there is thanks to those fucking asshole Kennedy's. I have voted for both dems and republicans. If the homosexuals want to get married...all the power to them. They don't bother me and everybody has a right to be happy IMO.

First off, isn't it funny how people hate "judicial activists" until they rule in their favor?

Second, we get it dude. Not the first time that you more or less infer that polygamy getting pressed out of your denomination by the Feds was a big no no and now you have (to quote those chumps at Slate) "Agenda Envy." Someday perhaps polygamy will become legal again. But I don't know why that should be used against patriotic American tax-paying citizens who aren't hurting anybody.



"Chill out." - Jesus

I don't want any stinking judge legislating from the bench.

Polygamy is a larger step than gay marriage and won't have the support of many people who currently support gay marriage. Nevertheless it will slowly gain acceptance. Right now it's just getting through decriminalization stage. It's up to its adherents to fight for it.

http://jonathanturley.org/2013/12/22/a-v...morality-codes/

I personally see nothing wrong with polygamy, it's a little weird but if everyone involved is fine with it i don't see a problem. It makes no sense that cheating on your wife or husband is legal but having more than one is illegal even though all parties know.

You know, this Board has entertained the ripe postings of several characters over the decade or so that I've been a member of it, some of whom have been banned. However, the vitriol represented by some of your postings is unique.

Your written animations obscure any potential logic or reason inherent in your posts.

I'm not sure what you're babbling about. I've made my points very clear and they can't be argued with. Judges trying to use the 14th amendment to OK gay marriage is just as absurd as them using the 4th amendment to OK abortion. But liberal activist judges have to twist and distort what the law says in order to get their agendas through. It's why the Constitution is well on it's way to "hanging like a thread."

If they reverse the decision, what happens to the 1000 "marriages" that already took place?

A U.S. district judge in Austin will hold the first-ever hearing Thursday, Jan. 9 on federal lawsuits filed by same-sex couples challenging Texas’ marriage bans as unconstitutional. The three Texas lawsuits are part of a wave that have been filed across the country in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision striking down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act last June.

Judge Sam Sparks, of the Western District of Texas, will hold a status conference Thursday to consider pending motions in the lawsuits. Chief among those motions is a request from Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott, who’s defending the state’s marriage bans, to consolidate the three lawsuits into one. Plaintiffs in the cases oppose Abbott’s consolidation request, but an attorney for one acknowledged it’s likely to be granted.

That question shows the very arrogance of the judge who struck down that part of Utah's law. He knew damn well that this kind of legal problem would arise so he should have at least granted the stay until higher courts could rule. But oh no, he wanted to send a message regardless of the future problems it would cause.

Personally I found it funny that gay marriage would become allowed, even if only for a few weeks, in UTAH of all places when most of America has legalized gay marriage to some degree, that state will still be one of the last standing

Looks like that question was answered today with the feds announcing that they would recognize the 1000 marriages that have already taken place even if the state doesnt.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/...nefits-in-utah/

Most of America? Last time I checked, more states still ban gay marriage than have legalized it.

And there's nothing funny about one arrogant, activist judge being able to overrule the will of the majority population in a state.

Ivy I meant like way in the future not now. Although close to 40 percent of the states have legalized it.

I found humor because Utah is the last state on this earth that would vote for gay marriage yet it happened because our legal system has become quite tricky on this issue.

I know this is a serious issue for ya but cut me some slack eh Arch?

Add Michigan to the list:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/21/justice/michigan-gay-marriage/index.html

Notice how, with few exceptions, this continues to happen only because of these federal judges who overrule the will of the majority of the citizens in a state. Hopefully this will all eventually get to the Supreme Court and that they will make the right decision to leave it up to each state. But I'm not holding my breath.

Didn't know where else to post this:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/extr...p-leader-n67961

It's disappointing but whatever. They made a huge step forward in allowing kids who are gay to join.

Imo boy scouts is fucking stupid anyway, we (meaning my buddies) always saw it as the goodie two shoes group growing up. One scout leader I knew of was the biggest doofus he was this wicked fat dude with a 70s porn star mustache who thought he was the coolest dude ever. You couldn't find a more uptight son of a bitch. Something straight out of the 1950s I swear.

I really don't see the point in gay marriage? If one was gay why do they want to be RECOGNIZED do they deserve some sort of special attention? I saw two dudes kiss on the airplane and it just irritated and grossed me out. In general public displays like that are useless in my opinion as far as Utah there are some real weirdo's that come out of that state. I knew a white chick that moved from Utah to vegas, got a black pimp, drove him up the wazoo with her crazy BS then got sent to the looney bin after shaving her head. when she got out she married some really really ugly old guy it was a disgrace. freakin weird people with weird ideas. so gross

Question 1: What is the point?

Marriage confers a host of legal and practical rights, benefits and protections to an individual, who commits to another.

There are tax benefits, which allow the married to file jointly and claim deductions they couldn't if they were single. Marriage also allows the division of business income in a family partnership under tax laws.

Marriage allows one to inherit their spouse's entire estate without it being touched by federal and state tax laws. If not married, taxes and administrative costs can consume the majority of an estate. Marriage also allows the trensfer of property between spouses, and the creation of life estate trusts, like marital deduction trusts, limited to married peiple.

There are government benefits from a marital status too, involving Social Security, Medicare,veterans benefits for medical care, education and special loans, and publisc assistance.

The benefits from marriage extend to the workplace and include things like medical insurance, family leave, workers' comp, retirement plans, beravement leave.

Marriage also allows a spouse to make medical decisions, and allows for joint or step adoptions, eqof property through divorce and child support. There are benefits from insurance rateds and tuition discounts and other marketplace discounts.

Marriage offers legal protections with privileges and distinct causes of action the marital relationship.

I could go on, but the "point" should be clear.

Like many others, who oppose marriage equality, you miss the core of the issue as your question suggests. It's clearly not about wanting "special attention;" it's about receiving the same consideration that everyone else receives. Marriage is a civil contract that produces many benefits, some of which are mentioned in my previous post. There is not a compelling argument why any of those rights, benefits or privileges should be denied to a citizen, solely on the basis of sexual orientation. The only argument you put forth is that you find it icky, and that's just not enough, princess.

Thanks Kly. As usual, both of your posts immediately above are quite an enlightenment.

By the way the Pirates are undefeated while the Phillies are 1-1.

I was aware of all the laws and benefits of being married... it's not that I find it "icky" I find it repulsive and I'm sure there are plenty of pretend homosexuals and greedy f*cks that will find a way to use these "rights" to their benefit. Whatever not a big deal... the economy always finds a way to balance itself out.

So I guess have it homo's... enjoy yourselves...