The W
Views: 98553893
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
30.8.14 2134
The W - Current Events & Politics - Supreme Court gets it right - Gay Marriage not blocked
This thread has 4 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.78
Pages: 1 2 Next
(1368 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (24 total)
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 7 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
AIM:  
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.81
http://story.news.yahoo.com/ news?tmpl=story&cid=514& e=6&u=/ap/20040515/ap_on_re_us/ gay_marriage_courts



Willful ignorance of science is not commendable. Refusing to learn the difference between a credible source and a shill is criminally stupid.
Promote this thread!
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.07
WOW, it take a lot of courage to not make any decision. ;-)



CRZ
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 1 day
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.47


Seriously Zed, sometimes it takes more courage than acting.



Perception is reality
wordlife
Head cheese








Since: 4.4.03

Since last post: 3308 days
Last activity: 2592 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 10.00


Dr., I hardly ever agree with you and that was about as well said as it can be.

My building is right next to Boston City Hall and there is a crowd outside ready. It is pretty amazing to watch history unfold right in front of your eyes.



"I just wonder where this leads to. Will it be the Bad News Bears with Chico's Bail Bonds on the back of our uniforms?"
--A's OF Billy McMillon regarding the Spider Man bases
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1216 days
Last activity: 1013 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
It's history that won't last long, more than likely.

The Supreme Court did get it right. This is a state issue, and not a federal one.

It is the State Courts making up law as they go along that has created the current situation.



Farley and Belushi are taken away in their prime yet Moore's heart continues to pump bacon grease in and out. God has a brutal sense of humor sometimes.- Barbwire Mike
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 425 days
Last activity: 425 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.45
The most important item about Gay Marriage: It could double the business for divorce lawyers.
As for it not lasting long, at the earliest it hits the ballot in 2006. And, this is the state that repeatedly sends such bastions of morality as Barney Frank and the Senior Driving Instructor Ted Kennedy to Washington, so even if it ends up on the ballot, at best its a toss-up over whether it gets overturned.

(edited by redsoxnation on 17.5.04 1102)


These are desperate times. And desperate times call for desperate measures. Thus, its time to break out the Cubs/White Sox/Red Sox call to put the Kaiser back on the throne.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 1 day
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.30
    Originally posted by Grimis
    It's history that won't last long, more than likely.

    The Supreme Court did get it right. This is a state issue, and not a federal one.

    It is the State Courts making up law as they go along that has created the current situation.


They interviewed one of the couples waitng in line on the Today show and I think she got it right. The vote is in 2006. By the time there is a vote, if not much happens, it will be pretty much a non issue for many. If the world doesn't end by the vote and life goes on as normal, I doubt it will be changed.

Keep in mind, I am not personally in favor of this but of a civil union. However, I think this will stand. Even our pols in Kansas couldn't get together to ban same sex marriage this session. If you can't do it in Kansas, MA?



Perception is reality
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 31 days
Last activity: 5 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.69
Since sometimes people on this board, myself included, can get into a mode where no one who is opposed to what we believe can EVER say or do anything right, I'd like to quote the following response I read as something I applaud and give the man involved a lot of credit for being big enough to say this sort of thing:

From AP via Yahoo (story.news.yahoo.com)

About 15 protesters, most from Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church, stood near Cambridge City Hall carrying signs with anti-gay slogans Sunday night. The group, led by the Rev. Fred Phelps Sr., travels around the country protesting homosexuality.


But Ray McNulty, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Family Institute, one of the leading organizers of opposition to same-sex marriage, criticized some of the protesters, saying there was no need for hateful speech.


"What's going on down there is legal, and as far as I'm concerned, give those people their happiness for the day," McNulty said.


Good on you Ray McNulty.

(edited by spf2119 on 17.5.04 1115)


Toil not to gain wealth, cease to be concerned about it. Proverbs 23:4


johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com
Reverend J Shaft
Liverwurst








Since: 25.6.03
From: Home of The Big House

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 1 day
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.09
    Originally posted by Grimis
    It's history that won't last long, more than likely.

    The Supreme Court did get it right. This is a state issue, and not a federal one.

    It is the State Courts making up law as they go along that has created the current situation.


Can someone explain how this affects federal income tax policy for married people? It appears that the Supreme Court seems content to leave this issue to the states. Does it mean that if the state that married people reside (or work?) in state that recognizes the marriage, then they are susceptible to the same tax implications that other married couples have? Are there not any other "federal-level" issues that involve marriage? How do you reconcile these federal issues with each individual state's laws on same-sex marriage?

I've combed the net for this, but I can't seem to find anything...
wordlife
Head cheese








Since: 4.4.03

Since last post: 3308 days
Last activity: 2592 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 10.00
    Originally posted by Reverend J Shaft
      Originally posted by Grimis
      It's history that won't last long, more than likely.

      The Supreme Court did get it right. This is a state issue, and not a federal one.

      It is the State Courts making up law as they go along that has created the current situation.


    Can someone explain how this affects federal income tax policy for married people? It appears that the Supreme Court seems content to leave this issue to the states. Does it mean that if the state that married people reside (or work?) in state that recognizes the marriage, then they are susceptible to the same tax implications that other married couples have? Are there not any other "federal-level" issues that involve marriage? How do you reconcile these federal issues with each individual state's laws on same-sex marriage?

    I've combed the net for this, but I can't seem to find anything...


I am a tax accountant. A co-worker and myself have actually done some research on this and all of this (marriage) reverts back to state law. Basically, these people will file their returns as a married couple according to our research.

The crazy thing is that most of the gay couples I have met are gonna get killed in taxes due to their high income and most of them will be phased out of deductions (standard/itemized, tax credits and exemptions).



"I just wonder where this leads to. Will it be the Bad News Bears with Chico's Bail Bonds on the back of our uniforms?"
--A's OF Billy McMillon regarding the Spider Man bases
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 1 day
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.30
    Originally posted by spf2119
    Since sometimes people on this board, myself included, can get into a mode where no one who is opposed to what we believe can EVER say or do anything right, I'd like to quote the following response I read as something I applaud and give the man involved a lot of credit for being big enough to say this sort of thing:

    From AP via Yahoo (story.news.yahoo.com)

    About 15 protesters, most from Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church, stood near Cambridge City Hall carrying signs with anti-gay slogans Sunday night. The group, led by the Rev. Fred Phelps Sr., travels around the country protesting homosexuality.


    But Ray McNulty, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Family Institute, one of the leading organizers of opposition to same-sex marriage, criticized some of the protesters, saying there was no need for hateful speech.


    "What's going on down there is legal, and as far as I'm concerned, give those people their happiness for the day," McNulty said.


    Good on you Ray McNulty.

    (edited by spf2119 on 17.5.04 1115)


Living in Kansas, I can state confidently that Phelps and his haters are detested here and by people who agree with them but sickened by their hate. The worst thing is they do it in the name of God.



Perception is reality
Spaceman Spiff
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: Philly Suburbs

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 57 min.
AIM:  
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
Wasn't Phelps the guy who protested (or tried to do so) at Mr. Rogers's funeral, denouncing Mr. Rogers?

Yeah, he's some piece of work.



Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 280 days
Last activity: 274 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.45

One of the biggest upshots of this is that eventually every state will have to define what is a "marriageable" relationship when it comes to benefits and the like.

Example: Two middle-aged people with no romantic intentions enter into a "marriage" so that they can later claim spousal benefits from each others workplaces and/or the government?

Before the flames hit: no, I do not support gay marriages, but I do wholeheartedly support civil unions that cover wills, trusts, patient rights, etc.







"In the sky. Lord, in the sky..."
Big G
Potato korv








Since: 21.8.03
From: the people who brought you Steel Magnolias....

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.73
    Originally posted by Eddie Famous
    One of the biggest upshots of this is that eventually every state will have to define what is a "marriageable" relationship when it comes to benefits and the like.

    Example: Two middle-aged people with no romantic intentions enter into a "marriage" so that they can later claim spousal benefits from each others workplaces and/or the government?

    Before the flames hit: no, I do not support gay marriages, but I do wholeheartedly support civil unions that cover wills, trusts, patient rights, etc.






Sounds like a good premise for a movie starring two washed up Australian actors. Whoops Too Late(IMDB).



(edited by Big G on 17.5.04 2031)


    Originally posted by Jeb Tennyson Lund
    One of these days, when Triple H is in the middle of one of his long grunting promos, Jericho should just lean forward, stick his finger on the end of Triple H's schnozz and say, "poooooooke!" No one will know what to do.

WOTD 16 Dec 2003
Stilton
Frankfurter








Since: 7.2.04
From: Canada

Since last post: 3130 days
Last activity: 3130 days
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.98
    Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff
    Wasn't Phelps the guy who protested (or tried to do so) at Mr. Rogers's funeral, denouncing Mr. Rogers?

    Yeah, he's some piece of work.


Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

You mean, someone actually showed up to Fred Rogers' funeral trying to smear the man's name? That's horrid!

You know, I know these same people show up at the funeral's of people who've died of AIDS. They carry placards saying that AIDS is God's gift to family values and such. Kind of makes you think that these are Christians who stopped reading the Bible before they got to the New Testament, and they missed out on all the "Love thy neighbor" (will you be my Neighbor?) and "turn the other cheek" stuff... you know, all the things that Jesus said that the tenets of Christianity was supposedly founded on.

Here in Canada, we get some of the same stuff. We've had legal same-sex marriages here for about a year, and at first the news stations went out looking for kooks to say nasty things about gay people, you know, just to show that there's an opposing point of view out there somewhere. After a while, the news stopped bothering to give these nutbars free airtime for their hate-speech.

Anyway, I've already been to two gay weddings, and so far, they're not much different than the straight kind... I got just as drunk at the receptions, but I found I asked fewer girls dance during the slow songs. That was pretty much the only difference as far I was concerned.



"Have you seen my baseball?"
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 3 days
AIM:  
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.58
    Originally posted by Stilton
      Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff
      Wasn't Phelps the guy who protested (or tried to do so) at Mr. Rogers's funeral, denouncing Mr. Rogers?

      Yeah, he's some piece of work.


    Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

    You mean, someone actually showed up to Fred Rogers' funeral trying to smear the man's name? That's horrid!


It wasn't his funeral exactly, but a public memorial service about a month later. They did indeed show up, but the local news media did the right thing and didn't even give them a moment of face time on the air.

(It seems that, because Mr. Rogers taught children that they all are special and never added "except for you faggots - you can burn in hell", he was part of the "homosexual agenda" or something.)



PayWindah
Weisswurst








Since: 8.6.03
From: Gautier, MS

Since last post: 3516 days
Last activity: 1706 days
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.34
    Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff
    Wasn't Phelps the guy who protested (or tried to do so) at Mr. Rogers's funeral, denouncing Mr. Rogers?

    Yeah, he's some piece of work.
I believe so, yes.

His "church" is also responsible for this bastion of intellectuality:

http://www.godhatesfags.com

Sad, pathetic stuff right there.
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.46
I am no legal scholar, but if one state does recognise gay marriage, doesnt every other state have to recognise it, since it is considered a contract between two people? Or am I just way off on that?



Thank you for your irrelevant opinion.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 1 day
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.34
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    I am no legal scholar, but if one state does recognise gay marriage, doesnt every other state have to recognise it, since it is considered a contract between two people? Or am I just way off on that?


I believe that's correct with some exceptions. Full faith and credit, etc. There are exceptions but like you I am not a lawyer. Although for the most part I imagine people entering into gay marriage would stay where they feel most secure and comfortable. I would.



Perception is reality
Jellofiend
Weisswurst








Since: 4.5.04
From: Oxford, Ohio

Since last post: 833 days
Last activity: 833 days
#20 Posted on
I believe the Federal Defense of Marriage Act invokes Full Faith and Credit so, no other states don't have to recognize same-sex marriage. I never thought I would see the day when the government would say "For the love of the children, don't get married." I guess as a Christian I should be offended that people are so anti-marriage but this isn't a religious issue.

Another question to the lawyers out there, I've heard that other times the court has made a decision that had a deadline like the Mass. case. Specifically, an education reform issue here in Ohio. The way I heard it made it seem like the Mass. decision wasn't all that groundbreaking and I was wondering if there is other precedent out there.
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 5.78
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: Four Arrested in Nicholas Berg Murder
Next thread: Mobile Register calls for Resignation of Ted Kennedy
Previous thread: Worrisome Numbers In Iraqi Opinion Poll
(1368 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
How much longer is Davis' term anyway?
- DJ FrostyFreeze, Semi-interesting headline writing (2003)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Supreme Court gets it right - Gay Marriage not blockedRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.14 seconds.