DOMA struck down!

[LisaC]

Don't take my statement wrong, but the feds have no business in marriage anyway.


Sent by mental telepathy

^^^I've been saying this for a long time. I don't care what you do in your bedroom just don't expect me to endorse it if you choose to share. The government shouldn't either. I would prefer we not even discuss it.

I truly believe all of this is about all the other aspects of marriage not the bedroom. I do not want to discuss any bedroom stuff of anyone's, gay, straight, anything.

I agree - this case had to do with the fact that the plaintiff had to pay estate taxes because the federal government refused to acknowledge her same-sex marriage. Had this been a hetero couple, the tax would not have been applied. This is about benefits, not what happens in the bedroom.

That's why a man should be able to marry his son or daughter on his deathbed. How can their possibly be anything wrong with that? I mean, there is no right and wrong anymore as long as we believe no one is harmed by it, correct?

You can drink at work now? :confused

Interesting you should mention it, but from the summer of 1988 until the summer of of 1992, I was paid to drink on duty.

And I get a gig like that how? :spitchick Just kidding!

You have that gig now... :whistle

 

[ShoeDiva]

Don't take my statement wrong, but the feds have no business in marriage anyway.


Sent by mental telepathy

^^^I've been saying this for a long time. I don't care what you do in your bedroom just don't expect me to endorse it if you choose to share. The government shouldn't either. I would prefer we not even discuss it.

I truly believe all of this is about all the other aspects of marriage not the bedroom. I do not want to discuss any bedroom stuff of anyone's, gay, straight, anything.

I agree - this case had to do with the fact that the plaintiff had to pay estate taxes because the federal government refused to acknowledge her same-sex marriage. Had this been a hetero couple, the tax would not have been applied. This is about benefits, not what happens in the bedroom.

That's why a man should be able to marry his son or daughter on his deathbed. How can their possibly be anything wrong with that? I mean, there is no right and wrong anymore as long as we believe no one is harmed by it, correct?

You can drink at work now? :confused

Interesting you should mention it, but from the summer of 1988 until the summer of of 1992, I was paid to drink on duty.

And I get a gig like that how? :spitchick Just kidding!

You have that gig now... :whistle

:girlsaysno No one is paying me, want to volunteer?

 

[Grey Colson]

Don't take my statement wrong, but the feds have no business in marriage anyway.


Sent by mental telepathy

^^^I've been saying this for a long time. I don't care what you do in your bedroom just don't expect me to endorse it if you choose to share. The government shouldn't either. I would prefer we not even discuss it.

I truly believe all of this is about all the other aspects of marriage not the bedroom. I do not want to discuss any bedroom stuff of anyone's, gay, straight, anything.

I agree - this case had to do with the fact that the plaintiff had to pay estate taxes because the federal government refused to acknowledge her same-sex marriage. Had this been a hetero couple, the tax would not have been applied. This is about benefits, not what happens in the bedroom.

That's why a man should be able to marry his son or daughter on his deathbed. How can their possibly be anything wrong with that? I mean, there is no right and wrong anymore as long as we believe no one is harmed by it, correct?

You can drink at work now? :confused

Interesting you should mention it, but from the summer of 1988 until the summer of of 1992, I was paid to drink on duty.

And I get a gig like that how? :spitchick Just kidding!

You have that gig now... :whistle

Naw, I'm getting too old for such shenanigans. :faint

 

[stradial]

This is a topic that I have a tough time with.
I understand that there are people who are gay (and I do believe that some are just wired that way) and they are just like most everyone else, they are looking for that special someone to spend their life with.
On one hand, why should they be denied the same benefits and penalties of being married as a straight person.
On the other hand, I do believe that there are those who's agenda is to carry this further than just "gay marriage".

I also know based on history, that once you start down a path, there is a tendency to continue past the point that is the stated goal.
Case in point, when the shouting was to decriminalize pot in the 70's, the opposition said that doing so would lead to pot becoming legal.
No way! Shouted the group that wanted pot decriminalized. That is just crazy talk!
Well, where are we now?

For those who say that marriage should not be the governments job, marrage always has been the governments job.
It is a legal contract made between two people, that is filed with the courts.
That is why you need a lawyer (most times) and a judge (always) to dissolve said contract.

Just for the record, I voted against same sex marriage when it was on the ballot.
I am not sure what I would do again, I would not vote for it, but I don't know if I would vote against it or just not vote. (which is the cowards way of voting yes)

 

[Grey Colson]

This is a topic that I have a tough time with.
I understand that there are people who are gay (and I do believe that some are just wired that way) and they are just like most everyone else, they are looking for that special someone to spend their life with.
On one hand, why should they be denied the same benefits and penalties of being married as a straight person.
On the other hand, I do believe that there are those who's agenda is to carry this further than just "gay marriage".

I also know based on history, that once you start down a path, there is a tendency to continue past the point that is the stated goal.
Case in point, when the shouting was to decriminalize pot in the 70's, the opposition said that doing so would lead to pot becoming legal.
No way! Shouted the group that wanted pot decriminalized. That is just crazy talk!
Well, where are we now?
For those who say that marriage should not be the governments job, marrage always has been the governments job.
It is a legal contract made between two people, that is filed with the courts.
That is why you need a lawyer (most times) and a judge (always) to dissolve said contract.

Just for the record, I voted against same sex marriage when it was on the ballot.
I am not sure what I would do again, I would not vote for it, but I don't know if I would vote against it or just not vote. (which is the cowards way of voting yes)

I believe that very thing is a BIG part of the reason many are against it. You might be quite interested in the next book regarding that issue. (not gays for heaven's sake, but pot)

The only thing I will respectfully disagree with is that marriage was not "always the government's job". God conducted the first marriage when he created Eve from Adam. "Bone of my bone", "Flesh of my flesh" as it is written. Marriage has always been a sacred institution that belongs to God and God alone.

Now, there are obviouly those who don't believe that, so we'll see what comes down the pike next. As I previously mentioned, "And who here is surprised?". Not me...many of us know this world is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.

 

[stradial]

This is a topic that I have a tough time with.
I understand that there are people who are gay (and I do believe that some are just wired that way) and they are just like most everyone else, they are looking for that special someone to spend their life with.
On one hand, why should they be denied the same benefits and penalties of being married as a straight person.
On the other hand, I do believe that there are those who's agenda is to carry this further than just "gay marriage".

I also know based on history, that once you start down a path, there is a tendency to continue past the point that is the stated goal.
Case in point, when the shouting was to decriminalize pot in the 70's, the opposition said that doing so would lead to pot becoming legal.
No way! Shouted the group that wanted pot decriminalized. That is just crazy talk!
Well, where are we now?
For those who say that marriage should not be the governments job, marrage always has been the governments job.
It is a legal contract made between two people, that is filed with the courts.
That is why you need a lawyer (most times) and a judge (always) to dissolve said contract.

Just for the record, I voted against same sex marriage when it was on the ballot.
I am not sure what I would do again, I would not vote for it, but I don't know if I would vote against it or just not vote. (which is the cowards way of voting yes)

I believe that very thing is a BIG part of the reason many are against it. You might be quite interested in the next book regarding that issue. (not gays for heaven's sake, but pot)

The only thing I will respectfully disagree with is that marriage was not "always the government's job". God conducted the first marriage when he created Eve from Adam. "Bone of my bone", "Flesh of my flesh" as it is written. Marriage has always been a sacred institution that belongs to God and God alone.

Now, there are obviouly those who don't believe that, so we'll see what comes down the pike next. As I previously mentioned, "And who here is surprised?". Not me...many of us know this world is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.

I will not "argue" on whether or not God conducted the first marrage.
That is a matter of faith and I believe strongly that each person has a right to their beliefs and their faith.

But history shows that marrage was and has been defined by whatever culture there was at the time and at that place.
What is considered "right" and what is considered "wrong" has changed depending on the culture and the time in history.

I think, for me, the point is, what as a society in this time and place, are we willing to accept.
Again for me, the question is not whether a man should "marry" a man or a woman "marry" a woman.
The question is, would that be the end?
Or would history show that this was the beginning of where it became ok for someone to marry their sheep?
Maybe I am paranoid, but I believe it is a good question.
I would like to think that I am just paranoid, but I am not sure.

 

[Grey Colson]

This is a topic that I have a tough time with.
I understand that there are people who are gay (and I do believe that some are just wired that way) and they are just like most everyone else, they are looking for that special someone to spend their life with.
On one hand, why should they be denied the same benefits and penalties of being married as a straight person.
On the other hand, I do believe that there are those who's agenda is to carry this further than just "gay marriage".

I also know based on history, that once you start down a path, there is a tendency to continue past the point that is the stated goal.
Case in point, when the shouting was to decriminalize pot in the 70's, the opposition said that doing so would lead to pot becoming legal.
No way! Shouted the group that wanted pot decriminalized. That is just crazy talk!
Well, where are we now?
For those who say that marriage should not be the governments job, marrage always has been the governments job.
It is a legal contract made between two people, that is filed with the courts.
That is why you need a lawyer (most times) and a judge (always) to dissolve said contract.

Just for the record, I voted against same sex marriage when it was on the ballot.
I am not sure what I would do again, I would not vote for it, but I don't know if I would vote against it or just not vote. (which is the cowards way of voting yes)

I believe that very thing is a BIG part of the reason many are against it. You might be quite interested in the next book regarding that issue. (not gays for heaven's sake, but pot)

The only thing I will respectfully disagree with is that marriage was not "always the government's job". God conducted the first marriage when he created Eve from Adam. "Bone of my bone", "Flesh of my flesh" as it is written. Marriage has always been a sacred institution that belongs to God and God alone.

Now, there are obviouly those who don't believe that, so we'll see what comes down the pike next. As I previously mentioned, "And who here is surprised?". Not me...many of us know this world is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.

I will not "argue" on whether or not God conducted the first marrage.
That is a matter of faith and I believe strongly that each person has a right to their beliefs and their faith.

But history shows that marrage was and has been defined by whatever culture there was at the time and at that place.
What is considered "right" and what is considered "wrong" has changed depending on the culture and the time in history.

I think, for me, the point is, what as a society in this time and place, are we willing to accept.
Again for me, the question is not whether a man should "marry" a man or a woman "marry" a woman.
The question is, would that be the end?
Or would history show that this was the beginning of where it became ok for someone to marry their sheep?
Maybe I am paranoid, but I believe it is a good question.
I would like to think that I am just paranoid, but I am not sure.

I agree it is a good question...and I wasn't arguing, just stating my belief and faith in the only document that has lasted throughout the ages.

As the sign on my old preacher's desk read: "When all else fails, follow the directions" ;D

 

[stradial]

This is a topic that I have a tough time with.
I understand that there are people who are gay (and I do believe that some are just wired that way) and they are just like most everyone else, they are looking for that special someone to spend their life with.
On one hand, why should they be denied the same benefits and penalties of being married as a straight person.
On the other hand, I do believe that there are those who's agenda is to carry this further than just "gay marriage".

I also know based on history, that once you start down a path, there is a tendency to continue past the point that is the stated goal.
Case in point, when the shouting was to decriminalize pot in the 70's, the opposition said that doing so would lead to pot becoming legal.
No way! Shouted the group that wanted pot decriminalized. That is just crazy talk!
Well, where are we now?
For those who say that marriage should not be the governments job, marrage always has been the governments job.
It is a legal contract made between two people, that is filed with the courts.
That is why you need a lawyer (most times) and a judge (always) to dissolve said contract.

Just for the record, I voted against same sex marriage when it was on the ballot.
I am not sure what I would do again, I would not vote for it, but I don't know if I would vote against it or just not vote. (which is the cowards way of voting yes)

I believe that very thing is a BIG part of the reason many are against it. You might be quite interested in the next book regarding that issue. (not gays for heaven's sake, but pot)

The only thing I will respectfully disagree with is that marriage was not "always the government's job". God conducted the first marriage when he created Eve from Adam. "Bone of my bone", "Flesh of my flesh" as it is written. Marriage has always been a sacred institution that belongs to God and God alone.

Now, there are obviouly those who don't believe that, so we'll see what comes down the pike next. As I previously mentioned, "And who here is surprised?". Not me...many of us know this world is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.

I will not "argue" on whether or not God conducted the first marrage.
That is a matter of faith and I believe strongly that each person has a right to their beliefs and their faith.

But history shows that marrage was and has been defined by whatever culture there was at the time and at that place.
What is considered "right" and what is considered "wrong" has changed depending on the culture and the time in history.

I think, for me, the point is, what as a society in this time and place, are we willing to accept.
Again for me, the question is not whether a man should "marry" a man or a woman "marry" a woman.
The question is, would that be the end?
Or would history show that this was the beginning of where it became ok for someone to marry their sheep?
Maybe I am paranoid, but I believe it is a good question.
I would like to think that I am just paranoid, but I am not sure.

I agree it is a good question...and I wasn't arguing, just stating my belief and faith in the only document that has lasted throughout the ages.

As the sign on my old preacher's desk read: "When all else fails, follow the directions" ;D

Please understand, I wasn't accusing you of arguing, I was stating that I wasn't going to argue.
I realize you were stating your beliefs and I have no problem with that.
ETA (not that it would matter if I did )

 

[LisaC]

Don't take my statement wrong, but the feds have no business in marriage anyway.


Sent by mental telepathy

^^^I've been saying this for a long time. I don't care what you do in your bedroom just don't expect me to endorse it if you choose to share. The government shouldn't either. I would prefer we not even discuss it.

I truly believe all of this is about all the other aspects of marriage not the bedroom. I do not want to discuss any bedroom stuff of anyone's, gay, straight, anything.

I agree - this case had to do with the fact that the plaintiff had to pay estate taxes because the federal government refused to acknowledge her same-sex marriage. Had this been a hetero couple, the tax would not have been applied. This is about benefits, not what happens in the bedroom.

That's why a man should be able to marry his son or daughter on his deathbed. How can their possibly be anything wrong with that? I mean, there is no right and wrong anymore as long as we believe no one is harmed by it, correct?

You can drink at work now? :confused

Interesting you should mention it, but from the summer of 1988 until the summer of of 1992, I was paid to drink on duty.

And I get a gig like that how? :spitchick Just kidding!

You have that gig now... :whistle

:girlsaysno No one is paying me, want to volunteer?

I think Sugar Daddy Diva will disagree with that statement - I've seen the results of some of those shopping trips... :laugh

 

[LisaC]

Did you know that when the country was young, it was against the law for a clergy person to preform a marriage?
It was strictly a legal affair and preformed only be legal persons.

No point, just a bit of trivia.

I actually did not. I will look that up, interesting. :thumbsup

Back in the day, marriages were also arranged by families, not by consent of the bride. It has been said that Mary could have been as young as 13 when she had Jesus. Today, that thought is shocking!

 

[J-man]

Did you know that when the country was young, it was against the law for a clergy person to preform a marriage?
It was strictly a legal affair and preformed only be legal persons.

No point, just a bit of trivia.

I actually did not. I will look that up, interesting. :thumbsup

Back in the day, marriages were also arranged by families, not by consent of the bride. It has been said that Mary could have been as young as 13 when she had Jesus. Today, that thought is shocking!

That actually held true until just 3 generations ago. It was common for young teenage girls to marry and immediately start a family, and to have as many as a dozen kids.

 

[Grey Colson]

Did you know that when the country was young, it was against the law for a clergy person to preform a marriage?
It was strictly a legal affair and preformed only be legal persons.

No point, just a bit of trivia.

I actually did not. I will look that up, interesting. :thumbsup

Back in the day, marriages were also arranged by families, not by consent of the bride. It has been said that Mary could have been as young as 13 when she had Jesus. Today, that thought is shocking!

What did they do at night? :Ninja

 

[LisaC]

Did you know that when the country was young, it was against the law for a clergy person to preform a marriage?
It was strictly a legal affair and preformed only be legal persons.

No point, just a bit of trivia.

I actually did not. I will look that up, interesting. :thumbsup

Back in the day, marriages were also arranged by families, not by consent of the bride. It has been said that Mary could have been as young as 13 when she had Jesus. Today, that thought is shocking!

What did they do at night? :Ninja

Held gay orgies with the boy scouts. Why do you think the BSA had to come up with the silly rule to exclude gay boys?

 

[Grey Colson]

Did you know that when the country was young, it was against the law for a clergy person to preform a marriage?
It was strictly a legal affair and preformed only be legal persons.

No point, just a bit of trivia.

I actually did not. I will look that up, interesting. :thumbsup

Back in the day, marriages were also arranged by families, not by consent of the bride. It has been said that Mary could have been as young as 13 when she had Jesus. Today, that thought is shocking!

What did they do at night? :Ninja

Held gay orgies with the boy scouts. Why do you think the BSA had to come up with the silly rule to exclude gay boys?

Interesting, but now I understand why they have Webelos in the Cub Scouts. Thank God I never attempted to acquire that particular activity badge. :whistle

 

[ShoeDiva]

Did you know that when the country was young, it was against the law for a clergy person to preform a marriage?
It was strictly a legal affair and preformed only be legal persons.

No point, just a bit of trivia.

I actually did not. I will look that up, interesting. :thumbsup

Back in the day, marriages were also arranged by families, not by consent of the bride. It has been said that Mary could have been as young as 13 when she had Jesus. Today, that thought is shocking!

That actually held true until just 3 generations ago. It was common for young teenage girls to marry and immediately start a family, and to have as many as a dozen kids.

I did know about all the arranged marriages and did you know that it still happens? Not here, (that I know of) but in certain cultures.
I still can not find anything on StRadials bit of trivia....point me in the right direction.

 

[LisaC]

Did you know that when the country was young, it was against the law for a clergy person to preform a marriage?
It was strictly a legal affair and preformed only be legal persons.

No point, just a bit of trivia.

I actually did not. I will look that up, interesting. :thumbsup

Back in the day, marriages were also arranged by families, not by consent of the bride. It has been said that Mary could have been as young as 13 when she had Jesus. Today, that thought is shocking!

What did they do at night? :Ninja

Held gay orgies with the boy scouts. Why do you think the BSA had to come up with the silly rule to exclude gay boys?

Interesting, but now I understand why they have Webelos in the Cub Scouts. Thank God I never attempted to acquire that particular activity badge. :whistle

:spitchick

 

[LisaC]

Did you know that when the country was young, it was against the law for a clergy person to preform a marriage?
It was strictly a legal affair and preformed only be legal persons.

No point, just a bit of trivia.

I actually did not. I will look that up, interesting. :thumbsup

Back in the day, marriages were also arranged by families, not by consent of the bride. It has been said that Mary could have been as young as 13 when she had Jesus. Today, that thought is shocking!

That actually held true until just 3 generations ago. It was common for young teenage girls to marry and immediately start a family, and to have as many as a dozen kids.

I did know about all the arranged marriages and did you know that it still happens? Not here, (that I know of) but in certain cultures.
I still can not find anything on StRadials bit of trivia....point me in the right direction.

That's true - it's still pretty common in India.

 

[ShoeDiva]

Did you know that when the country was young, it was against the law for a clergy person to preform a marriage?
It was strictly a legal affair and preformed only be legal persons.

No point, just a bit of trivia.

I actually did not. I will look that up, interesting. :thumbsup

Back in the day, marriages were also arranged by families, not by consent of the bride. It has been said that Mary could have been as young as 13 when she had Jesus. Today, that thought is shocking!

That actually held true until just 3 generations ago. It was common for young teenage girls to marry and immediately start a family, and to have as many as a dozen kids.

I did know about all the arranged marriages and did you know that it still happens? Not here, (that I know of) but in certain cultures.
I still can not find anything on StRadials bit of trivia....point me in the right direction.

That's true - it's still pretty common in India.

) That is exactly where I was thinking about it still happening!

 

[stradial]

Did you know that when the country was young, it was against the law for a clergy person to preform a marriage?
It was strictly a legal affair and preformed only be legal persons.

No point, just a bit of trivia.

I actually did not. I will look that up, interesting. :thumbsup

Back in the day, marriages were also arranged by families, not by consent of the bride. It has been said that Mary could have been as young as 13 when she had Jesus. Today, that thought is shocking!

That actually held true until just 3 generations ago. It was common for young teenage girls to marry and immediately start a family, and to have as many as a dozen kids.

I did know about all the arranged marriages and did you know that it still happens? Not here, (that I know of) but in certain cultures.
I still can not find anything on StRadials bit of trivia....point me in the right direction.

I can't remember which documentary I saw it in.
But they discussed how it was illegal for "preacher" to marry someone and gave the info on how, why and when that changed.
Early colonist viewed marriage as a legal thing only.

ETA It stuck in my mind because I had never known that before and I found it very interesting.

 

[LisaC]

Did you know that when the country was young, it was against the law for a clergy person to preform a marriage?
It was strictly a legal affair and preformed only be legal persons.

No point, just a bit of trivia.

I actually did not. I will look that up, interesting. :thumbsup

Back in the day, marriages were also arranged by families, not by consent of the bride. It has been said that Mary could have been as young as 13 when she had Jesus. Today, that thought is shocking!

That actually held true until just 3 generations ago. It was common for young teenage girls to marry and immediately start a family, and to have as many as a dozen kids.

I did know about all the arranged marriages and did you know that it still happens? Not here, (that I know of) but in certain cultures.
I still can not find anything on StRadials bit of trivia....point me in the right direction.

I can't remember which documentary I saw it in.
But they discussed how it was illegal for "preacher" to marry someone and gave the info on how, why and when that changed.
Early colonist viewed marriage as a legal thing only.

ETA It stuck in my mind because I had never known that before and I found it very interesting.

Here's a little help...

In the colonies, weddings were not religious ceremonies. Rather, they were a civil contract that set the responsibilities and duties of husband and wife.

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/about_4568812_colonial-marriage-customs.html#ixzz2XLeGAAqI