#1
Posted: 7/8/13 at 12:05pm
Indiana Passes Law: Same Sex Marriages are a Felony
#2
Posted: 7/8/13 at 12:11pm
*shakes head*
....but the world goes 'round
#3
Posted: 7/8/13 at 12:12pm
I'm surprised the ACLU isn't all over this.
#4
Posted: 7/8/13 at 12:12pm
Shame on you, Indiana
"All our dreams can come true -- if we have the courage to pursue them." -- Walt Disney
We must have different Gods. My God said "do to others what you would have them do to you". Your God seems to have said "My Way or the Highway".
#5
Posted: 7/8/13 at 12:13pm
But they still don't address the ultimate question on the form if you are related to the person you are applying to marry: sibling, first cousin, etc so that isn't a problem?!
#6
Posted: 7/8/13 at 12:23pm
How is this constitutional?
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#7
Posted: 7/8/13 at 12:24pm
Because gay people gross.
#8
Posted: 7/8/13 at 1:12pm
It's in direct violation of the Constitution.
Who wants to bet on the final outcome? Does Indiana have a change of heart and scrap it, or is this ridiculous law going to the higher courts? What a waste of taxpayer money...
Who wants to bet on the final outcome? Does Indiana have a change of heart and scrap it, or is this ridiculous law going to the higher courts? What a waste of taxpayer money...
#9
Posted: 7/8/13 at 1:15pm
Arguendo!
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
#10
Posted: 7/8/13 at 10:37pm
"How is this constitutional?"
How is it unConstitutional?
It sounds like a stupid law; punishing people with a felony and 18 months in prison for APPLYING for a license (ANY type of license)?? Doesn't make sense, but not sure how it is unconstitutional.
How is it unConstitutional?
It sounds like a stupid law; punishing people with a felony and 18 months in prison for APPLYING for a license (ANY type of license)?? Doesn't make sense, but not sure how it is unconstitutional.
#11
Posted: 7/8/13 at 11:49pm
Put aside the inherent unconstitutionality of a government discriminating against citizens based on sexual orientation by the rights promised in the Constitution guaranteeing due process and equal protection under the law that renders any law banning gay marriage inherently unconstitutional by most reasonable definitions. This is a crime that only a gay couple can commit, which makes this law blatantly unconstitutional as it only applies to certain citizens.
Furthermore, the component of the law that would charge clergymen who preside over gay marriages with a misdemeanor is a quite clear violation of freedom of religion and the establishment clause of the First Amendment. How can the government tell a liberal Church or some sort of progressive religious what it can consider marriage and be within its Constitutional bounds that require freedom of religion?
Furthermore, the component of the law that would charge clergymen who preside over gay marriages with a misdemeanor is a quite clear violation of freedom of religion and the establishment clause of the First Amendment. How can the government tell a liberal Church or some sort of progressive religious what it can consider marriage and be within its Constitutional bounds that require freedom of religion?
Scratch and claw for every day you're worth!
Make them drag you screaming from life, keep dreaming
You'll live forever here on earth.
#12
Posted: 7/9/13 at 12:38am
"This is a crime that only a gay couple can commit, which makes this law blatantly unconstitutional as it only applies to certain citizens"
No. I believe that a straight man trying to get a marriage license with another straight man would also be in violation of the law.
"How can the government tell a liberal Church or some sort of progressive religious what it can consider marriage and be within its Constitutional bounds that require freedom of religion?"
Do I really need to bring the Mormons into this??
No. I believe that a straight man trying to get a marriage license with another straight man would also be in violation of the law.
"How can the government tell a liberal Church or some sort of progressive religious what it can consider marriage and be within its Constitutional bounds that require freedom of religion?"
Do I really need to bring the Mormons into this??
#13
Posted: 7/9/13 at 12:53am
No you need to fvck off and choke to death on a coc k.
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
#14
Posted: 7/9/13 at 1:23am
I have always said, Namo, that dying while doing something you love to do, is the ONLY way to exit! May I be so lucky!
Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!
#15
Posted: 7/9/13 at 1:26am
You and me both. But then again we're not closeted self loathers!
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
#16
Posted: 7/9/13 at 1:49am
Oh please, nobody would enforce this. Ever.
Listen, I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it is "artistic". - JANICE
#17
Posted: 7/9/13 at 3:04am
Do I really need to bring the Mormons into this??
you could, but you would also have to mention that, by "polygamy," the mormons meant, "marry off underage girls to creepy male relatives who otherwise couldn't get laid."
but since you wish to bring them up, i am sure you will affirm that the battle of comura, as described in the book of the mormon, where the "fair-skinned, handsome" nephites defeated the "dark-skinned" laminites did indeed happen in upstate new york.
you could, but you would also have to mention that, by "polygamy," the mormons meant, "marry off underage girls to creepy male relatives who otherwise couldn't get laid."
but since you wish to bring them up, i am sure you will affirm that the battle of comura, as described in the book of the mormon, where the "fair-skinned, handsome" nephites defeated the "dark-skinned" laminites did indeed happen in upstate new york.
#18
Posted: 7/9/13 at 8:50am
"but since you wish to bring them up, i am sure you will affirm that the battle of comura, as described in the book of the mormon, where the "fair-skinned, handsome" nephites defeated the "dark-skinned" laminites did indeed happen in upstate new york."
You are deflecting. I am not justifying or defending or sticking up for the Mormon religion or their beliefs. I am simply taking the argument that making a certain religion's beliefs regarding matrimony illegal is against the 1st Amendment. That was the question raised by Broadwaydevil, "How can the government tell a liberal Church or some sort of progressive religious what it can consider marriage and be within its Constitutional bounds that require freedom of religion?"
But that is EXACTLY what the government is doing by outlawing polygamy in the Mormon church.
You are deflecting. I am not justifying or defending or sticking up for the Mormon religion or their beliefs. I am simply taking the argument that making a certain religion's beliefs regarding matrimony illegal is against the 1st Amendment. That was the question raised by Broadwaydevil, "How can the government tell a liberal Church or some sort of progressive religious what it can consider marriage and be within its Constitutional bounds that require freedom of religion?"
But that is EXACTLY what the government is doing by outlawing polygamy in the Mormon church.
#19
Posted: 7/9/13 at 9:15am
But the church, any church, should have no say in who gets a marriage license from a courthouse.
It's not my "religious freedom" that should allow me to marry a same-sex partner.
It's my freedom.
The government decides my legal rights, based on the fundamental principle that all people are equal in the eyes of the law. The church (of my choosing, should I choose one) decides my religious rights.
The two are not the same. They should never be the same.
Religious marriage and legal marriage are not the same thing.
The law says that marriage is between two consenting adults. Not five, or eight. It does not say "between a man and a woman" or "partners of opposite sex." Try as they might to change that.
It's not my "religious freedom" that should allow me to marry a same-sex partner.
It's my freedom.
The government decides my legal rights, based on the fundamental principle that all people are equal in the eyes of the law. The church (of my choosing, should I choose one) decides my religious rights.
The two are not the same. They should never be the same.
Religious marriage and legal marriage are not the same thing.
The law says that marriage is between two consenting adults. Not five, or eight. It does not say "between a man and a woman" or "partners of opposite sex." Try as they might to change that.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#20
Posted: 7/9/13 at 9:17am
many of my newly married gay friends were hoping to honeymoon in the Hoosier state. Will they whisked off of the line at the airport and hauled off to the Indiana State Prison?
'Take me out tonight where's there's music and there's people and they're young and alive.'
#21
Posted: 7/9/13 at 9:19am
... and right to the U.S. Supreme Court after that.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#22
Posted: 7/9/13 at 10:24am
"But the church, any church, should have no say in who gets a marriage license from a courthouse."
Ok, then you are taking Broadwaydevil's argument off the table for consideration. But then you are putting the burden of defining and regulating marriage as a state issue, which means the individual states would each get to define and regulate marriage. (We do not know how the SCOTUS stands on this, because with their Prop 8 ruling they basically slipped out of making a determination via the "No Standing" loophole.)
There was absolutely no question in my mind that DOMA was Unconstitutional because it was a federal attempt to define and regulate marriage. There is nothing in the Constitution that empowers the federal government to define and legislate marriage (even though they apparently have done this with polygamy.) Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, therefore defining and regulating it is not a function of the federal government. An individual like myself might have the OPINION that marriage is between two people of the opposite sex, however that opinion cannot be turned into a federal law because (again) the Constitution does not give that power to the feds. (Nor do I want to live in a country where the federal government has that authority --but they seem to have "taken" authority regarding other issues that are not in the Constitution like education, healthcare, etc. I like to be consistent when it comes to things like this; when the feds pass legislation I might agree with I still don't want them doing it if it is not in their power to do so.)
(I wonder how many gay people would agree with the flip side of that; That is, if the federal government were to pass legislation defining marriage as between two people , no matter their sex, that law would be celebrated by the gay community. Where as my standing would be the same; the federal government has no Constitutional authority to define marriage.)
However, under the 10th Amendment, it does fall into the powers of the individual states. Again, the SCOTUS kicked the can on that decision. That brings up other arguments as well. For example, if 2 men get married in a state where it is legal, does a state that does not recognize same-sex-marriage have to recognize them as married if they move to that state? Well, if I have a gun license in the state I live in now and I go to visit another state with my gun does my license work in that other state? It starts to get really complicated. (And this post was not supposed to be this long!)
Ok, then you are taking Broadwaydevil's argument off the table for consideration. But then you are putting the burden of defining and regulating marriage as a state issue, which means the individual states would each get to define and regulate marriage. (We do not know how the SCOTUS stands on this, because with their Prop 8 ruling they basically slipped out of making a determination via the "No Standing" loophole.)
There was absolutely no question in my mind that DOMA was Unconstitutional because it was a federal attempt to define and regulate marriage. There is nothing in the Constitution that empowers the federal government to define and legislate marriage (even though they apparently have done this with polygamy.) Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, therefore defining and regulating it is not a function of the federal government. An individual like myself might have the OPINION that marriage is between two people of the opposite sex, however that opinion cannot be turned into a federal law because (again) the Constitution does not give that power to the feds. (Nor do I want to live in a country where the federal government has that authority --but they seem to have "taken" authority regarding other issues that are not in the Constitution like education, healthcare, etc. I like to be consistent when it comes to things like this; when the feds pass legislation I might agree with I still don't want them doing it if it is not in their power to do so.)
(I wonder how many gay people would agree with the flip side of that; That is, if the federal government were to pass legislation defining marriage as between two people , no matter their sex, that law would be celebrated by the gay community. Where as my standing would be the same; the federal government has no Constitutional authority to define marriage.)
However, under the 10th Amendment, it does fall into the powers of the individual states. Again, the SCOTUS kicked the can on that decision. That brings up other arguments as well. For example, if 2 men get married in a state where it is legal, does a state that does not recognize same-sex-marriage have to recognize them as married if they move to that state? Well, if I have a gun license in the state I live in now and I go to visit another state with my gun does my license work in that other state? It starts to get really complicated. (And this post was not supposed to be this long!)
#23
Posted: 7/9/13 at 10:46am
That reads like broadway guy's answer to the question "what day is it". A lot of paragraphs that amount to absolutely nothing whatsoever.
#24
Posted: 7/9/13 at 3:17pm
What a friggin' waste of valuable posting space. He types and types and types and types about absoF*CKINlutely nothing of importance. It's like the internet board version of "blowing a lot of hot air."
Updated On: 7/9/13 at 03:17 PM
#25
Posted: 7/9/13 at 4:10pm
give it none of yours
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $95
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71