All it takes is for someone to get married in one of the states where it is legal and then they move to another state and get denied benefits and then sue...then it will be game over for the homophobes.
-----Original Message----- From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 1:48 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: interesting opinion piece on Beck and the teabagging party Interesting if that holds up in court. It would invalidate a lot of anti same sex marriage laws. For instance Virginia just passed (and the wing nut governor signed) a law that refuses to recognize same sex marriages from other states and DC. On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Eric Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > > That is essentially what is going on now, sans all the BS from the right. > The government isn't recognizing religious marriages, but only the civil > aspects of it. You can get married in your religion without the sanction of > the state. It's perfectly legal to do so, but with the caveat, you don't > get all the legal protections in regards to visitation, inheritance, etc > that you do when the government sanctions the civil side. The government > can care less what religion you are getting married in (with the exception > of a few states, mostly in the south, who have ordination requirements to > keep out smaller faiths and non-Christian faiths that do not ordain their > ministers. The rest is covered by the Constitution, so the states really > shouldn't get to decide if they are going to discriminate or not. If I > marry a guy here in IL (for sake of argument), in accordance with the US > constitution, ALL states must recognize the marriage as legal and binding. > Anything less is a violation of the US Constitution. The arguments against > allowing gay marriage are extremely lame and lack any logical thought. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jerry Barnes [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 6:46 AM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: intersting opinion piece on Beck and the teabagging party > > > "They said government should recognize any marriages and only recognize > civil unions, whether they be between opposite sex or same sex. " > > Should have been > > They said government should not recognize any marriages and only recognize > civil unions, whether they be between opposite sex or same sex. > > J > > - > > No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in > session. - Mark Twain > > The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and > provisions should be made to prevent its ascendancy. - Thomas Jefferson > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:326460 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
