« Previous 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 104 Next »

This thread is locked

Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

#427 Aug 07 2010 at 12:01 AM Rating: Decent

Prodigal Son

20,643 posts

Nadenu wrote:

I must not really be married. I didn't sign some big contract. Just one sheet of paper. Oh, and a book. Where they make everyone sign. It's kind of like the book at a funeral home. Coincidence??

Does the marriage license also count? I think I signed two papers, and a book. But my sister did the marriage, and she was ordained by...um...Google, I think. Some wacky Church of Life internet organization or something. So maybe it doesn't count. But at least I know I don't have to do much more than that for a mortgage. Maybe my sister can arrange that, too?

____________________________

publiusvarus wrote:

we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.

#428 Aug 07 2010 at 12:26 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1716164190383

View User Forum

Sage

19,999 posts

Debalic wrote:

But my sister did the marriage, and she was ordained by...um...Google, I think. Some wacky Church of Life internet organization or something.

Sounds like the Universal Life Church.

One of my wife's friends is ordained through them and did our wedding.

#429 Aug 07 2010 at 12:27 AM Rating: Good

Prodigal Son

20,643 posts

I prefer to think that I was married by the blessing of Google.

____________________________

publiusvarus wrote:

we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.

#430 Aug 07 2010 at 1:16 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1716164190383

View User Forum

Sage

19,999 posts

Debalic wrote:

I prefer to think that I was married by the blessing of Google.

Then you want this.

#431 Aug 07 2010 at 1:57 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1636935913888

Sage

27,272 posts

gbaji wrote:

I'll point out that I'm *still* waiting for someone to actually present an alternative state objective for the creation of a set of marriage benefits. As I pointed out yesterday, that's the test the court will almost certainly use to determine the constitutionality of the criteria at question.

Everything else is irrelevant.

Am I correct in saying that your only problem with gay marriage is a financial one?
And if so, would you agree with gay marriage if gay married couples don't get the same benefits?
And if not, what other problems do you have with gay marriage?

#432 Almalieque, Posted: Aug 07 2010 at 5:45 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) So in other words, you realize that you're wrong... I know you wont actually admit to that, but this is good enough for me.. Twas fun...

#433 Aug 07 2010 at 6:03 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1591806028313

Scholar

847 posts

Quote:

And I'm saying that the official state sponsored benefits of marriage are probably the least important aspect of the word marriage. You're deliberately picking the most asinine definition of the word, ignoring the host of emotional, social, religious, and psychological connotations involved in it.

It's dry, it's academic, and it robs both heterosexuals and homosexuals of their very humanity.

We are discussing law here, and by definition, it is "dry" and "academic".

Now, if we get back to the law here, the question that this ruling raises is, if gender, tradition, and children are no longer grounds to restrict marriages, then what are?

#434 Aug 07 2010 at 6:16 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1716164190383

View User Forum

Sage

19,999 posts

Keylin wrote:

Quote:

And I'm saying that the official state sponsored benefits of marriage are probably the least important aspect of the word marriage. You're deliberately picking the most asinine definition of the word, ignoring the host of emotional, social, religious, and psychological connotations involved in it.

It's dry, it's academic, and it robs both heterosexuals and homosexuals of their very humanity.

We are discussing law here, and by definition, it is "dry" and "academic".

Now, if we get back to the law here, the question that this ruling raises is, if gender, tradition, and children are no longer grounds to restrict marriages, then what are?

Might as well go with present-day contract law and just require that both (all?) parties be able to legally sign contracts in their jurisdiction.

So no, you still won't be able to marry your toaster.

#435 Almalieque, Posted: Aug 07 2010 at 6:17 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That's a good question....

#436 Almalieque, Posted: Aug 07 2010 at 6:22 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) So is your restriction based from purposely wanting to exclude people who can't legally sign a contract or are you just riding the fact that you need to be able to legally sign contracts, so why change it? Or is there another reason?

#437 Aug 07 2010 at 7:23 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1716164190383

View User Forum

Sage

19,999 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Mdenham wrote:

Might as well go with present-day contract law and just require that both (all?) parties be able to legally sign contracts in their jurisdiction.

So no, you still won't be able to marry your toaster.

So is your restriction based from purposely wanting to exclude people who can't legally sign a contract or are you just riding the fact that you need to be able to legally sign contracts, so why change it? Or is there another reason?

It's more to prevent the "inanimate and/or imaginary objects" issue from cropping up, since those clearly can't sign a contract.

Also, I wanted an excuse to link a picture of Grace Park.

#438 Aug 07 2010 at 8:47 AM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

catwho wrote:

My marriage license form was 1 page long. I filled it out in two minutes. Our certificate is a single page, and printed out on fake parchment, I guess in case we wanted to frame it or something. Our license was only half a page long, and the judge kept it afterward, to file it away in a cabinet someplace in the back.

Our mortgage from last January was approximately 40 pages long, with another 20-30 pages of supplemental documents, and many things in triplicate. Two agents and a banker were involved, as well as one lawyer. It took us two hours to go over everything during closing. They gave us a really nice, legal document size maroon folio to keep everything in.

Not the same.

Some brief Googling suggests that getting married in CA is pretty much the same as it is in IL and where ever it is Catwho is from. You get yourself a license by filling out a brief form, which gets you your marriage license. The marriage license is a single page affair which is just the info you filled out on the application in printed up form. You take that with you when you get married and it's signed by the two folks getting married, the officiant and a witness and it's sent back to the county clerk's office. They register it and bada-bing-bada-boom you're married. They send you a nice "Certificate of Marriage" to put in your scrap book and that's it.

You're not signing a "contract" and it sure as hell isn't anything like a mortgage. The take-away here is that Gbaji doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about but is more than happy to make it up as he goes along to "help" his case. Now we get the "That's not important!" which is Gbaji's way of saying "I know I'm absolutely wrong but I'll never have the balls to admit it" which is a nice companion to "You never told me this! (except for all those times you did but if I keep insisting you didn't then I don't have to admit you're right)".

Edit: I had a lovely embedded link to the San Diego county office saying what you needed to do but it was in .aspx format which the board software won't allow into a url tag. http://arcc.co.san-diego.ca.us/arcc/services/marriage_licenses.aspx

Edited, Aug 7th 2010 9:49am by Jophiel

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#439 Aug 07 2010 at 9:13 AM Rating: Good

Official Shrubbery Waterer

14,659 posts

Random awesome .gif image that is slightly relevant to this topic:

http://files.sharenator.com/rainbow_man_Canned_Unicorn_Meat-s400x331-53132-535.gif

Now if I could just get it in avatar size....

Edited, Aug 7th 2010 10:13am by Demea

____________________________

Jophiel wrote:

I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#440 Almalieque, Posted: Aug 07 2010 at 9:18 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Well, you can simply say restrictions to living human beings. So, if you're only restriction is the inanimate and/or imaginary objects, then does that mean that you don't have objections to any combination as long as there aren't inanimate and/or imaginary objects.

#441 Aug 07 2010 at 9:49 AM Rating: Excellent

Sage

8,187 posts

Demea wrote:

Now if I could just get it in avatar size....

Screenshot

YW

____________________________

Things I sometimes play...

"What do you want to be when you grow up?"
"I want to be a unicorn!"
"Awww, why's that?"........
"So I can stab people with my face."

#442 Aug 07 2010 at 10:20 AM Rating: Good

Official Shrubbery Waterer

14,659 posts

Dyadem of Future Fabulous! wrote:

Demea wrote:

Now if I could just get it in avatar size....

Screenshot

YW

Fabulous!

____________________________

Jophiel wrote:

I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#443 Aug 07 2010 at 11:03 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1618186764728

Sage

5,684 posts

Demea wrote:

Dyadem of Future Fabulous! wrote:

Demea wrote:

Now if I could just get it in avatar size....

Screenshot

YW

Fabulous!

JEALOUSSS

#444 Aug 07 2010 at 11:23 AM Rating: Good

Sage

8,187 posts

Lady Bardalicious wrote:

JEALOUSSS

Me too. I know, I could have kept it for myself but Demea found it first.

____________________________

Things I sometimes play...

"What do you want to be when you grow up?"
"I want to be a unicorn!"
"Awww, why's that?"........
"So I can stab people with my face."

#445 Aug 07 2010 at 11:28 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1618186764728

Sage

5,684 posts

Dyadem of Future Fabulous! wrote:

Lady Bardalicious wrote:

JEALOUSSS

Me too. I know, I could have kept it for myself but Demea found it first.

I kind of want to go find a picnic blanket and tights and do it myself.

#446 Aug 07 2010 at 12:16 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1591806028313

Scholar

847 posts

Quote:

Well, you can simply say restrictions to living human beings. So, if you're only restriction is the inanimate and/or imaginary objects, then does that mean that you don't have objections to any combination as long as there aren't inanimate and/or imaginary objects

Pretty much we're going to end up at a point where marriage licenses (assuming that they'll still be called marriage licenses) will go to any multiperson parties where all parties interested are willing and able to agree. And they'll get all the benefits that come with such unions. And then maybe the government will get out of regulating marriages. Sorta like in the early days of our republic when marriage was strictly a church affair.

Next up for those who favored Prop. 8: The state will no longer issue "Marriage licenses". All such unions between two people (bigamy and polygamy are next) will be called domestic partnerships.

Edited, Aug 7th 2010 2:18pm by Keylin

#447 Aug 07 2010 at 12:54 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1618186764728

Sage

5,684 posts

Keylin wrote:

Quote:

Well, you can simply say restrictions to living human beings. So, if you're only restriction is the inanimate and/or imaginary objects, then does that mean that you don't have objections to any combination as long as there aren't inanimate and/or imaginary objects

Pretty much we're going to end up at a point where marriage licenses (assuming that they'll still be called marriage licenses) will go to any multiperson parties where all parties interested are willing and able to agree. And they'll get all the benefits that come with such unions. And then maybe the government will get out of regulating marriages. Sorta like in the early days of our republic when marriage was strictly a church affair.

Next up for those who favored Prop. 8: The state will no longer issue "Marriage licenses". All such unions between two people (bigamy and polygamy are next) will be called domestic partnerships.

Edited, Aug 7th 2010 2:18pm by Keylin

Take your slippery slope and asinine thoughts somewhere else.

#448 Almalieque, Posted: Aug 07 2010 at 3:48 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) FTFY

#449 Aug 07 2010 at 3:52 PM Rating: Good

Worst. Title. Ever!

17,302 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Bard wrote:

Take your logic somewhere else.

FTFY

You are so clever...

____________________________

Can't sleep, clown will eat me.

#450 Almalieque, Posted: Aug 07 2010 at 6:04 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I know, thanks!

#451 Aug 07 2010 at 6:44 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1680481127345

View User Forum

Sage

21,262 posts

Here's something interesting:

A legal wonk has pointed out that because the lawsuit was brought against the state of CA, but the state itself declined to defend it, an intermediary third party opted to defend on behalf of the state (with the state's permission, but not blessing. Sort of an, "okay *shrug*, it's your money.") In case law, it has been previously determined that while a third party is more than welcome to defend on behalf of the state, they may not necessarily have the authority to appeal on behalf of the state. Since the state of CA has little interest in the appeal - both the governor and the AG are against it - then it's quite possible that the appeal of the ruling won't even be legally valid, and Prop 8 proponents will have to start a completely new lawsuit against the state for permitting the marriages.

« Previous 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 104 Next »

This thread is locked

You cannot post in a locked topic!

Recent Visitors: 216 All times are in CST

Anonymous Guests (216)

© 2024 Fanbyte LLC