DC Gay Marriage!

[felix rex]

First take: CONGRATS GAY BROS &/OR SISTERS! Already been to one kick-ass reception.

Second take: When does the countdown to my own marriage's demise begin now that this evil threat has been unleashed!???!! 

[AzCat]

First take: The government should not be in the marriage business at any level.

Second take: Your marriage has been dying from the moment you became a party of it. 

[felix rex]

Second take: Your marriage has been dying from the moment you became a party of it. 

Wait...is this a "as soon as you're born you start dying comment?" Either way...no threat from my neat, clean gay friends! Hoo-RAY!

[Dirty Sanchez]

Its more incentive for your wife to leave you for another woman.

[jmlynch1]

Its more incentive for your wife to leave you for another woman.

The competition has doubled

[asava]

Its more incentive for your wife to leave you for another woman.

The competition has doubled

i'm pretty sure i can just about any dyke.

[ben ji]

First take: The government should not be in the marriage business at any level.

Second take: Your marriage has been dying from the moment you became a party of it. 

Agreed, pretty sure marriage is a religious thing. Question though, are civil unions given the same tax advantages that marriages are given?

[asava]

First take: The government should not be in the marriage business at any level.

Second take: Your marriage has been dying from the moment you became a party of it. 

Agreed, pretty sure marriage is a religious thing. Question though, are civil unions given the same tax advantages that marriages are given?

The question isn't whether they get the same tax advantages. Civil unions are not the same as marriage by a long shot in many fashions.

The question is do homosexuals have a constitutional right to participate in marriage? At least that would be the question posed if it reached the level of the Supreme Court. Until then it is "what do the majority voters want to allow homosexuals to do with regards to marriage." The Court hasn't tried a case yet that deals with the above issue, they have either lacked standing or dealt with similar but non-equal subjects (Lawrence v. Texas).

The question would come down to whether or not marriage is an inherent right set forth in the equal protection clause.

 

[ben ji]

First take: The government should not be in the marriage business at any level.

Second take: Your marriage has been dying from the moment you became a party of it. 

Agreed, pretty sure marriage is a religious thing. Question though, are civil unions given the same tax advantages that marriages are given?

The question isn't whether they get the same tax advantages. Civil unions are not the same as marriage by a long shot in many fashions.

The question is do homosexuals have a constitutional right to participate in marriage? At least that would be the question posed if it reached the level of the Supreme Court. Until then it is "what do the majority voters want to allow homosexuals to do with regards to marriage." The Court hasn't tried a case yet that deals with the above issue, they have either lacked standing or dealt with similar but non-equal subjects (Lawrence v. Texas).

The question would come down to whether or not marriage is an inherent right set forth in the equal protection clause.

 

Couldnt the state just get out of the marraige game altogether and recognize everything as some sort of civil union plus(same laws as marriage regarding divorce taxes etc) thus reverting marraige back to its original religious nature?

Not that it would happen but I'd think everyone would be happy

[Cire]

So god said that teh gays can achieve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness applies in DC now?

good for them.

[felix rex]

So god said that teh gays can achieve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness applies in DC now?

good for them.

They seem pretty upbeat about it (although I know a few dudes with commitment issues who are quite comically on the clock now...)

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

So god said that teh gays can achieve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness applies in DC now?

good for them.

They seem pretty upbeat about it (although I know a few dudes with commitment issues who are quite comically on the clock now...)

LOL, Yeah, I bet the bottoms are going to  be pressuring the tops to get married.

[asava]

First take: The government should not be in the marriage business at any level.

Second take: Your marriage has been dying from the moment you became a party of it. 

Agreed, pretty sure marriage is a religious thing. Question though, are civil unions given the same tax advantages that marriages are given?

The question isn't whether they get the same tax advantages. Civil unions are not the same as marriage by a long shot in many fashions.

The question is do homosexuals have a constitutional right to participate in marriage? At least that would be the question posed if it reached the level of the Supreme Court. Until then it is "what do the majority voters want to allow homosexuals to do with regards to marriage." The Court hasn't tried a case yet that deals with the above issue, they have either lacked standing or dealt with similar but non-equal subjects (Lawrence v. Texas).

The question would come down to whether or not marriage is an inherent right set forth in the equal protection clause.

 

Couldnt the state just get out of the marraige game altogether and recognize everything as some sort of civil union plus(same laws as marriage regarding divorce taxes etc) thus reverting marraige back to its original religious nature?

Not that it would happen but I'd think everyone would be happy

They very well could, but it would have be done by voting. The interesting part of that would be that Congress might have jurisdiction over that. So IF there was a fed bill that said something to that effect it would probably hold water underneath the commerce clause, again that would be up to the interpretation of the SC if it got there. But you are also talking about hugely difficult things to pass with a Christian voting base and religious senate and house that would probably never do that. It makes sense, sure, but would people be willing to give that up?

[OK_Cat]

That would suck.  A dude is all like, "Yeah, baby, I'd marry you....but bible-beaters, what can ya do? "

Now he's just as screwed as the rest of us.   

[felix rex]

That would suck.  A dude is all like, "Yeah, baby, I'd marry you....but bible-beaters, what can ya do? "

Now he's just as screwed as the rest of us.   

Srsly. This was almost an exact quote.

[ben ji]

First take: The government should not be in the marriage business at any level.

Second take: Your marriage has been dying from the moment you became a party of it. 

Agreed, pretty sure marriage is a religious thing. Question though, are civil unions given the same tax advantages that marriages are given?

]


The question isn't whether they get the same tax advantages. Civil unions are not the same as marriage by a long shot in many fashions.

The question is do homosexuals have a constitutional right to participate in marriage? At least that would be the question posed if it reached the level of the Supreme Court. Until then it is "what do the majority voters want to allow homosexuals to do with regards to marriage." The Court hasn't tried a case yet that deals with the above issue, they have either lacked standing or dealt with similar but non-equal subjects (Lawrence v. Texas).

The question would come down to whether or not marriage is an inherent right set forth in the equal protection clause.

 

Couldnt the state just get out of the marraige game altogether and recognize everything as some sort of civil union plus(same laws as marriage regarding divorce taxes etc) thus reverting marraige back to its original religious nature?

Not that it would happen but I'd think everyone would be happy

They very well could, but it would have be done by voting. The interesting part of that would be that Congress might have jurisdiction over that. So IF there was a fed bill that said something to that effect it would probably hold water underneath the commerce clause, again that would be up to the interpretation of the SC if it got there. But you are also talking about hugely difficult things to pass with a Christian voting base and religious senate and house that would probably never do that. It makes sense, sure, but would people be willing to give that up?

THEY TOOK OUR MARRIAGE!

[Saulbadguy]

First take: The government should not be in the marriage business at any level.

Second take: Your marriage has been dying from the moment you became a party of it. 

Agreed, pretty sure marriage is a religious thing. Question though, are civil unions given the same tax advantages that marriages are given?

it's not

[ben ji]

First take: The government should not be in the marriage business at any level.

Second take: Your marriage has been dying from the moment you became a party of it. 

Agreed, pretty sure marriage is a religious thing. Question though, are civil unions given the same tax advantages that marriages are given?

it's not

Then why do you go to a courthouse to get a marriage certificate?

[felix rex]

bee-tee-dubs, hetero-Felix marriage still rockin' the casbah as of tonight. Storm before the calm, AzCat?

[Jeffy]

First take: The government should not be in the marriage business at any level.

Second take: Your marriage has been dying from the moment you became a party of it. 

Agreed, pretty sure marriage is a religious thing. Question though, are civil unions given the same tax advantages that marriages are given?

it's not

Then why do you go to a courthouse to get a marriage certificate?

So you can be taxed on your pending marriage.