Todd Young did not waste any time in proving his continued worthlessness

[buckwacker]

You didn't say this:

Yes, explain please. Your logic is a bit hard to follow sometimes.

 

[bobzilla]

Yes, explain please. Your logic is a bit hard to follow sometimes.

work gets in the way and things get cut short. Read the rest.

 

[buckwacker]

You didn't say this:


I paraphrased you sorry. Since apparently we are doing the everything literal I'll make sure to use only direct quotes from here on out.

As for the "veiled threat", that was no veiled threat. He was quoting you saying that you weren't a mod and couldn't silence anyone. HE was merely stating that its up to them to decide what is acceptable and not. For someone that's not emotionally engaged you sure have thin skin.

Ummm....i went back and looked and didn't see where he quoted me about not being a mod. He just said "my truth", called me a bigot, while simultaneously suggesting I could be in trouble with mods for offending someone. Not sure how pointing out hypocrisy is thin skinned, but maybe that's your truth.

 

[bobzilla]

Done. You win.

 

[KLB]

I don't know about tax exempt status specifically, but the area of concern seems to be:



I'm not a lawyer, but in layman's terms this section seems to say that any state law regarding marriage has to be applied to same-sex "marriages." So if a state has a law that penalizes organizations that discriminate against interracial marriages, for instance, this section would appear to say that the state now has to enforce that law against organizations that don't recognize same-sex "marriages."

Isn't that where we are today anyway?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Isn't that where we are today anyway?

Not to my understanding, but I could be wrong.

If we were there already, I'd be very surprised that we haven't seen any federal lawsuits trying to force state governments to penalize Churches that don't recognize same-sex marriages using laws that penalize discrimination against interracial marriages.

 

[KLB]

Not to my understanding, but I could be wrong.

If we were there already, I'd be very surprised that we haven't seen any federal lawsuits trying to force state governments to penalize Churches that don't recognize same-sex marriages using laws that penalize discrimination against interracial marriages.

Recognize how? That didn't say anything about using the Fed to make state's have the same laws about marriage. It seems to say that all marriages in the state must be treated the same

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Recognize how? That didn't say anything about using the Fed to make state's have the same laws about marriage. It seems to say that all marriages in the state must be treated the same

I thought it said basically that any person who is recognized as married by one state must be recognized as married by all states (item 1 below.) Item 2 seems to say that States must give all claims and rights arising from such a marriage to any such marriages recognized in any state.

In fact, the more I look at the law, the worse it seems to get. Since this law now says that every state must recognize marriages accepted by any other state, wouldn't this mean that, for instance, if state A makes a law recognizing polygamous marriages, now State B has to recognize those "marriages" too? And if State B has a law saying that employers must give time off if an employee's spouse is having a baby, now if Mr. Smith is married to five Mrs. Smiths, since he can't be denied any "right or claim arising from such a marriage" he now has to be given paternity leave for all five "wives", right?

At least that's the way I read it. Again, though, IANAL.

(a) In General.—No person acting under color of State law may deny—

“(1) full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals; or

“(2) a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.

“(b) Enforcement By Attorney General.—The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who violates subsection (a) for declaratory and injunctive relief.

“(c) Private Right Of Action.—Any person who is harmed by a violation of subsection (a) may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against the person who violated such subsection for declaratory and injunctive relief.

 

[KLB]

I thought it said basically that any person who is recognized as married by one state must be recognized as married by all states (item 1 below.) Item 2 seems to say that States must give all claims and rights arising from such a marriage to any such marriages recognized in any state.

In fact, the more I look at the law, the worse it seems to get. Since this law now says that every state must recognize marriages accepted by any other state, wouldn't this mean that, for instance, if state A makes a law recognizing polygamous marriages, now State B has to recognize those "marriages" too? And if State B has a law saying that employers must give time off if an employee's spouse is having a baby, now if Mr. Smith is married to five Mrs. Smiths, since he can't be denied any "right or claim arising from such a marriage" he now has to be given paternity leave for all five "wives", right?

At least that's the way I read it. Again, though, IANAL.

It says marriage of two individuals.

#2 doesn't say anything about other states laws. It says "under the law of that State".

 

[AndreusMaximus]

It says marriage of two individuals.

On second reading, I suppose you're right, and that would preclude polygamous relationships, at least.

On the first reading I had envisioned in my head a sort of mental twister game where Mr. Smith, who under the laws of state A is married to Mrs. A Smith, Mrs. B Smith, and Mrs. C Smith, goes to court against State B because State B only recognizes his marriage to Mrs. A Smith, but Mr. Smith tries to argue that if you take him and Mrs. B Smith as two individuals, the law must recognize their relationship as a marriage between two individuals, regardless of any "additional marriage" that also exists between Mr. Smith and any other Mrs. Smith.

I suppose this is probably too far-fetched of an interpretation, though, even in today's crazy world (or at least, I hope.)

#2 doesn't say anything about other states laws. It says "under the law of that State".

But doesn't #2, by extension from #1, also apply to all marriages recognized by another State? The part you quote is part of the longer phrase "on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State", which taken in context, seems to me to boil down to: If Mr. X's marriage is recognized by State A, then State B can't say that since Mr. X's marriage isn't a marriage under State B's laws, that he doesn't get the benefits of State B's laws.

 

[Ziggidy]

Satan is the author of confusion. Look at all the confusion over this. It was all so simple in the past.

 

[Expat]

But doesn't #2, by extension from #1, also apply to all marriages recognized by another State? The part you quote is part of the longer phrase "on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State", which taken in context, seems to me to boil down to: If Mr. X's marriage is recognized by State A, then State B can't say that since Mr. X's marriage isn't a marriage under State B's laws, that he doesn't get the benefits of State B's laws.

I believe that you are correct in your interpretation. In fact it is the whole point of the Act. It adds gay marriage to the list of full faith and credit section. As long as your marriage was legal where performed (adds a section for people born elsewhere as well) then every other state has to recognize that marriage in their state.

 

[blues bondsman]

It was God who instituted marriage and set the parameters.
You can go on suggesting there's no God all you like.
You can stand on the tracks and say there is no train too.
What this horrid law would do is to force Churches, businesses and individuals to accept This destructive lifestyle as normal.
You know like cutting up children's anatomy to gain acceptance of some Demented and twisted sexual perversion.
You can't even take a breath with God allowing it, your heart only beats at His request.
Perversion has been the ultimate downfall of most long-gone nations.

 

[KLB]

On second reading, I suppose you're right, and that would preclude polygamous relationships, at least.

On the first reading I had envisioned in my head a sort of mental twister game where Mr. Smith, who under the laws of state A is married to Mrs. A Smith, Mrs. B Smith, and Mrs. C Smith, goes to court against State B because State B only recognizes his marriage to Mrs. A Smith, but Mr. Smith tries to argue that if you take him and Mrs. B Smith as two individuals, the law must recognize their relationship as a marriage between two individuals, regardless of any "additional marriage" that also exists between Mr. Smith and any other Mrs. Smith.

I suppose this is probably too far-fetched of an interpretation, though, even in today's crazy world (or at least, I hope.)

But doesn't #2, by extension from #1, also apply to all marriages recognized by another State? The part you quote is part of the longer phrase "on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State", which taken in context, seems to me to boil down to: If Mr. X's marriage is recognized by State A, then State B can't say that since Mr. X's marriage isn't a marriage under State B's laws, that he doesn't get the benefits of State B's laws.

You have to recognize that they are married, but your state's laws apply to that marriage. It isn't like Indiana suddenly has to follow California divorce law.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

You have to recognize that they are married, but your state's laws apply to that marriage. It isn't like Indiana suddenly has to follow California divorce law.

Yeah, that wasn't how I read it either, but I guess the legalese must be putting knots in my brain because I'm not sure if I'm expressing what I mean very well.

At any rate, I guess I'll just have to wait and see; I figure we won't know what the real effects will be until the lawsuits start coming in (or don't.) If this bill really just doesn't change anything, I guess that's the best to be hoped for at this point, but the people I've read who know more about the law than I do don't seem to be of that opinion. We'll see.

 

[DadSmith]

I reiterate that marriage was not "designed by God Almighty."

The desire for humans to pair off is innate and existed prior to the establishment of any of the world's religions. As man became more civilized he recognized the advantages of formalizing the process. Christianity established rules for its followers, as did other religions. These rules do NOT apply to everyone, but only to those who CHOOSE to follow them.

I don't care what it's called, marriage, civil union or whatever. But we cannot call ourselves a free country unless we are free to marry another consenting adult.

You do not recognize God, or any gods no doubt. That's why you have a problem understanding, or accepting anything that has to do with religion, or is it just Christianity, and Judaism?

 

[breakingcontact]

This is the direct result of government usurping from the church that which is gods…

Was it taken or given up though?

 

[Ziggidy]

So many people want everything we have; it makes them feel normal.

 

[Ingomike]

Was it taken or given up though?

My understanding was taken. The reasons were posted above by someone else…

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Times coming when we’ll no longer be able to share this country with these people.