Canadian couples essentially married without consent

[zsdersw]

Sorry there, but the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Why should I care that a minority on the Supreme Court wrongly think that foreign law should apply to or shape/guide US laws?

And you health care analogy fails. There is nothing inherent to health care that implies it should/should not be state funded.

Whereas you whole contention before is that marriage inherently needs consent, and it is not just your bigotry that requires it.

Inherent or not only matters in this discussion because you want it to matter... because you like to see your words appear on the Internet in an online forum and like to argue for no relevant reason.

Consent is not required for participation in Canada's healthcare system; participation is compulsory.

The point is that Canada's determinations do not either validate or invalidate US determinations. In case you didn't know, Canada and the US are separate countries.. and while our economies are very closely intertwined, we think and act independently in matters of law and public policy.

 

[nehalem256]

Why should I care that a minority on the Supreme Court wrongly think that foreign law should apply to or shape/guide US laws?

Did you miss:

Writing for the majorityin a landmark decision supporting gay civil rights

It was the majority opinion.

And it was about gay rights. Going by the threads you have posted I am thinking you do care about it.

Inherent or not only matters in this discussion because you want it to matter... because you like to see your words appear on the Internet in an online forum and like to argue for no relevant reason.

Consent is not required for participation in Canada's healthcare system; participation is compulsory.

The point is that Canada's determinations do not either validate or invalidate US determinations. In case you didn't know, Canada and the US are separate countries.. and while our economies are very closely intertwined, we think and act independently in matters of law and public policy.

Did you miss the passage of Obamacare forcing people into the US's healthcare system? I think there might even have been a SC case about it :hmm:

Sounds to me like some is butt-hurt that their idea that marriage requires consent has been revealed to be nothing more than a cover for bigotry against sexual minorities.

 

[zsdersw]

Did you miss:

It was the majority opinion.

And it was about gay rights. Going by the threads you have posted I am thinking you do care about it.

A minority of judges on the SC believe foreign law should shape/guide US law. Writing the majority opinion on the specific case doesn't mean a majority of judges think foreign law generally should shape US law.

There are plenty of reasons to come to the same conclusion about gay rights that don't require deferring to foreign law.

Did you miss the passage of Obamacare forcing people into the US's healthcare system? I think there might even have been a SC case about it :hmm:

What does that matter? Obamacare is not the same as Canada's healthcare system, even in the matter of forced/voluntary participation.

Sounds to me like some is butt-hurt that their idea that marriage requires consent has been revealed to be nothing more than a cover for bigotry against sexual minorities.

.. and then you woke up, with wet sticky sheets.

The only thing that's been revealed (as if there was anyone who didn't already know) is that you're a dumbass.

 

[JTsyo]

what hole do you live in?

millions get married yearly.

yea, some even do it multiple times since it's so great.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Common Law Marriage is and always has been ridiculous.

 

[Orignal Earl]

This seems to be another of those things that a lot of Americans have a hard time grasping
Like the metric system

 

[Thump553]

Aka another lawyer full employment act.

Back in the frontier days common law marriage made social sense. In today's world where civil marriage is easily available to all (except gays in nonenlightened areas) this bill is socially unproductive. If this law was limited to persons that could not otherwise legally marry, it would make some sense.

But I live in the USA so what other countries do is, for all intents and practices, irrelevant to me.

 

[silverpig]

Aka another lawyer full employment act.

Back in the frontier days common law marriage made social sense. In today's world where civil marriage is easily available to all (except gays in nonenlightened areas) this bill is socially unproductive. If this law was limited to persons that could not otherwise legally marry, it would make some sense.

But I live in the USA so what other countries do is, for all intents and practices, irrelevant to me.

But the law is productive. It makes the separation process for people who have lived together for a long time very clear. This law is intended to clear the backlog of cases in family court where long-term couples splitting up are deciding how to split their jointly acquired assets.