House authorizes and spends 6x original amount on DOMA defense

[chucky2]

The real question would be if the law is that the federal government only recognizes civil unions, and that gay couples can obtain a civil union just like straight couples, and it is legally the exact same as the straight couples civil union, when you travel from one state to another, is that civil union still legally valid in other states you travel to?

I'd have to say yes. Look, we just solved the 'gay marriage' issue, no perversion of the term marriage needed.

Chuck

 

[fskimospy]

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-08-15-pettrust_x.htm



So it sounds to me like you are backing up the point I made. The federal government could choose not to recognize marriages you don't approve of.

You just want to replace DOMA with homo-DOMA.

Being a beneficiary of a trust fund is not entering into a contract, you idiot.

I am not backing up your point in any way, as your point was stupid. Animals cannot enter into contracts in any state, so your question was worthless.

 

[nehalem256]

Being a beneficiary of a trust fund is not entering into a contract, you idiot.

I am not backing up your point in any way, as your point was stupid. Animals cannot enter into contracts in any state, so your question was worthless.

Marriage is a contract between 3 entities currently. A man, a woman, and the government.

There is no reason that marriage could not be defined as a contract between a person, the government and involving one other party (person or animal) in which all humans consent. That would still be a valid contract, and the state would have no legitimate reason to deny it.

Nothing except for your bigotry against animal lovers that is.

 

[her209]

If you get gay married in a state that allows it and travel through a state that specifically bans gay marriage are you arrested?

Is it a felony to be gay married in those states that ban it? I think the aforementioned states just don't recognize such a marriage, but you can't get thrown in jail. You can and do with polygamy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Polygamy_laws_usa.png

 

[zinfamous]

Obama not defending the law is whats an outrage.

If he wants it changed, why not introduce new laws? hmmm. Isn't that what lawmakers should do?

why is that an outrage?

and since when is the executive responsible for making laws? fail your 6th grade civics class, did you?

 

[fskimospy]

Marriage is a contract between 3 entities currently. A man, a woman, and the government.

There is no reason that marriage could not be defined as a contract between a person, the government and involving one other party (person or animal) in which all humans consent. That would still be a valid contract, and the state would have no legitimate reason to deny it.

Nothing except for your bigotry against animal lovers that is.

Actually it is a contract between two entities, the government is not a party. A contract is an agreement that creates obligations between parties, and nothing in a marriage contract obligates the government to do anything. It is also not signatory to any contract. It may CHOOSE to advantage people through the law, but it is in no way obligated to do so. So right out the door you have a basic definition failure.

Furthermore, to be entered into a contract each party must consent. Animals are legally incapable of giving consent, therefore they cannot be party to a contract. I can't believe you're so dumb that this needed to be explained to you. Color me completely unsurprised that your parade of stupid questions didn't stop though.

 

[lopri]

The most unfortunate part is, it looks like the SCOTUS will deny the House's standing to begin with. The court is afraid of opening that door allowing individual lawmakers bringing lawsuits against the government whenever they feel like.

Then the whole expenses are for naught.. Your tax dollars to Paul Clement's pockets - Nothing more, nothing less.