Another reason to repeal DOMA

[Baltimatt]

Yes. However, I can excersize common sense and ignore that.

No amount of common sense can convince me, however, that a man+man or a woman+woman is the SAME thing as a man+woman.



It does not.

What about the part of the US constitution that says there should be no religious test for public office?

It would be interesting if New Hampshire decided not to recognize any marriage from a state that refuses to recognize all New Hampshire marriages.

[kudzu]

What about the part of the US constitution that says there should be no religious test for public office?

Yet to be challenged. It will fail.

It would be interesting if New Hampshire decided not to recognize any marriage from a state that refuses to recognize all New Hampshire marriages.

Very interesting, indeed, They should try it.

Here's a thought for you, matt.

Did the framers of the Constitution consider for a monent the activities and/or rights of homosexuals while drafting that great document ?

[Bmoreteacher]

Did you read my quote or the Amendment ? LOL

I eagerly await the time that NH attempts to tell me than a couple of people are in fact polar bears.

Because I'll give that assertation the very same weight/consideration.

Yup, I read both, and you're clearly trying to claim that because your state has a law, a couple that is married in another state isn't actually married. They are factually married, your state just won't recognize it as a marriage.

[kudzu]

Yup, I read both

Then what part of "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State" did you not understand ?

I am in "this state".

I am not in NH.

I have no logical nor legal duty to acknowldge their insanity.

[Bmoreteacher]

Then what part of "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State" did you not understand ?

I am in "this state".

I am not in NH.

I have no logical nor legal duty to acknowldge their insanity.

Logically, if a couple has a marriage license, they are indeed married. Your state doesn't recognize it, but unless they moved out of a state where their marriage license is valid, they are legally married. You can play games with wording to justify your ignorance all you want, but you're just looking silly and archaic.

[kudzu]

Logically, if a couple has a marriage license, they are indeed married. Your state doesn't recognize it, but unless they moved out of a state where their marriage license is valid, they are legally married. You can play games with wording to justify your ignorance all you want, but you're just looking silly and archaic.

Play whatever semantic games you want, you silly girl boy.

The fact remains that a same sex marriage is only valid within that state and those other (few) states that acknowledge it.

I am not within one of those stupid states.

[Bmoreteacher]

Play whatever semantic games you want, you silly girl boy.

The fact remains that a same sex marriage is only valid within that state and those other (few) states that acknowledge it.

I am not within one of those stupid states.

I'm not playing any semantic games (I'm also not resorting to insulting you...)

Same sex marriage is only valid within the state where the couples live...but so long as they live there, THEY ARE FACTUALLY MARRIED! If they moved out of the state, they would not be. This isn't a hard concept, but it seems you'd like to make it one. If this couple moved to your state, then freaking obviously they wouldn't be married. Since they haven't done that, they are married.

Your state's vote on marriage does not mean that they aren't married, it means that IF they were to move to your state, they would no longer be considered married.

[kudzu]

Same sex marriage is only valid within the state where the couples live

So, we agree.

They are married in NH.

They are not married in NC.

I am in NC.

Therefore, they are not married to me.

Glad we cleared that up.

[Baltimatt]

Same sex marriage is only valid within the state where the couples live...but so long as they live there, THEY ARE FACTUALLY MARRIED!

Their marriage is valid in states that recognize same-sex marriage and a few others with civil unions.

[kudzu]

Their marriage is valid in states that recognize same-sex marriage and a few others with civil unions.

And no others.

[Baltimatt]

Yet to be challenged. It will fail.



Very interesting, indeed, They should try it.

Here's a thought for you, matt.

Did the framers of the Constitution consider for a monent the activities and/or rights of homosexuals while drafting that great document ?

No, but they probably weren't thinking about women voters or the son of an African and white American becoming president, either.

[kudzu]

No, but they probably weren't thinking about women voters or the son of an African and white American becoming president, either.

Multi-racial unions were common and accepted at the birth of our Nation.

Homosexual unions were not.

[Baltimatt]

Kudzu--

You seemed to have missed my point because you are so focused on same-sex marriage. You must think about it more than I do!

I was pointing out other things I don't think they could conceive when writing our founding documents: women voting and holding office, a person of African descent being president, etc.

[kudzu]

Kudzu--

You seemed to have missed my point because you are so focused on same-sex marriage. You must think about it more than I do!

I do. I reject nonsense in all its forms.

I was pointing out other things I don't think they could conceive when writing our founding documents: women voting and holding office, a person of African descent being president, etc.

Quite correct. Our founders didn't envision women voting nor negros holding office.

But those two things are nowhere near as alien to our founders intentions as two homos getting married.

[Bmoreteacher]

So, we agree.

They are married in NH.

They are not married in NC.

I am in NC.

Therefore, they are not married to me.

Glad we cleared that up.

Your continued and desperate denial of reality is noted, once again.

[SalisburySage]

I do. I reject nonsense in all its forms.



Quite correct. Our founders didn't envision women voting nor negros holding office.

But those two things are nowhere near as alien to our founders intentions as two homos getting married.

That's a product of Christianity. Before that there is evidence of gay unions and even during medieval times.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20464004.../#.UKr7BIdrqSo

http://www.nowpublic.com/study-medieval-gay-marriages