Same-Sex Marriage Bill Falls Short in Maryland

[Smash255]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. I know several couples who have already made a vow to do exactly this. In any case, you are still avoiding the question.

Again, its not even a question.   Its simply made up bs.  If you want an answer to your made up bs, then that answer is no to all four.

[Brittain33]

Wrong. I know several couples who have already made a vow to do exactly this.

I'm sure that's completely true and they're totally going to go through with it, too, even if it means giving up health insurance and paying more in taxes. In fact, I bet there are many couples in Iowa, Connecticut, and Massachusetts who have done just that, and you'll prove it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Because they made the decision to divorce. Anyway it's an idiotic scenario as we'd know doubt be hearing of hordes of examples from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont if anyone actually planned on this.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Conclusory. What is going on here, is that the couple wants to be married solely under the tenets of their particular religious faith and not through the State. If everything that you say about marriage is true, why would you deny them the same rights as anyone else if they chose this route?

Because that really has nothing to do with "everything I say about marriage". Don't get a state marriage, no benefits period.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really now?

http://www.biblelogic.com/Documents/No_marriage_license.htm

That makes no distinction between states with and without gay marriage. Anyone adhering to this would never be married to begin with.

[Smash255]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, WHY?

Well again this wouldn't happen and you are just making crap up, but they would be the ones choosing to forgo those rights.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, as it would constitute an ex post facto law if it voided the marriage of anyone already married.

[Smash255]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But WHY would you want to deny the couple the same rights as anyone else, if they wanted to keep their marriage between themselves and their God?

You keep avoiding the question.

And as I pointed out, there are groups in the United States right now who refuse to get any sort of State marriage license.

They can keep their marriage between themselves and God by getting married through a church.   If they want nothing to do with Gay Marriage then they should get married in a church that doesn't provide gay marriage.

I'm not avoiding a question.  In order to do that the question actually has to make sense, and not some rambling made up crap.  

Anyway, to answer your made up bs that has no chance of actually being true or a legit question.  They are the ones deciding to forgo those rights.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Precedent exists in California where no existing marriages were voided by Prop 8.

[Smash255]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, that's what the couple is doing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, you are avoiding the question, because you don't like the implications of the answer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You don't think that there is ANYONE out there who would remove themselves from the State institution so not as to have their own marriages denigrated by being put on the same level as faux-"marriages?" Really?

You are fooling yourself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You people keep saying this, but it doesn't make it any less conclusory.

Why would you deny people the right to forego a government marriage license, and get marriage solely in a church of their choice, according to the dictates of their own religion. Isn't marriage just a private contract between two consenting individuals?

1.  Please learn how to properly quote other posters

2.  There is no need for anyone to get divorced, just so they can get re-married.  That makes no sense whatsoever.  No one would ever do that you are simply making that up.

3.  Its the government that provides those benefits to married couples, not the church.  If a couple who can legally get married chooses to forgo getting a legal marriage because they are terrified of gay people or whatever silly ass reason then they are the ones who chose to give up the benefits that married couples get.

[Smash255]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nope.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You keep saying this, but there would be a reason, as I articulated.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, conclusory. You keep repeating yourself, yet you never explain WHY. Why would you deny two consenting adults the same rights and benefits that you would seek for homosexuals? Is marriage not simply a private contract between two consenting individuals? Are you seeking to impose your standards on them?

1.  No one would ever do what you articulated.  Its made up.  It has no chance of happening.  If it did, it would have happened already.

2.  As usual you are making no sense.  I did explain why.  The benefits are provided by the government, not the church.  It really is as simple as that.  In order to get those benefits, you need to legally qualify for them.   In order to qualify for the benefits provided by the government, you need to have a marriage the government recognizes.  If you make the choice not to, that is your own choice.

[Brittain33]

A strange game.

The only way to win is not to play.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A strange game.

The only way to win is not to play.

stop it with your homo rhetorical tricks!

[Thomas D]

Who the hell are Kirk and Madsen?

[Sewer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

*sigh*

You people really do operate off Kirk & Madsen talking points. Can't you come up with any original thoughts? Every single thread on these topics on the internet inevitably leads to the same Kirk & Madsen playbook. Its the new Godwin's law.

Huh?? I dont even know who Kirk & Madsen are.

[danny]

Question for the homos and homo supporters here. Let's say that same-sex "marriage" passes in a State. A conservative Christian couple in said State does not wish to be put on the same level as this faux-"marriage" so they file for a divorce. After said divorce is granted, said couple goes to a church to be married again solely under the rules of said church, and said couple refuses to get a State marriage license.

1. Should the minister performing such a marriage without a license be punished?
2. Should the couple be punished for getting married without a license?
3. Should the State recognize the couple's religious marriage, despite the fact that said couple refuses to get a State license?
4. Say said couple then files their income taxes "married-filing jointly" should they then be punished by the IRS? Should they be permitted to file in this manner?

Please justify your responses in a manner logically consistent with your rhetoric and talking points.

1. No, a minister performing such a marriage would be a private event, he should be able to marry a guy with a tree for that matter, I don't think the state should care.
2. No, it's a private event not the states business.
3. No, a marriage license is the way for a state to recognize a marriage if the couple doesn't want to get one than that's their problem, just like if someone is unemployed but doesn't bother to ask for unemployment benefits he doesn't get. It isn't the states job to go looking for anyone who may be eligible. note that this isn't conclusory like you said elsewhere since you said in your hypothesis that they refuse to get a marriage license.
4. If the the IRS regulations require marriage license than they shouldn't be allowed to file as married because they don't have one.

[danny]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually this is conclusory. Either marriage is everything that you people say that it is, and your position here is logically inconsistent with your rhetoric. OR you really don't believe your talking points about marriage, and actually believe it to be something else. You just want to impose your version of morality on the rest of society.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, why?

how is my position inconsistent? I'm not following your logic.

 I think the state should allow any two consenting adults to marry, this in no way excludes the state from requiring everyone, both gay and straight, to get a marriage license so that they be recognized as such by the state.

[danny]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is the license a necessity in your mind? Why would you deny two consenting individuals who enter into a marriage in a private ceremony, without getting  a license from the State, the same rights and benefits you would give to everyone else?

With that in mind, how do you treat people who enter into common law marriages?

I just think that it makes it simpler if the the married couple tells the state of their status so that they receive any benefits that the state confers on married couples. I don't have a big problem If a state allows for common law marriages where you don't have to register, in which case I suppose the couple in your hypothesis would be exactly that and receive any benefits such a marriage would give anyone. although I'm not sure what any of this has to do with same-sex marriage.

[Insula Dei]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

*sigh*

You people really do operate off Kirk & Madsen talking points. Can't you come up with any original thoughts? Every single thread on these topics on the internet inevitably leads to the same Kirk & Madsen playbook. Its the new Godwin's law.

So basically what you're saying is that everyone you talk to on the internet ends up suspecting that you're gay?

[danny]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why does a State need to issue a license to make this the case?

So that the state knows that your married and so that you have proof of your marriage for things like hospitals if your husband/wife is incapacitated and a medical decision needs to be made. But again let me reiterate that I don't think this is important to the same-sex marriage debate, so it would be nice if you showed what the connection is.

[Sbane]

Why do you want to deny them their rights?

Nobody wants to deny anyone rights. That is the point. Any two individuals should be able to get a marriage license from the government if they want to. Of course the government cannot consider you to be married unless you complete this formality. I don't think that is unreasonable. Just because someone refuses to get a marriage license, it doesn't mean they are being denied their right. They are just being stupid and childish.

Just read through the rest of the thread, and I don't think it is important for the government to give out a license but there has to be a way for the government to know who is married so they can give out the tax benefits and what not. Whether it's an actual license the state hands out (comes in real handy in many different situations in life) or just a form you fill, the couple has to notify the government of their decision to get married. Otherwise it's not practically possible for them to get their rights. Just like an unemployed person needs to actually file and prove he is unemployed in order to get their right to unemployment insurance.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Nope. I'm saying that on every thread involving same-sex "marriage" or homosexuality on the internet, someone will inevitably use one of the tried and true Kirk & Madsen talking points in a pathetic attempt to silence dissent.

This happens whether or not I participate in such a thread.

That might be true if I knew who the f*** Kirk & Madsen were. 

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

All same-sex marriage threads turn weird around here, but this one has indeed become a new flavor of weird.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Nope. I'm saying that on every thread involving same-sex "marriage" or homosexuality on the internet, someone will inevitably use one of the tried and true Kirk & Madsen talking points in a pathetic attempt to silence dissent.

This happens whether or not I participate in such a thread.

That might be true if I knew who the f*** Kirk & Madsen were. 

Homo's, I fear.

[Sbane]

So perhaps you have another reason for insisting on the license requirement?

No, I don't have any other reason for a license requirement. Perhaps Kirk & Madsen brainwashed me without me knowing. Please do let us know more about this phenomenon.

[danny]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As the existence of Common Law marriage shows, a license is not necessary for such a thing.

fine I still think not having licenses will cause problems but I'm not going to insist on it and I don't have big problem with it, but I still don't know where this is going.