Love is Love
Replies
-
-
If this thread dies, (politics) I just want you to know, I've had the time of my life.0
-
-
0
-
0 -
it is a day to be proud!0
-
Cindy4FunFit wrote: »If this thread dies, (politics) I just want you to know, I've had the time of my life.
You...... I
you!!
0 -
While I'm okay with freedom for all because Dad fought so hard to protect it, I agree with Pres. Obama's '08 remarks about Christianity, as cited by @_John_. I don't know what to think.
Marriage doesn't have to have religion tied to it. That's fair right? We are not back in the days anymore.
0 -
Yes but beans make you fart.0
-
[yopeeps025 wrote: »While I'm okay with freedom for all because Dad fought so hard to protect it, I agree with Pres. Obama's '08 remarks about Christianity, as cited by @_John_. I don't know what to think.
Marriage doesn't have to have religion tied to it. That's fair right? We are not back in the days anymore.
Totally fair. That also means marriages (of any kind a religious entity doesn't agree with) don't have to be performed in places of worship or on their properties either.
0 -
[yopeeps025 wrote: »While I'm okay with freedom for all because Dad fought so hard to protect it, I agree with Pres. Obama's '08 remarks about Christianity, as cited by @_John_. I don't know what to think.
Marriage doesn't have to have religion tied to it. That's fair right? We are not back in the days anymore.
Totally fair. That also means marriages (of any kind a religious entity doesn't agree with) don't have to be performed in places of worship or on their properties either.
I wonder how many people get married on the Eiffel Tower yearly?0 -
-
yopeeps025 wrote: »[yopeeps025 wrote: »While I'm okay with freedom for all because Dad fought so hard to protect it, I agree with Pres. Obama's '08 remarks about Christianity, as cited by @_John_. I don't know what to think.
Marriage doesn't have to have religion tied to it. That's fair right? We are not back in the days anymore.
Totally fair. That also means marriages (of any kind a religious entity doesn't agree with) don't have to be performed in places of worship or on their properties either.
I wonder how many people get married on the Eiffel Tower yearly?
If I have a kid get married...I'm not paying for that gig...0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »[yopeeps025 wrote: »While I'm okay with freedom for all because Dad fought so hard to protect it, I agree with Pres. Obama's '08 remarks about Christianity, as cited by @_John_. I don't know what to think.
Marriage doesn't have to have religion tied to it. That's fair right? We are not back in the days anymore.
Totally fair. That also means marriages (of any kind a religious entity doesn't agree with) don't have to be performed in places of worship or on their properties either.
I wonder how many people get married on the Eiffel Tower yearly?
If I have a kid get married...I'm not paying for that gig...
LOL. It's like having a destination wedding. Sometimes you cannot expect the bride and groom to pay for every guest.
0 -
-
yopeeps025 wrote: »While I'm okay with freedom for all because Dad fought so hard to protect it, I agree with Pres. Obama's '08 remarks about Christianity, as cited by @_John_. I don't know what to think.
Marriage doesn't have to have religion tied to it. That's fair right? We are not back in the days anymore.[yopeeps025 wrote: »While I'm okay with freedom for all because Dad fought so hard to protect it, I agree with Pres. Obama's '08 remarks about Christianity, as cited by @_John_. I don't know what to think.
Marriage doesn't have to have religion tied to it. That's fair right? We are not back in the days anymore.
Totally fair. That also means marriages (of any kind a religious entity doesn't agree with) don't have to be performed in places of worship or on their properties either.
Exactly. I got married in a courthouse by a notary. My marriage isn't "valid" by religious standards, so, I guess, my husband and I are living in "sin". Where's that outrage? *eyeroll*
Let's accept it for the legal contract that it is. No one should be denied that.
Furthermore, if there's a religious group that has and embraces the acceptance of same-sex marriage and does perform a religious ceremony for that marriage then that's within their right as a congregation. It is within their beliefs. It doesn't involve the other denominations or congregations. For example, all marriages outside of a Catholicism aren't recognized by the Catholic church; does that make the other marriages less than, does that create outrage? No. It does not. It's within their beliefs, their business.
0 -
I know those who only read this post superficially will get an impression of me that will be pretty unpopular. However, I urge you to keep an open mind. Love whom you want to love, with all of your heart. If you want to get married, get married. If you're in love and committed to someone you should be together even if there are benefits that are withheld from you that others are afforded. I would still have married my wife if there were no tax benefit as I bet most SSCs would. We would do all the things that they have had to do such as pre-plan arrangements for power of attorney and hospital visitations in the case either of us were sick. Incorporate in order to have joint bank accounts. If we wanted to have a wedding in a church, but the church refused, we would find a different one. If the clerk at the courthouse refused to grant us a marriage certificate, we would go to a state that permitted it.
That's what you do when you have to be together and being apart is out of the question.
The civics related issues are of greater consequence.
My preference and belief of what the correct result should have been: the federal government has no constitutional power in determining who can or can't be married or in attempting to define what marriage is. There is nothing in the constitution either guaranteeing the right to marry or for the federal government to decree what is acceptable or unacceptable.
It is silent on the matter and according to the constitution:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This was and should have remained a states' issue (just as the president insisted when he was running for office).
I'm only going to elaborate on one specific potential fall out from this as we could go on for days coming up with plausible scenarios.
As of now, the state of NJ does not recognize concealed carry permits from PA. So there is now precedence through the evoking of the 14th Amendment rather than adherence to the 10th Amendment. This limits the ability of states to determine what laws are appropriate for their populations. If someone is arrested for entering NJ with a permitted side arm, they have standing and precedence at the federal level to sue for a civil rights violation.
Love you all.
0 -
I know those who only read this post superficially will get an impression of me that will be pretty unpopular. However, I urge you to keep an open mind. Love whom you want to love, with all of your heart. If you want to get married, get married. If you're in love and committed to someone you should be together even if there are benefits that are withheld from you that others are afforded. I would still have married my wife if there were no tax benefit as I bet most SSCs would. We would do all the things that they have had to do such as pre-plan arrangements for power of attorney and hospital visitations in the case either of us were sick. Incorporate in order to have joint bank accounts. If we wanted to have a wedding in a church, but the church refused, we would find a different one. If the clerk at the courthouse refused to grant us a marriage certificate, we would go to a state that permitted it.
That's what you do when you have to be together and being apart is out of the question.
The civics related issues are of greater consequence.
My preference and belief of what the correct result should have been: the federal government has no constitutional power in determining who can or can't be married or in attempting to define what marriage is. There is nothing in the constitution either guaranteeing the right to marry or for the federal government to decree what is acceptable or unacceptable.
It is silent on the matter and according to the constitution:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This was and should have remained a states' issue (just as the president insisted when he was running for office).
I'm only going to elaborate on one specific potential fall out from this as we could go on for days coming up with plausible scenarios.
As of now, the state of NJ does not recognize concealed carry permits from PA. So there is now precedence through the evoking of the 14th Amendment rather than adherence to the 10th Amendment. This limits the ability of states to determine what laws are appropriate for their populations. If someone is arrested for entering NJ with a permitted side arm, they have standing and precedence at the federal level to sue for a civil rights violation.
Love you all.
0 -
I know those who only read this post superficially will get an impression of me that will be pretty unpopular. However, I urge you to keep an open mind. Love whom you want to love, with all of your heart. If you want to get married, get married. If you're in love and committed to someone you should be together even if there are benefits that are withheld from you that others are afforded. I would still have married my wife if there were no tax benefit as I bet most SSCs would. We would do all the things that they have had to do such as pre-plan arrangements for power of attorney and hospital visitations in the case either of us were sick. Incorporate in order to have joint bank accounts. If we wanted to have a wedding in a church, but the church refused, we would find a different one. If the clerk at the courthouse refused to grant us a marriage certificate, we would go to a state that permitted it.
That's what you do when you have to be together and being apart is out of the question.
The civics related issues are of greater consequence.
My preference and belief of what the correct result should have been: the federal government has no constitutional power in determining who can or can't be married or in attempting to define what marriage is. There is nothing in the constitution either guaranteeing the right to marry or for the federal government to decree what is acceptable or unacceptable.
It is silent on the matter and according to the constitution:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This was and should have remained a states' issue (just as the president insisted when he was running for office).
I'm only going to elaborate on one specific potential fall out from this as we could go on for days coming up with plausible scenarios.
As of now, the state of NJ does not recognize concealed carry permits from PA. So there is now precedence through the evoking of the 14th Amendment rather than adherence to the 10th Amendment. This limits the ability of states to determine what laws are appropriate for their populations. If someone is arrested for entering NJ with a permitted side arm, they have standing and precedence at the federal level to sue for a civil rights violation.
Love you all.
Not only go to a state that permitted it, but MOVE to one because when you went back to your state that didn't recognize it the marriage was void. There was a couple that have been together since the 60s. They had to adopt each other, so they could have any sort of rights - like visitation in a hospital if one was very ill, because without being relation or married at times it is not permitted to have "friends" visit.
It is unfortunate we had to get this win by disregarding the 10th Amendment. It's sad we live in a time where we as a country are supposed to have a separation of church and state, but when a right for people is voted on that "separation" is not present. However, if the vote went the other way and this win wasn't won I would not feel good about the large group of Americans that were denied a human right, equality, and freedom. I would not feel relieved about the 10th Amendment being intact. But, that's just my opinion. 0 -
Cindy4FunFit wrote: »
"I carried a watermelon"
Edited because I am too slow. Always late for the damn party. Just saw the 2nd post.
0 -
branflakes1980 wrote: »Cindy4FunFit wrote: »
"I carried a watermelon"
Edited because I am too slow. Always late for the damn party. Just saw the 2nd post.
Just for you. Because I care.
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »You can thank Obama.
no matter how that got to the SC that's the decision that should have been made...
Well if you remember back when Obama ran this was what he wanted to happen. So another job well done for his Resume as President.
Now who was that other guy that ran McClain. You think this would happen if he was president?
then there's also this:
(the right legal decision was reached IMO regardless).
He clearly never said that because he's a Muslim, Fox News told me so.
0 -
Cindy4FunFit wrote: »If this thread dies, (politics) I just want you to know, I've had the time of my life.
Ditto. In fact, I'd say I've never felt this way before, I swear. It's the truth.0 -
Cindy4FunFit wrote: »If this thread dies, (politics) I just want you to know, I've had the time of my life.
Ditto. In fact, I'd say I've never felt this way before, I swear. It's the truth.
And you owe it all to.....who? (Patrick Swayze)
0 -
Cindy4FunFit wrote: »If this thread dies, (politics) I just want you to know, I've had the time of my life.
Ditto. In fact, I'd say I've never felt this way before, I swear. It's the truth.
I owe it all to you, Senecarr...0 -
-
No, it really shouldn't be states issue. Marriage does impact federal filings. When I used to work in tax software, I had to write code that made it easy to do Massachusetts returns for same sex couples. The system had to computer a fake Federal return for them so they could do the Massachusetts part as if married, then go back and only actually file the Federal forms as single. It was a serious 14th Amendment violation and a very serious full faith and credit clause violation.
This was and should have remained a states' issue (just as the president insisted when he was running for office).
I'm only going to elaborate on one specific potential fall out from this as we could go on for days coming up with plausible scenarios.
As of now, the state of NJ does not recognize concealed carry permits from PA. So there is now precedence through the evoking of the 14th Amendment rather than adherence to the 10th Amendment. This limits the ability of states to determine what laws are appropriate for their populations. If someone is arrested for entering NJ with a permitted side arm, they have standing and precedence at the federal level to sue for a civil rights violation.
Love you all.0 -
And big picture/national employment benefits ^^^^0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions