Straight Marriage Is Illegal Now

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Straight Marriage Is Illegal Now

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Install Gentoo posted:

Chiropractic, homeopathic, naturopathic and so on are all still legal, can all cause harm (including the harm of not seeing a real doctor for serious medical condition) but are all still legal. Just being junk medicine that hurts people and gets done to kids against their will, unfortunately, isn't illegal.

While you are right about this, I do think there is room for regulation concerning state licensed practitioners on best practices and standards of conduct, especially with regard to potentially permanent effects on minors. You can't really outlaw some wacko berating kids for having boners, but we can hold licensed healers to a scientific standard.

# ¿ Dec 4, 2012 16:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 20, 2024 03:37

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Adar posted:

It's not even a good comparison on moral grounds. There aren't nearly as many freely consenting adults involved in the latter as in the former.

This is confusing to me. I don't usually make decisions on morality based on the number people (of any category) involved in the act. If incest is, all else being equal, a fundamentally moral act (or at least amoral), what bearing does the number of parents molesting their children have on that?

# ¿ Dec 11, 2012 19:56

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

katium posted:

I had forgotten the first vote tally. That's awesome that they actually managed to get *more* votes the second time around.

I do wonder, though, if these state-by-state victories will ultimately lead SCOTUS to decide marriage is a state issue and let it continue to happen incrementally. Though it seems if they're going to strike down DOMA, that would make the issue more complicated (you get federal benefits in the state you're married in, but if you move to another state that has no marriage recognition for same-sex couples, you lose everything).

I can't imagine that the status of state recognition of a marriage you had in an entirely separate state would have any impact on federal benefits. If the federal government wants to know if you are married, they aren't going to look up your address and call your state government, they'll just want the marriage license.

# ¿ May 2, 2013 23:07

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

gently caress You And Diebold posted:

Yeah one of the criticisms of the state-by-state federal benefits is that even just people traveling in states that do not recognize their marriage would technically lose the federal benefits/protections of it while in those states.

Can you source this? I'm pretty sure if you get married in Washington and travel to Alabama, when you ask the federal government for some sort of benefit or protection, they don't ask Alabama if you are married.

# ¿ Jun 7, 2013 04:26

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Lutha Mahtin posted:

I didn't read all of this but I found this article on the subject by some actual lawyers: Have Marriage, Will Travel.

This doesn't discuss federal benefits. Under current law you can't get married in Massachusetts move to Texas, and expect Texas to be able to give you a divorce, since as far as Texas is concerned you aren't married in the first place. This is a terrible situation, but it happens regardless of how the Court rules on DOMA section 3. The Privileges and Immunities argument is similarly not about federal benefits (and is poorly reasoned in my opinion, their argument would suggest to me that because I live in Washington and Washington allows personal possession of marijuana, that other states that would arrest me for such possession would violate my right to travel, since they are citing the Articles of Confederation (why the gently caress are they citing the Articles of Confederation?)).

# ¿ Jun 7, 2013 23:10

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Alien Arcana posted:

But the Prop. 8 proponents? The amendment was not "theirs" in any legal sense - it's a law and thus belongs to the State.

Good post, but I'll offer a small correction. As far as the state of California was concerned the proponents did have standing, but this didn't matter in a federal court.

twodot fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Jul 12, 2013

# ¿ Jul 12, 2013 01:11

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

How are u posted:

Do people honestly think the Russian government isn't cognizant of what will happen if they actually arrest LGBT Olympians? I think LGBT Olympians should attend, and they should be vocal, because Russia isn't going to do jack poo poo with the world's eyes on them like that. Attending will certainly do more good at raising awareness and pressing for change than calls for some ridiculous boycott that will never happen.

Clearly if a boycott would never happen, then most any action is at least as good as wasting effort on a hopeless cause. That said, Russia failing to enforce laws against foreign Olympians also has basically zero chance for change ("No gay people arrested in Russia" isn't a particularly great headline), so I think advocating for a boycott is at least as good as calling for athletes to engage in civil disobedience in a foreign country.

twodot fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Aug 13, 2013

# ¿ Aug 13, 2013 12:56

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

RagnarokAngel posted:

Yeah I mean in theory it could work, but the more parties you add the more complicated it becomes. What if one of the men gets jealous of the time the woman is spending with his partner, and asks for a divorce? Does he get a third of all 3 of their assets combined? Even if the other 2 are perfectly happy and not looking to divorce?

You could of course set up a prenuptial agreement but there's still going to be more argument in deciding that course.

I'm not saying it absolutely could not work, just from the angle of how our legal system currently functions there's more to it than "Eh they're not hurting anybody"

There was an endless stream of people asking questions with incredibly obvious answers in the SCOTUS thread too. In this case the answers are "Yes" and "Yes" (these would be defaults anyways, we have judges so they can judge things like this). While a marriage involving three or more people would be undoubtedly more complicated than a marriage involving two, "it's complicated" is not a compelling reason to not do something. The "it's complicated" argument is no different from Herman Cain objecting to bills longer than three pages.

# ¿ Oct 31, 2013 17:35

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

RagnarokAngel posted:

I already said that I'm not completely against the idea 100%, it's just that it would require a revision of how our legal system views marriage to actually work. It's not a matter of being lazy, the opposite actually, it's that actual work has to be done to execute it and not screw it up.

Not doing something because it would require actual work is the definition of being lazy. It's one thing to say something like "I can't fully support any particular implementation until the details of what would be implemented are laid out", it's another to say "We can't do that because it would require us to change multiple laws".

Mr. Nice! posted:

I'm sure glad this stupid discussion has cropped up in another thread it is only tangentially related to. It was pretty clearly laid out in the SCOTUS thread why legally multi-person marriages have absolutely nothing to do with SSM.

"absolutely nothing to do" is pretty plainly wrong. Most (all?) sane arguments for supporting same sex marriage lead more or less directly to suggesting that marriage should be allowed between any configuration of consenting adults. There may also be reasons to disallow certain types of marriages, "it's hard" seems to be common one for more than two person marriages, but demanding equal rights for gay couples (which is a thing we should do) is an activity that should also cause you to consider the rights of other sorts of relationships.

# ¿ Oct 31, 2013 18:54

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

eviltastic posted:

I've always been a fan of the gender discrimination argument, which is not readily extensible to poly marriages. "You can't marry that guy because you're male." is meaningfully distinct from "You can't marry that guy because you're already married." Discriminating on the basis of gender, a trait one can't control, is problematic in ways that discriminating on the basis of an existing optional conferred legal status is not.

I don't think this argument works. People of all genders are allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender. Similarily people of all genders are allowed to use locker rooms of their same gender. The fact that a guy can't marry a guy or a guy can't use the women's locker room aren't evidence of discrimination on gender. If we were seriously treating this as a gender discrimination issue, we would have had nationwide gay marriage long ago. In any case, this is tangential, if literally the only reason you support gay marriage is because of gender discrimination, then you can happily disapprove of more than two people marriages without dissonance. I strongly suspect that even among people who would agree with your argument that a majority support gay marriage for additional reasons, in which case we get to inspect those reasons as well.

quote:

Beyond that, there's a reason much of the advocacy involves phrasing like "marriage equality". Gay couples want access to pretty much exactly the same extant legal machinery that straight couples get. A poly trio would by necessity not, which is why people keep talking about the need for major revisions to stuff like probate codes. "It's changing the definition" is in this case not just a fig leaf for bigotry.

Many defenses to arguments against gay marriage also don't apply to the same extent to poly marriages. For example, we can feel safe dismissing bullshit about gay marriage and harm to children or pedophilia or whatever because it's demonstrably bullshit. Talk of problems with abusive patriarchal polygamous marriages is not demonstrably bullshit.

I don't see any reason why a poly trio would necessarily not be asking for pretty much exactly the same extant legal machinery. Most of legal machinery behind marriage can be replicated with contracts, marriage just standardizes it.

I agree that abusive marriages are bad. That a marriage could be potentially abusive is not a reason to ban marriages. Merely alluding to the existance of abusive polygamous marriages is not going to be compelling, because when you refer to such marriages outside our legal system, we have good reason to believe we can create a better legal system for such marriages, and when it occurs inside our legal system, it is evident that the current ban is not helping that situation in any way. In fact, the current ban is making things worse because the women have no legal claim on any of the shared assets.

# ¿ Oct 31, 2013 20:29

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

wid posted:

SSM also doesn't call for the need to change the contractual structure of marriage. The gender of the couple has no effect whatsoever.

Let's suppose that gender was baked into the structure of marriage (imagine subsidies for gender specific medicine or what not). If that were the case, and the gender of the couple had an effect requiring you to alter existing laws, would you suddenly be opposed to allowing same sex marriages? I hope not.

quote:

While polygamy on the other.... Ok, let's start with the simplest question: a trio relationship of A, B and C. Is it A in a relationship with B and C while B and C are only in relationship with A, or B and C have relationship with A as well as each other? So, is the contract giving the same portion for all parties? Is it fair if B and C didn't have relationship with each other? Is it fair if A's portion gets distributed equally between B and C? Does C have a stake in B's wealth? What if the contract started with B and C only having relationship with A, but then they divorced A to get into relationship with each other? WHAT IF D, E, F, G, ETC, GET INTO THE RELATIONSHIP?

The easiest way to deal with this is to require all participants to be married to each other.

# ¿ Nov 1, 2013 05:10

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

RagnarokAngel posted:

Seriously twodot can you make your own thread if you seriously wanna argue your polygamy fantasies?

I didn't start this discussion. I'm personally more than happy to let this thread be solely devoted to discussing getting marriage rights for gay people. If people post in this thread that they think we should deny marriage rights to other people because those people are icky/complicated/whatever nonsense, I'll tell them every time that they are wrong, and I'll explain in detail why they are wrong. It's the same deal if someone came in here and said "Gay marriage is cool, but interracial marriage goes too far" the answer is "Not only are you wrong, but additionally the arguments that led you to accepting gay marriage probably should have led you to accept interracial marriage". Bottom line is I'm happy to stop discussing polygamous marriage once people stop condemning it. Also super cool of you to make assumptions about my fantasies, that's clearly conducive to productive conversation.

# ¿ Nov 1, 2013 06:10

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

wid posted:

That's dumb. If there's a gender specific subsidy that is only granted to married couple, it's already a problem even before you put SSM to it. Why not add in "what if aliens came to conquer us all and would eat same sex couples who wanted to get married" as a possible scenario.

In that hypothetical, I would still support same sex marriage, because I can't control the actions of hypothetical rear end in a top hat aliens, and every couple would have the option of braving potential alien eating or not getting married. Would you care to answer my hypothetical? You inability to do so so far implies bad things about the consistency of your beliefs.

quote:

Aaaaaaand even dumber. How many poly-amorous people who know that are in relationship with everyone? And everyone have to be at least gay, if not at least two bisexuals. And that doesn't actually answer the question of 2 of them having kids. Should the third adopt the kid? What about the kid's inheritance from the person who is not his/her biological parent? Marriage is not simply about who gets to gently caress who. That's a nine grader's view of adulthood.

You'd make a better argument for polygamy's legal status by proposing to abolish marriage itself, so everyone would stand on even ground (except for the homemaker in the relationship who'd get hosed over after a break up). So good luck trying to argue that case.

Meanwhile, back in non-fantasy land: there is literally *nothing* differentiating SSM to a regular couple's marriage from a legal's stand point. This is why anti-SSM is dumb.

The number of people who would adopt such a legal contract has no bearing on whether we should make something legal. The fact that a minority is small does not diminish their need for equal rights. As a bonus, you may discover that after legally recognizing such relationships that there are more than you anticipated! To answer the question about the kid, everyone involved in the marriage would have equivalent rights over children as is the case now. The marriage would own all assets so absent a specific will saying otherwise normal inheritance rules would apply. I'm not the one assuming marriage is about who gets to gently caress who. You are in fact the person assuming that. Literally in this post you said in a group marriage "everyone have[sic] to be at least gay". You are plainly irrational on this topic, I strongly suggest you sit back and think about this.

As far as whether there is anything differentiating same sex marriage from opposite marriage. You are just trivially and completely wrong on this. From a legal stand point, there is very definitively something differentiating these, this is why in some jurisdictions gay couple are still not allowed to get married! The thing differentiating them is dumb and we should get rid of it, but it clearly exists, arguing otherwise is just refusing to recognize reality.

twodot fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Nov 1, 2013

# ¿ Nov 1, 2013 17:28

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

Twodots what is your ideal number of spouses? Just like two or a proverbial harem?

My personal ideal number of spouses is zero, because I think expressing commitment to 1 or more individuals by sharing property is a bad idea, but other people's ideal number of spouses might be 0 or 1 or more than 1, and I'm willing to respect that. Why do you think my personal ideal number of spouses is an interesting thing to discuss in this thread?

# ¿ Nov 1, 2013 17:34

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Kugyou no Tenshi posted:

Did anyone other than you misread wid's point? Because it was pretty loving obvious that wid was saying that your "make everyone be married to each other" solution is a bad solution because you'd require that people who do not consider themselves to be in relationships with each other be married to each other. Your "solutions" are simplistic, reductionist garbage that create new problems. You're arguing for the sake of arguing, against positions no one is taking.

EDIT: Seriously, you're literally saying that someone who wants to enter into a polyamorous marriage should be required to marry literally every member of the entity. That's not how all poly relationships are set up. You're more or less talking out your rear end here.

I'm not requiring or even suggesting that people enter into any sort of marriage. It's certainly true that there are many relationships that wouldn't care to enter into a group marriage, but the property sharing nature of marriage imposes certain realities. Again the fact that the number of people who might use a right being small does not diminish the demand for that right.

quote:

No one's condemning it. Not right now in this thread. Can you be done now?

Hmm...

Kugyou no Tenshi posted:

your "make everyone be married to each other" solution is a bad solution

Kugyou no Tenshi posted:

Your "solutions" are simplistic, reductionist garbage that create new problems.

wid posted:

Aaaaaaand even dumber. How many poly-amorous people who know that are in relationship with everyone? And everyone have to be at least gay, if not at least two bisexuals. And that doesn't actually answer the question of 2 of them having kids. Should the third adopt the kid? What about the kid's inheritance from the person who is not his/her biological parent? Marriage is not simply about who gets to gently caress who. That's a nine grader's view of adulthood.

RagnarokAngel posted:

On the same note, some people might say "oh yes, most poly marriages might have problems but I know I (and my partners) could handle the legal responsibility of not messing it up." Again, maybe it's true, but that's enough basis to grant an exception

Tatum Girlparts posted:

That still doesn't solve anything. What if A and C have a kid, does B get any rights? What happens if C wants to leave, who has standing to argue custody for the kid? What happens if D gets all up in there, do they have any rights over the kid and such? Can D or B sign a permission slip or be listed as a guardian?

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ Nov 1, 2013 18:48

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

notthegoatseguy posted:

While they could file it in federal court, there's a chance they'd punt it and told to go talk to the state court system. There's plenty of success in state court. Just look at Iowa and Massachusetts.

Colorado is different, because Colorado's provisions are in the state constitution. That said, state courts are allowed to decide a portion of their state's constitution is in violation of the federal constitution, so this isn't a hopeless endeavor.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2013 03:29

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

mdemone posted:

Yes, but the only kind of marriage it's legal to not recognize is a same-sex marriage, hence the qualifier is necessary in that clause.

This is not true. Marriage laws differ in state to state, and whether states recognize marriages from other states that would not have been allowed there also differ. Marriage between related people is a major one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_United_States_by_state
I would argue that it's completely sane for some states to ignore some other states' marriages (imagine a rogue state that declared everyone in their state married to each other). But obviously we should allow same sex marriage everywhere.

# ¿ Feb 7, 2014 18:26

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

VitalSigns posted:

Truly our only protection against the totally insane hypothetical of a state marrying everyone to everyone is to allow states to continue to discriminate against valid marriages performed elsewhere

I know you are a lovely poster, but can't you at least formulate an argument rather than just garbage sarcasm? Some states allow certain marriages, other states don't want to allow certain marriages. It should be obviously insane to default to "accept all marriages", because there clearly exist bad marriage laws. I don't really give a gently caress if gay people or first cousins marry, so yes all states should accept those particular marriages, but the earlier contention was that states must accept literally any marriage, which is mistaken and not desirable(other states shouldn't tolerate Alabama's age requirements for instance). (edit: unsharpened this last sentence)

twodot fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Feb 7, 2014

# ¿ Feb 7, 2014 20:31

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

VitalSigns posted:

until the Supreme Court finally rules that equality before the law is enshrined in the Constitution and the Full Faith and Credit clause actually means what it says.

This is not what the Full Faith and Credit clause is for, as an example note that I've already shown that many states successfully ignore many other states' laws on marriages for multiple reasons.

quote:

How about we recognize all marriages in other states by default...and then if some state does something hilariously insane like marrying everyone to everyone or legalizing man-toaster marriage then we deal with that as it comes up?

This is the current state of affairs. All the states have already defined what they do and don't accept. Your stance would be valid to have in the 1700s, but this ignores centuries of legislation that has already been passed.

quote:

Edit: I'm fine with going ahead and pre-carving-out an exception for age-of-consent laws so states don't have to recognize marriages that are statutory rape under their laws. But other than that, let's let the bigots fight for years in court to get the go-ahead to deny their citizens civil rights for a change, instead of doing the opposite of that like we do now.

Ok, so at the end of your post you've suddenly decided that by default accepting all marriage is a bad idea? Is this just you admitting you haven't done any serious thought on the issue whatsoever and aren't even capable of keeping a single post consistent?

edit: For clarity, the issue of a state not respecting a same sex marriage that happened in another state is a serious civil rights issue, and should be treated as such. It is not an issue with states being able to define what marriage they legally allow. They are plently of clearly awful marriage laws, both in the United States, and elsewhere, that the value of allowing states to dictate this should be clear. States shouldn't be allowed to ignore same sex marriages, not because the states lack the power, but because that particular exercise of that power is discriminatory.

twodot fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Feb 7, 2014

# ¿ Feb 7, 2014 22:41

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

VitalSigns posted:

No, I'm saying that the default position ought to be to recognize all marriages, because marriage is a basic human right. Any exceptions to the default ought to either be carved out ahead of time or submitted to the courts for approval, rather than making oppressed groups fight in the courts every single time a state decides they shouldn't get rights.

States that want to abridge the rights of their people should have to submit that for approval. I would love nothing more than a marriage version of the pre-approval process in the VRA. Your state wants to refuse to recognize a marriage performed within another state? Awesome, submit your request to the Justice Department under the Marriage Rights Act and we'll get right on that.

Ok this is dumb, but not as mind-blowingly dumb as your previous posts (hint: exceptions to the default have already been carved out ahead of time). If we are proposing federal legislation, why not just remove marriage from state hands and implement marriage federally? Keeping marriage in state hands, but not allowing dissimilar laws between the states makes no sense. Or if as I suspect, you don't actually care about the ability of the states to control marriage in general, but only specifically about the rights of oppressed people, why not just federally require states to recognize those specific marriages?

edit:
Same to you: vvvv
If we are proposing new legal regimes, why keep around state based marriage at all?

twodot fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Feb 7, 2014

# ¿ Feb 7, 2014 22:56

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

VitalSigns posted:

OK keep whining about the tone of my posts while you fill yours with needless hostility and personal insults.

Noting that your posts are full of worthless sarcasm or poorly thought out ideas is whining about the content of your posts not the tone.

quote:

A Marriage Rights Act requiring preclearance is probably less likely to be ruled unconstitutional than a law usurping what has been historically recognized as a State prerogative.

The only reason the VRA works is because of the 15th amendment that give specific protections to voting rights. Even then, the preclearance requirements were effectively (though not actually) struck down last year in Shelby County vs Holder. It would be interesting to see what the court thinks about submitting everyone to preclearance. If we're discussing likelihood of being ruled unconstitutional, I would put both the Marriage Rights Act, and the law putting control of marriage into federal hands at 100%. I figured when you proposed the Marriage Rights Act, you were implying the Constitutional authority to enforce it, which would probably also be sufficient authority to just seize the definition of marriage directly.
edit:

Squizzle posted:

Emphasis, obviously, mine. My inexpert reading of the bolded portion is that Congress is absolutely empowered to say that e.g. every state and territory must recognize any legal marriage from any other state/territory, so long as the married individuals are over age 16.

I'm not aware of any serious legal expert that thinks marriage licenses is one of "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings".

# ¿ Feb 7, 2014 23:55

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

The Warszawa posted:

I think there's a colorable argument that an executed and recorded marriage does give rise to a public record under the meaning of the clause.

I agree that there's a valid discussion to be had, I'm just not aware of anyone even attempting the discussion. (edit: and that absent a court case the consensus seems to be that marriage licenses don't apply)

twodot fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Feb 8, 2014

# ¿ Feb 8, 2014 00:26

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

farraday posted:

They're saying ti does something, twodots is saying it doesn't. That's a fundamental disagreement.

First I didn't make any claims about DOMA Section 2. DOMA Section 2 is a law that consists of words, and as such obviously does something. The thing it does might be redundant, or it might be irrelevant, or it might declare that the Moon is hollow and populated by lizardmen. Your quote of the Supreme Court isn't them pronouncing that they performed some analysis and are issuing a binding declaration, they are just noting that they aren't analyzing that section because no one seemed to think it was important (and why might that be?).

# ¿ Feb 8, 2014 00:53

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

farraday posted:

Not held, but they're giving their understanding of section two in passing and they're clearly saying twodots concept that it is dead letter isn't true. IT doesn't really have the force of a holding but it is also pretty clearly legal experts saying marriage is under full faith and credit.

You can pass an operative law saying the moon is hollow? Or are you claiming the supreme court doesn't know the meaning of the term operative?

Fine, the law could allow the states to not recognize the marriage of lizardmen from the hollow moon. The point is that stating the function of something in no way demands that the function is not redundant.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2014 01:20

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

BuckT.Trend posted:

Um, no. If you marry your first cousin in say, Arkansas, under the Full Faith and Credit clause your marriage is still valid and legal in a state that doesn't permit first-cousin marriage. Same-sex marriages are the only legal unions that are still not yet covered by FFC.

This is not currently true. I think there is a valid argument that it should be true, but it is not an accurate statement right now. First, Arkansas doesn't even permit first cousin marriage, but presuming you did marry your first cousin somewhere else legally, and then moved to Arizona, the current laws on the books would not recognize it:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/25/00112.htm

quote:

A. Marriages valid by the laws of the place where contracted are valid in this state, except marriages that are void and prohibited by section 25-101.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/25/00101.htm

quote:

A. Marriage between parents and children, including grandparents and grandchildren of every degree, between brothers and sisters of the one-half as well as the whole blood, and between uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews and between first cousins, is prohibited and void.

If you some have some case to cite that overturned this, I'm interested to read it.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2014 02:29

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

farraday posted:

Indeed and no reputable lawyer would ever suggest full faith and credit should be applied to marriage.
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/h....pdf?sequence=2
http://ilj.law.indiana.edu/articles/12-Sanders.pdf

This is at least the second time you accused me of adopting a position which I plainly haven't. Not only did I never say "no reputable lawyer", I've repeatedly said that I think there is a valid discussion to be had. I said "I'm not aware of any serious legal expert" because while I've read plenty of academics discussing it one way or another, I've never heard of an actual court challenge to laws which ignore out of state marriages.

quote:

pretending full faith and credit is irrelevant is fairly moronic.

Your own article cites people asserting that full faith and credit doesn't apply (or at a minimum that the public policy exception gets them out of their obligations), your stance that it is moronic is simply untenable.
edit:
Also this post doesn't actually address the point of the post you are quoting, which is that stating the function of a law doesn't imply that the law is not redundant.
edit2:
I didn't read your second link at first, because the first one was annoying and dumb, but I'm in full agreement with the main thrust of the second link, though I haven't delved into the details.

twodot fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Feb 8, 2014

# ¿ Feb 8, 2014 02:56

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

farraday posted:

I know you are a lovely poster, but "no serious legal expert" does not include law professors because law professors aren't legal experts?

gently caress off you troll.

When discussing Constitutional law, I do think arguing court cases is quite a bit more serious than publishing papers, but if you disagree, I'm happy to rephrase as "I'm not aware of anyone at any point advancing this argument in any court case".

# ¿ Feb 8, 2014 03:29

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

farraday posted:

It's been used several times in court cases. Would you like to change what the words you said meant again so you're never wrong still?

Cite one? This would not be the first time I asked for a citation.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2014 03:40

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

farraday posted:

Robicheaux v. Caldwell

Ah, I was unaware of this case, because it was a case that filed in July and has since been completely dismissed without actually getting anywhere, though it does seem like they might try again. I agree that this is in fact a case where someone argued that the full faith and credit clause should apply to marriage, though I'll note they were not very successful. Thanks for the case, but you must agree that it does nothing to advance the argument that full faith and credit ought to apply to marriage? The documents that do exist don't even give a reason, which is not to say that is unusual, just that the proceedings didn't get far enough to make an actual argument.

For those curious about the prevalence/success of such arguments, from farraday's own link:

quote:

But there exists an entrenched conventional wisdom that the Full Faith and Credit Clause actually is �irrelevant to the question of whether one state must recognize another state�s marriage.�

quote:

�[t]he fact that the Full Faith and Credit Clause has not been invoked in the marriage context does not mean that it could not be.�

quote:

The Supreme Court has never spoken to the matter, [footnote follows] Nor has any federal circuit court. At least one federal district court has rejected a full faith and credit argument for interstate recognition of a same-sex marriage. Wilson v. Ake

# ¿ Feb 8, 2014 04:22

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Sweeney Tom posted:

Twodot has derailed this thread for at least a dozen pages over the course of 3 or 4 times now with non-gay marriage topics, and it's past the point of being ridiculous.

Whether or not full faith and credit works as an argument for gay marriage seems directly on point for a gay marriage thread (edit: it so far has never worked despite us documenting two cases attempting it so far, this doesn't preclude it from working, but it seems relevant regarding directing effort). People should stop posting wrong things, and I'll stop telling them they are wrong

farraday posted:

gently caress off you troll.

Your stance has evolved from the Supreme Court thinks full faith and credit applies to marriage/you are moron for thinking otherwise to posting a court case that was dismissed, and a court case where that argument lost, and I'm the troll? I think there's reasonable room for disagreement on serious, and it's nice of you to cite me court cases I was unaware of (I was unaware of them as I stated), but after I acknowledge that and ask if you think those cases really are in favor of your argument you completely drop your own arguments, and accuse me of being a troll. That's dumb.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2014 04:47

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

farraday posted:

Lie about what you said some more.

Where did I lie? Obviously we have different definitions of serious, which as I've previously noted is fine. You are more than welcome to say my usage of serious is dumb, whether or not academics exist on either side of the issue isn't relevant to any stance I care about. If that's your primary argument, then good job I guess.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2014 04:52

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Sweeney Tom posted:

Does this include the part where you started this whole current tangent by linking to how cousin marriage is affected? Because that seems like something that is definitely not on point for a gay marriage thread (unless the cousins are gay, in which case you're still halfway there at best).

Do you seriously want a recap? Multiple people asserted that same sex marriage was the only metric on which states can ignore marriages that happened in other states. This is simply mistaken. If that were true, and the full faith and credit clause did protect first cousin marriage (among others), then making the argument that full faith and credit should protect same sex marriage just as it does other marriages is much easier. Since other marriages aren't currently protected, the argument becomes much harder (though not impossible). I don't see how this meta-discussion is helping anything.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2014 05:22

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

thefncrow posted:

Or you find a friend you trust and let him run a $30 charge on your credit card. 10 minutes later, he's an ordained minister who can officiate.

Is this even a requirement? I can't find a definition of clergy anywhere in the New Mexico codes, and I don't see anything stopping you from declaring yourself the head of your own religion. (Note: clergy members are mandated reporters in New Mexico)

# ¿ Feb 20, 2014 21:21

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Morter posted:

I'm not fully read up on legalese, but when did sodomy stop meaning "Any sexual act that doesn't promote procreation" and start meaning "man dick in man butt"? I'm not trying to be Mr. Semantics here, but I was always under the assumption that, by definition, "Sodomy" meant anything from a blowjob to using a condom, or even straight anal. But was there a point in US legislative/judicial history where it was defined as (male) gay sex?

Sodomy is just a generic term that people use. The law in question for Lawrence v Texas was literally a ban on gay sex:
http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/21.06.00.html

quote:

(a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.

Other states banned specifically any anal/oral sex:
https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+18.2-361

# ¿ Feb 28, 2014 20:15

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

cruft posted:

I recommend everybody pretend that the last 4 digits are your SSN, and the first 5 are your PIN. Everybody has the last 4 anyway, including your cable company, your bank, your hospital, your gas company, etc.

This is not a great idea, since the first five are guessable with basic information (if you were born prior to 2011).

# ¿ Apr 16, 2014 22:50

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Spalec posted:

I don't quite understand the 'Gays have STDs! That's why we want to stop them indulging in a ritual that promotes monogamy and committing to one person for life'

But I guess they can't just say 'Ewwww, gays are icky!' anymore.

This seems to fit into the standard Republican stance of "If we make activity X (which we think is bad) safer, more people will do X, thus we must make X more dangerous!".

# ¿ May 17, 2014 00:32

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

MaxxBot posted:

If pro-LGBT Christian denominations deserve to be shunned for sins of the past, doesn't virtually every institution that has existed for more than a few decades deserve to be shunned?

I would say that people and organizations that actively encouraged the denial of civil rights have a duty to actively/publicly repudiate those beliefs and acknowledge that they were wrong and responsible for substantial harm. They should also offer some reasoning on why their stance changed, especially religious organizations, since it's not clear to me what change could occur that would convince a religious person to change their mind (absent a new revelation from their god of choice). Silently moving your opinion to agree with the majority is not sufficient.

# ¿ May 18, 2014 22:01

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Blue Footed Booby posted:

"My friend's cousin says gays marrying doesn't hurt anything" is sufficient proof to abandon the opinion that same sex marriage is harmful, so requiring a reason to change opinion is a weird bar that seems like it's some combination of implicitly demanding they justify the opinion they no longer hold, a sneaky way to pressure people into making cringing apologies, or way to demand people prove they haven't switched to being crypto-bigots at worst.

It is literally a way to demand people prove they haven't switched to being crypto-bigots. I would much rather people be crypto-bigots than bigots, but it's very suspicious to me when people stop having awful opinions conveniently when having awful opinions becomes unpopular. I'm totally fine if people see the light via "My friend's cousin said it was ok" or "I didn't know any better", that lets me know they don't have a functioning moral system. If Joe Random Person operates that way, I don't really care as long as they vote correctly. If Religious Organization That Claims To Have Access To A Good Moral System or Person With Political Power operates that way, that lets me know that they are an uncertain ally at best, and shouldn't be trusted (or praised).

# ¿ May 19, 2014 20:23

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Who What Now posted:

"You know a lot of these States That Claim To Be Arbiters Of Morality And Rights used to go out of their way to make lives very difficult for homosexuals but now all of a sudden they are legalizing Same-Sex Marriage? Anyone from California, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Delaware, Illinois, Hawaii, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine, Maryland, Washington, Michigan, or Oregon should be considered an uncertain ally at best, and should not be trusted (or praised)."

Yes, unironically. Most of those states had their laws forcibly changed by a small number of judges, California (to pick the first entry in your list) as an entity certainly shouldn't expect to be praised because Walker and the Supreme Court forced them to stop being shitheads, though I guess some credit goes to Schwarzenegger and Brown for not actively defending being shitheads. (edit: And I sure as gently caress don't trust California to do anything right)

# ¿ May 19, 2014 21:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 20, 2024 03:37

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Who What Now posted:

Good to know that even though I've been campaigning in Michigan to increase support for LGBT issues for years now that I am somehow untrustworthy and a worthless ally simply because of the state I live in!

Oh sorry, I amended your post in my head to make more sense. Michigan as an organization is not to be trusted, it's run by a bunch of politicians that are clearly not acting in the best interest of its people, and the fact that a judge is forcing Michigan as an organization to be less lovely does nothing to make me think better of Michigan. Clearly individuals inside of Michigan's borders need to be evaluated on their own merits, and I have no problem arguing that anyone who voted for Michigan's constitutional amendment is untrustworthy until proven otherwise. Actively campaigning for removing the amendment would be an excellent way to earn trust if you were one of those people! (If you weren't, I have no idea why you think you are relevant to my post).

# ¿ May 19, 2014 21:29

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Straight Marriage Is Illegal Now

«‹›3 »