If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Seattle Times)   Washington about to make same-sex marriage compulsory   (seattletimes.com) divider line 222
    More: Scary, domestic partners, secretary of states, lesbian couples  
•       •       •

20530 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Feb 2014 at 5:14 PM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



222 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-18 12:08:03 AM  

jst3p: walktoanarcade: LrdPhoenix: theropod: My partner and I entered a civil union in Colorado shortly after they were legalized last year. We made it VERY casual (flashmob ceremony at Red Rocks, no gifts, pay-for-your-own lunch at Hamburger Mary's afterwards). We went into it with the explicit understanding that it was NOT a wedding, otherwise we would've made a bigger deal of it (pay a photographer, invite out-of-state family, etc.). We have grander plans that I only want to do after SSM officially goes nationwide.

If the State of Colorado were to tell us all of a sudden: "Uh, y'all are married now," I would have a problem with that.

Sorry, you got married regardless of what they called it.  You just decided not to have a wedding in lieu of your flash mob thing.
This can be a new zinger: Oooh you've been wedded!  Wedpown'd?

 No, I got it: Matrimowned!

Well played.


*Clumsy bow*
 
2014-02-18 12:08:10 AM  

iron de havilland: Before gay marriage was allowed in parts of the UK, right wing rhetoric was that with the demolition of the biblical union of a man and a woman, it would suddenly be great for fathers to marry their sons for tax purposes.One of the Tory grandees was the first person I saw proposing this notion. I want to say Lawson, but I may be wrong. But then, Jeremy Irons weighed in on the issue himself, making the exact same point.


It was Norman Tebbit. I dread what life must be like inside of his psyche to jump from same-sex marriage rights to that.
 
2014-02-18 12:15:26 AM  
Is there an organized point missing contest happening today on fark? That is the only explanation I can come with for this thread.
 
2014-02-18 12:20:39 AM  

Thrag: Is there an organized point missing contest happening today on fark? That is the only explanation I can come with for this thread.


What did we miss?
 
2014-02-18 12:49:40 AM  

DarkVader: theropod: My partner and I entered a civil union in Colorado shortly after they were legalized last year. We made it VERY casual (flashmob ceremony at Red Rocks, no gifts, pay-for-your-own lunch at Hamburger Mary's afterwards). We went into it with the explicit understanding that it was NOT a wedding, otherwise we would've made a bigger deal of it (pay a photographer, invite out-of-state family, etc.). We have grander plans that I only want to do after SSM officially goes nationwide.

If the State of Colorado were to tell us all of a sudden: "Uh, y'all are married now," I would have a problem with that.

Well, you're now on notice that it will probably happen.

Like Washington, you'll likely get a significant amount of notice before it does, so you'll have time to choose to either dissolve, get married, or wait until it becomes a marriage with no action needed on your part.


Look to get together and marry me you wantreLLY WONTneed such measure's.
 
2014-02-18 01:23:14 AM  
Way to troll subby...
 
2014-02-18 02:50:15 AM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: ransack.: skinink: I now pronounce you Yogi and Boo Boo. You may kiss the bear.

My vomit phone you pay me new phone,

If you vomit when seeing a gay couple, but you don't vomit when you see this picture, you have no case, you perverted bigot.  :)

[wackymania.com image 600x575]


utahphotojournalism.comi17.photobucket.comcdn-www.i-am-bored.comwww.teamjimmyjoe.com

Sacred...yeah...
 
2014-02-18 03:07:32 AM  

TheSwissNavy: Yakk: What the hell? Do people want this?

My first thought too. The government can't legally modify an existing contract. But hey, puppies and candy for all, comrades.


We have altered the contract. Pray we do not alter it further.
 
2014-02-18 03:13:48 AM  
Silly Progressives, and their laws of unintended consequences...
 
2014-02-18 05:22:28 AM  
FTFA: By mid-to-late March, the Secretary of State's Office will send out notices to those in the domestic-partnership registry, alerting them to the pending change. As of Friday, an estimated 6,500 same-sex couples remained in the state registry.
Those in the process of dissolutions or annulments of these unions won't be converted.


So...they're notifying those with registered partnerships that the conversion is happening and those in the process of annulment won't be affected. Way to journalism there, Seattle Times
 
2014-02-18 06:56:27 AM  

iheartscotch: hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm actually surprised that they worded the bill the way they did. Technically, if you've lived with your roommate long enough; congratulations! You're married!


But isn't that where the phrase "common law wife/husband" comes from?  From statutes that would recognize a couple that has cohabited for so many years to be legally recognized as a marriage? Isn't that what a "civil union" technically is?  It appears that it hasn't taken long for people to forget that the whole "defend families and traditional marriage" frenzy to get states to constitutionally define marriage ultimately ended the whole common-law union of straight couples, forcing anyone that wishes their significant other to have legal standing and rights (next of kin, power of attorney, resident of home owned by partner) to only have the option of "traditional marriage"
 
2014-02-18 07:19:26 AM  
walktoanarcade:
Rather weird that a state that would say on the one hand you're married if you have a domestic partnership, but not if you mirror the actions undertaken by other couples in states with common law marriages, which it recognizes from other citizens from those states, but not from its own citizenry.Hypocrisy in law much?

What does the domestic partnership have to do with common law marriage?  The domestic partnership they are talking about was essentially regular marriage with a different name, for homosexual couples.  It required the registration and certificate and everything.  It's just changing the name, so that it is using the legal status that the federal government recognizes.

As for recognizing common law marriages from other states, yes states have different laws on many things including marriage (and not just for common law marriages, but for other rules about ages, parental permission, relatives, gay marriage, waiting time, etc).  They still recognize a contract made in a state where it was legal, due to something called the Full Faith and Credit Clause.  To do otherwise would be blatantly unconstitutional (though some states are trying with gay marriage).  So, unless you think no states should have laws differing from each other, or should ignore the constitution, they will all recognize some contracts (including marriage ones) that they do not permit to be made in their own state.
 
2014-02-18 09:10:12 AM  
politicians trying to make everyone happy backfires,
story at 11
 
2014-02-18 09:26:16 AM  

Semantic Warrior: iheartscotch: hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm actually surprised that they worded the bill the way they did. Technically, if you've lived with your roommate long enough; congratulations! You're married!

But isn't that where the phrase "common law wife/husband" comes from?  From statutes that would recognize a couple that has cohabited for so many years to be legally recognized as a marriage? Isn't that what a "civil union" technically is?  It appears that it hasn't taken long for people to forget that the whole "defend families and traditional marriage" frenzy to get states to constitutionally define marriage ultimately ended the whole common-law union of straight couples, forcing anyone that wishes their significant other to have legal standing and rights (next of kin, power of attorney, resident of home owned by partner) to only have the option of "traditional marriage"


Common law marriage historically has mostly been used to protect women who were long-term partners of men who never married them legally (but enjoyed all the benefits of marriage), and then either up and left them, or died. Claiming common law marriage allowed them to collect alimony or maintain control of shared property and inheritence in those situations.

The myth that two people living under the same roof for an extended period somehow become automatically married without their consent is nonsense that has been floating around for generations.

"Civil union" is a bullshiat term invented by religious asshats in an attempt to a) claim sole ownership of marriage as a religious rite, and b) use that claim to exclude people they find undesirable. It is, in most of the places that have codified it, intended to replace marriage for those people, not supplement it.

Also, States "defining" marriage has no effect on common law. The SCOTUS ruled that states must specifically ban common law marriage by statue if the don't want people to be able to claim that status.
 
2014-02-18 10:04:28 AM  
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say this is a much-needed win for the homeless.
 
2014-02-18 10:35:27 AM  

ciberido: hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[s3.amazonaws.com image 718x550]

It's time.



1.bp.blogspot.com

If you don't know to run to the left or right, you deserve what you get.
 
2014-02-18 11:07:16 AM  

ErinPac: walktoanarcade:
Rather weird that a state that would say on the one hand you're married if you have a domestic partnership, but not if you mirror the actions undertaken by other couples in states with common law marriages, which it recognizes from other citizens from those states, but not from its own citizenry.Hypocrisy in law much?

What does the domestic partnership have to do with common law marriage?


I suggest you re-read what I wrote because it's self-explanatory.

I've decided life is too short to explain anything I've written in text unless there's a genuine need of further explanation, which of course does not apply in this case.
 
2014-02-18 01:50:50 PM  
We've gone from telling them they can't get married... to forcing them to get married if they're not?

...HOW THE F*** DOES THAT EVEN WORK?!?!?
 
2014-02-18 02:45:17 PM  
I'm not gay, but if they force me to get gay married, I hope they make me gay marry Johnny Depp.
 
2014-02-18 03:04:59 PM  

TheSwissNavy: Yakk: What the hell? Do people want this?

My first thought too. The government can't legally modify an existing contract. But hey, puppies and candy for all, comrades.


The legal rights and obligations of the persons involved aren't being changed.  It's just an effort to streamline state law by removing the type "domestic partnership" from the books, since legally it's identical to marriage.
 
2014-02-18 03:59:53 PM  

trippdogg: TheSwissNavy: Yakk: What the hell? Do people want this?

My first thought too. The government can't legally modify an existing contract. But hey, puppies and candy for all, comrades.

The legal rights and obligations of the persons involved aren't being changed.  It's just an effort to streamline state law by removing the type "domestic partnership" from the books, since legally it's identical to marriage.


At the state level, nothing changes. At the Federal level, everything changes. The Federal government will not recognize civil unions (aka RDPs) as marriage.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-02-18 04:32:02 PM  

metal_gear: We've gone from telling them they can't get married... to forcing them to get married if they're not?

...HOW THE F*** DOES THAT EVEN WORK?!?!?


Because.....gub-mint.

/thanks obummer
 
Displayed 22 of 222 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report