ACLU to Challenge Missouri Gay Marria...

ACLU to Challenge Missouri Gay Marriage Ban

There are 88 comments on the EDGE story from Feb 11, 2014, titled ACLU to Challenge Missouri Gay Marriage Ban. In it, EDGE reports that:

The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday plans to file suit challenging Missouri's treatment of same-sex marriages.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last

“Common courtesy, isn't”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#1 Feb 11, 2014
Regardless of whether the scope of the lawsuit is limited or broad in nature, this is excellent news. Get all the dominoes wobbling all at once, and then let them collapse on one another however they may!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2 Feb 11, 2014
Otter in the Ozarks wrote:
Regardless of whether the scope of the lawsuit is limited or broad in nature, this is excellent news. Get all the dominoes wobbling all at once, and then let them collapse on one another however they may!
Yes it is.
Denver Dan

Sacramento, CA

#3 Feb 11, 2014
Otter in the Ozarks wrote:
Regardless of whether the scope of the lawsuit is limited or broad in nature, this is excellent news. Get all the dominoes wobbling all at once, and then let them collapse on one another however they may!
Gay marriage will be nationwide within my lifetime. And I have a bad heart.

I thought I heard Nevada just opened the door to gay marriage.
Not too many people with an IQ above that of a tree squirrel chewing on a fermented apple really care if gays get married truly.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#4 Feb 12, 2014
I was beginning to think that Missouri would be the last state to have such a lawsuit. Come to think of it, are there any states that don't have a pending suit on Marriage Equality?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#5 Feb 12, 2014
North Dakota?

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#6 Feb 12, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
North Dakota?
I just checked it on Google. No lawsuits reported so far as I could tell. But here is an interesting twist that I never considered before:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/19/us-...

A man married another man in another state, and the AG of No. Dakota says it is o.k for that guy to marry a woman in No. Dakota. Looks like some states COULD be unintentionally giving the O.K. to polygamy.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#7 Feb 12, 2014
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
I just checked it on Google. No lawsuits reported so far as I could tell. But here is an interesting twist that I never considered before:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/19/us-...
A man married another man in another state, and the AG of No. Dakota says it is o.k for that guy to marry a woman in No. Dakota. Looks like some states COULD be unintentionally giving the O.K. to polygamy.
I've been saying this for years now. That's yet another reason to force all the states to recognize full marriage equality under constitutional full faith and credit. This mish-mosh of "you're married here, but you're not married there" laws really does open the door to legalizing polygamy, or, at least partial polygamy.

When my husband and I got married in New York state, the clerk asked us if we knew of any reason why either of us would not be legally entitled to enter into the marriage we were about to enter into. I.E. "Are you already married to someone else?" But if you're following the letter of the law in a state that refuses to recognize same-sex marriage, you can honestly answer, "No, I'm not, under the laws of this state, married to anyone else."

Legal polygamy. Sort of. But definitely a HUGELY messy legal quagmire for the courts to sort out should the issue ever be pressed.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8 Feb 12, 2014
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
I just checked it on Google. No lawsuits reported so far as I could tell. But here is an interesting twist that I never considered before:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/19/us-...
A man married another man in another state, and the AG of No. Dakota says it is o.k for that guy to marry a woman in No. Dakota. Looks like some states COULD be unintentionally giving the O.K. to polygamy.
Unfortunately, as soon as the guy steps into Minnesota, he's potentially in trouble with that states' laws. The number of places that it would be safe for our North Dakotan to travel is rapidly diminishing: He can't go north or east, nor more than two states west. He can go only south.

Besides, I believe there are federal laws against bigamy. Wouldn't it be fun if his husband filed a joint tax return with his name on it?

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#9 Feb 12, 2014
"eJohn" & "nhjeff"

It's all to complicated for me. But then, I can't comprehend of anyone wanting that sort of situation. I can only give all my love to one person at a time. Hell, I couldn't even manage threesomes and orgies when I was young, and that was just sex, not love.
guest

United States

#10 Feb 12, 2014
Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Homosexual relationships are not marriage.

If we want to afford the legal benefits of marriage to homosexual partners, then do it by passing laws to that effect. But call it a civil union or something like that. Don't call it something it isn't.

“Common courtesy, isn't”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#11 Feb 12, 2014
guest wrote:
Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Homosexual relationships are not marriage.
If we want to afford the legal benefits of marriage to homosexual partners, then do it by passing laws to that effect. But call it a civil union or something like that. Don't call it something it isn't.
Oh, wow. That's an original idea. Why has no one suggested this in the past 10 years?

Okay, we'll call our relationships "blessings". As in, "Are you married?" "Oh, heck, no, I'm blessed." Of course, that will mean that heterosexual relationships will not be blessed since they'll be marriages instead. And you'll no longer be able to pray for God's blessing, unless you want God to send you a same sex partner ... but you'll still be able to offer up thanks for all the many blessings around you, assuming you're really and truly grateful for all the gay and lesbian couples in your community.

It will cost a fortune to reprint all the law books, legal documents, tax forms, etc., but you'll get to hang on to the word "marriage" and feel as though you're special.

Shall we all sing, "There Shall Showers of Blessings" to seal the deal?

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#12 Feb 12, 2014
ACLU, the same organization that fights for the rights of muslim terrorist pukes. Doesn't surprise me that they're sticking their big, America hating nose into this too.
guest

United States

#13 Feb 12, 2014
Otter in the Ozarks wrote:
Okay, we'll call our relationships "blessings". As in, "Are you married?" "Oh, heck, no, I'm blessed." Of course, that will mean that heterosexual relationships will not be blessed since they'll be marriages instead.
Blessings come in many forms. You may feel a homosexual relationship is a blessing, but it certainly isn't a marriage, never has been, nor ever will be. OTOH, marriages can also be blessings, so the remainder of your post is utterly ridiculous.

The issue is really one of reality. Calling a homosexual union a marriage is simply false. It's like saying a man who dresses up like a woman is in fact a woman. Biologically, genetically, and in reality he is not a woman. Likewise, you can try to dress up a homosexual relationship as a marriage and even falsely claim that it is, but in reality it is not.
guest

United States

#14 Feb 12, 2014
Sneaky Pete wrote:
ACLU, the same organization that fights for the rights of muslim terrorist pukes. Doesn't surprise me that they're sticking their big, America hating nose into this too.
Yep, seems like they enjoy trying to thwart the will of the people any time they can. It's not like these issues haven't been put to a vote of the people.

“Common courtesy, isn't”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#15 Feb 12, 2014
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Blessings come in many forms. You may feel a homosexual relationship is a blessing, but it certainly isn't a marriage, never has been, nor ever will be. OTOH, marriages can also be blessings, so the remainder of your post is utterly ridiculous.
The issue is really one of reality. Calling a homosexual union a marriage is simply false. It's like saying a man who dresses up like a woman is in fact a woman. Biologically, genetically, and in reality he is not a woman. Likewise, you can try to dress up a homosexual relationship as a marriage and even falsely claim that it is, but in reality it is not.
LOL! Read your own posts back to yourself. And you think my comments are "utterly ridiculous"? At least mine were INTENDED to be ridiculous.

You want to talk "reality"? Well, then let's do so, by all means. The reality is that even during Old Testament times, "marriage" referred to a variety of different human relationships. Read your Bible and you'll learn about bigamous marriages, polygamous marriages, polyandrous marriages, levirate marriages, and polygynous marriages ... just to name a few.

And whether you like it or not, what does the law of this country call those same sex relationships that started being legally recognized in Massachusetts 10 years ago? The reality is that they are recognized, under the law, as MARRIAGES.

Now that's reality, my friend. I hate to break it to you, but whether you personally like it or not is completely beside the point, and immaterial to boot. Is that clear enough for you?
guest

Ridgedale, MO

#16 Feb 13, 2014
Otter in the Ozarks wrote:
The reality is that even during Old Testament times, "marriage" referred to a variety of different human relationships.
Marriage has never been defined to include homosexual relationships. Fact.
And whether you like it or not, what does the law of this country call those same sex relationships that started being legally recognized in Massachusetts 10 years ago? The reality is that they are recognized, under the law, as MARRIAGES.
And a male cross-dresser may call himself a woman, but in fact and in reality he is not.
I hate to break it to you, but whether you personally like it or not is completely beside the point, and immaterial to boot. Is that clear enough for you?
As I said in an earlier post, the issue is about fact and reality. Whatever you may want to call a homosexual relationship, marriage is not among them unless you want to deny fact and reality.

But then facts and reality have never been a part of extreme liberal ideology.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#17 Feb 13, 2014
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage has never been defined to include homosexual relationships. Fact.
You need to bone up on your history a little:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-...

I know it's Wikipedia, but there are some salient facts in there.

“Common courtesy, isn't”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#18 Feb 13, 2014
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage has never been defined to include homosexual relationships. Fact.
<quoted text>
And a male cross-dresser may call himself a woman, but in fact and in reality he is not.
<quoted text>
As I said in an earlier post, the issue is about fact and reality. Whatever you may want to call a homosexual relationship, marriage is not among them unless you want to deny fact and reality.
But then facts and reality have never been a part of extreme liberal ideology.
You've already lost this argument. To stubbornly repeat lies and opinions that have already been exposed and disproven, is foolhardy and a waste of time.

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#19 Feb 13, 2014
I really love my new "Justin" cowboy boots. Do you think it's be considered polygamy if I married both of them?

Sounds just as silly when one guy talks about "marrying" another guy.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#20 Feb 13, 2014
Sneaky Pete wrote:
I really love my new "Justin" cowboy boots. Do you think it's be considered polygamy if I married both of them?
Sounds just as silly when one guy talks about "marrying" another guy.
I see. So because *you* are not interested in it, everyone else should be banned from it, too. Whatever *you* like is good. What you don't like is bad. Got it.

Does your dislike of everything gay extent to girl-on-girl porn? Or does that get special dispensation from you because you like it?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 3 min WasteWater 14,675
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 8 min Drunkie Dizzo 38,424
News Excited by Trump, gay Republicans struggle with... 19 min Trumping On 117
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 68,793
News Junk food-loving fathers raise their future dau... 2 hr Mitts Gold Plated... 1
News NBA Moves All-Star Game Out of North Carolina O... 2 hr Mitts Gold Plated... 44
News More gay people can now get legally married. Th... (Oct '14) 4 hr Jake 55
More from around the web