Poll
![]() | 15 votes (20%) | ||
![]() | 22 votes (29.33%) | ||
![]() | 17 votes (22.66%) | ||
![]() | 41 votes (54.66%) |
75 members have voted
Quote: NareedThe US Supreme Court pretty much struck down DOMA (the full name of that law is so nonsensical I won't repeat it).
So the poll is: how do you feel about it?
None of the above, and your choices mean there's little point in debating this with you.
Does this have any affect on you being a resident in Mexico, Nareed?
Quote: FleaStiffDoes it mean I no longer have to agree with someone that I am happily married?
Happily married, is that the original oxymoron?
ox·y·mo·ron (ks-môrn, -mr-)
n. pl. ox·y·mo·ra (-môr, -mr) or ox·y·mo·rons
A rhetorical figure in which contradictory terms are combined, as in a 'deafening silence' and a 'mournful optimist'.
Quote: HotBlondeDoes this have any affect on you being a resident in Mexico, Nareed?
Well, it's complicated. Short answer is no. Long answer is it might.
But extending the recognition of rights to any people is always cause for celebration.
Absolutely! Great attitude! (And is it effect or affect? I often get those two words confused.)Quote: NareedWell, it's complicated. Short answer is no. Long answer is it might.
But extending the recognition of rights to any people is always cause for celebration.
Quote: HotBlondeAbsolutely! Great attitude! (And is it effect or affect? I often get those two words confused.)
Thanks :)
In this case, it's "effect."
Not rights, license.Quote: NareedWell, it's complicated. Short answer is no. Long answer is it might.
But extending the recognition of rights to any people is always cause for celebration.
Quote: thecesspitNone of the above, and your choices mean there's little point in debating this with you.
You can always debate.
I admit the choices were designed to tee certain people off.
Quote: BozI usually stay out of these debates on here, but I just want to know why I cant have 2 wives now? Or three or whatever I want. Why is it limited to just 2 people? So it is OK to be between a man and woman, or man and man or woman and woman, but not 3? Please explain the logic of that to me.
If we care about equal opportunity, why not allow everyone to be happy if the 3 parties are OK with it?
The way I read it is the Feds must recognize any marriage but the states do not have to. So as of today you may indeed go to a country that will allow you to marry more than one woman and the Feds will have to recognize that marriage. Or most any other limitation.
May be a way to dodge the inheritance tax. Think about it, mom and dad are married. Son and his wife are married. Son's daughter marries dad and inherits the estate, then her and son have it tax-free when both parents die! I mean, as of today whoever wants to get married can, otherwise it is discriminatory!
The possibilities are endless!