Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Canada's only been a country since like 1867. What was Vermont doing before that? I'm dying to know.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Canada's only been a country since like 1867. What was Vermont doing before that? I'm dying to know.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I fully support your ball obsession, you know that.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Canada's only been a country since like 1867. What was Vermont doing before that? I'm dying to know.

Well positioned for its future role

Canada's only been a country since like 1867. What was Vermont doing before that? I'm dying to know.

I hope you are not going to try to turn this into another topic about Canada.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Gary and Alla

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Ready and waiting for Canada to catch up

I hope you are not going to try to turn this into another topic about Canada.

I would never.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

agreed completely.

So you'll be sending Alla back? Does she know that?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

So you'll be sending Alla back? Does she know that?

I am intrigued to know the thought process in deducing that.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

So you'll be sending Alla back? Does she know that?

Seriously Big Dog, I am interested.

Gary does not believe Government should define marriage -------------------------> Alla goes back to Ukraine.

Please. Fill in the missing parts.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Seriously Big Dog, I am interested.

Gary does not believe Government should define marriage -------------------------> Alla goes back to Ukraine.

Please. Fill in the missing parts.

Gary, here's is what you were in complete agreement with:

"And that is the only answer. The Government gets out of the Marriage business all together. If two people want to get married in a church and let that church define their marriage, then have at it. The Government would not issue marriage certificates etc. They would just stay out of it."

That doesn't talk about the government defining marriage, it talks about the government staying out of the marriage business altogether. Hence, government would not recognize marriage and could therefore not bestow any benefit - such as an immigration benefit - based on marriage. How did Alla get here? Marriage based immigration? You're saying that you are against that. Hence, Alla wouldn't be here. It's not that hard to think something at least half way through, is it?

Edited December 11, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Gary, here's is what you were in complete agreement with:

"And that is the only answer. The Government gets out of the Marriage business all together. If two people want to get married in a church and let that church define their marriage, then have at it. The Government would not issue marriage certificates etc. They would just stay out of it."

That doesn't talk about the government defining marriage, it talks about the government staying out of the marriage business altogether. Hence, government would not recognize marriage and could therefore not bestow any benefit - such as an immigration benefit - based on marriage. How did Alla get here? Marriage based immigration? You're saying that you are against that. Hence, Alla wouldn't be here. It's not that hard to think something at least half way through, is it?

Hence. Ergo...ipso facto...nowtherefore

Maybe if you read my comments and the purpose of the upcoming Supreme Court case, you would see it applies to the FEDERAL government who does not currently issue any marriage certificates anyway. Seriously? Tell me you are joking, right? My marriage certificate was issued by our town clerk, the marriage was officiated by a town JP who happens to be my neighbor and was performed on my front lawn on the shore of Lake Champlain. So who the #### needs the FEDERAL government telling us WHO the town clerk can issue a license to, who the town JP can perform a service for and where the service can be performed? THAT is what this is about and THAT is what the Federal government needs to stay the #### out of. Can it be any more clear? Place your hands on either side of your head and push.

Was the immigration of your spouse (if you have one that is not a cartoon character) based upon a FEDERAL marriage certificate?

Are you such a liberal Kool Aid drinker that you believe that if the federal government does not issue marriage licenses/certificates that there will be no marriage based immigration when they ALREADY do not issue marriage certificates?

While the post I responded to may not have been clear (take that up with the poster) your response is assinine. Totally. Send my wife back because of a non-existant FEDERAL marriage certificate. Try to at least be relevent

Edited December 11, 2012 by Gary and Alla

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I would never.

Your main contribution to the topic of discussion has been to question my signature?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Hence. Ergo...ipso facto...nowtherefore

Maybe if you read my comments and the purpose of the upcoming Supreme Court case, you would see it applies to the FEDERAL government who does not currently issue any marriage certificates anyway. Seriously? Tell me you are joking, right? My marriage certificate was issued by our town clerk, the marriage was officiated by a town JP who happens to be my neighbor and was performed on my front lawn on the shore of Lake Champlain. So who the #### needs the FEDERAL government telling us WHO the town clerk can issue a license to, who the town JP can perform a service for and where the service can be performed? THAT is what this is about and THAT is what the Federal government needs to stay the #### out of. Can it be any more clear? Place your hands on either side of your head and push.

Was the immigration of your spouse (if you have one that is not a cartoon character) based upon a FEDERAL marriage certificate?

Are you such a liberal Kool Aid drinker that you believe that if the federal government does not issue marriage licenses/certificates that there will be no marriage based immigration when they ALREADY do not issue marriage certificates?

While the post I responded to may not have been clear (take that up with the poster) your response is assinine. Totally. Send my wife back because of a non-existant FEDERAL marriage certificate. Try to at least be relevent

Gary, you need to calm down. The statement you agreed to stated that government, not federal government but government in general ought to stay out of the marriage business. It made clear that the poster feels that only a church may marry people and that it would be up to the church who would and would not be able to marry. Presumably, this would be different for different churches. What is clear from that statement, however, is that the person who made it felt that government - all government - has no business in matters of marriage. Naturally, if government has no business with matters of marriage, then no marriage based government benefits would exist. If they did, government would once again have business in matters of marriage.

Again, you failed to think through what you agreed to. And the rant above shows that you realize it. You just can't seem to admit it. Hell, even the person that made the statement in question admitted that he hadn't thought of that little consequence of not having marriage based immigration available were the government to stay out of the marriage business altogether. He's man enough to admit it. Are you? No, you don't need to answer that. Just go and buy fair tax ammo!

Edited December 11, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[JohnR! 5,495]

Was that meant as a personal attack, or a general attack against the membership here?

How so?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Gary, you need to calm down. The statement you agreed to stated that government, not federal government but government in general ought to stay out of the marriage business. It made clear that the poster feels that only a church may marry people and that it would be up to the church who would and would not be able to marry. Presumably, this would be different for different churches. What is clear from that statement, however, is that the person who made it felt that government - all government - has no business in matters of marriage. Naturally, if government has no business with matters of marriage, then no marriage based government benefits would exist. If they did, government would once again have business in matters of marriage.

Again, you failed to think through what you agreed to. And the rant above shows that you realize it. You just can't seem to admit it. Hell, even the person that made the statement in question admitted that he hadn't thought of that little consequence of not having marriage based immigration available were the government to stay out of the marriage business altogether. He's man enough to admit it. Are you? No, you don't need to answer that. Just go and buy fair tax ammo!

And you are arguing with someone that agrees with you on this topic but not others. Brilliant. Maybe it will get you a few +1's from others that have nothing to contribute. Go have another glass of kool aid.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

How so?

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/403420-supreme-court-to-take-up-same-sex-marriage/page__view__findpost__p__5864697