Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rxsid

The problem is that you’re argument that ‘marriage isn’t a federal issue’ is wrong. Marriage is a federal issue. Reynolds vs the United States makes it clear that the federal government has an obligation to preserve the definition of marriage as one man and one woman.

It’s a part of the common law, no different from, say, Habeaus Corpus.

“I can’t see how this current ruling would change how the feds act with regards to spousal visas...which was your question.”

The feds decide which marraiges count wrt spousal visas. This ruling changes things. Now, it will permit gay couples to bring in their lovers from abroad. Isn’t that just wonderful!

And, because it grants them a visa applicable anywhere in the US - they can choose to live in a state that does not permit gay marriage and try to overturn the laws there.

So what was that about marriage not being a federal issue. Reynolds makes it really clear. The US as a jurisdiction has to have one definition of marriage, not two, and having 2 definitions of marriage is deletorious to social harmony.

But, you’re a liberaltarian. You don’t care about social harmony. You don’t care about tradition. You care a lot about sex though. And laws barring sex = bad.


335 posted on 06/26/2013 12:32:26 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Un Pere, Une Mere, C'est elementaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies ]


To: JCBreckenridge
Wow. Holy smokes dude. You clearly haven't a clue who I am. I've never been a "libertarian" in my life. Furthermore, just where, did I say that this was a state's rights issue?

Fact of the matter is, though, the states do have some degree of differing laws as to the requirements to get a state issued marriage license.

And WTF do you get off telling me I don't care of tradition and that I "care alot about sex." What kind of twisted jerk are you? There is zero, nada, zilch, nothing in anything I posted here on this thread (or in my entirety of being here on FR) that would back up any of the frivolous allegations you laid at my feet.

My first interaction with you was in regards to your post to another Freeper: "What’s your brilliant plan with spousal visas?'

To which I simply replied:

"I would assume, that the feds would handle a spousal visa the same way they currently handle a spousal visa.

If a state say's someone is married, then the feds go with that."

Shame on you for twisting what I said into some kind of degenerate filth.

368 posted on 06/26/2013 4:04:48 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson