Posted on 12/19/2004 5:50:25 PM PST by Sub-Driver
If an AIDS patient is legally married, then yes. The legal challenges to come over this very issue will be extremely messy if a federal amendment isn't passed.
This is the explanation? What am I missing here? Why are the hetero (i.e., true and legal) marriages not being recognized? Why are the people who have followed the law being lumped in with the perverts (and the mayor) who didn't?
Sorry Bad, your logic eludes me.
ping
for $5,000 a woman can marry a homosexual from southbeach for her immigration visa. Nothing new.
However it is worth pointing out, the sexual behavior of the lesbian and the flight attendant did not impede the ability of that woman to marry that man. No orgasms required.
I can't see how your example is an example of anything. A female married a male. Isn't that what marriage is?
IOW: If homosexuals can't have it then NOBODY can have it. It is a slashed earth concept. A back door attack by some lowly functionary who sympathizes with the homosexuals.
This is despite the fact that the federal DMA would allow the heterosexual marriages to be recognized.
Those are going to be the second anecdotal stories, right after the heather has two momies social security orphan story.
for $5,000 a woman can marry a heterosexual from southbeach for her immigration visa. What's your point?
You need to take a chill pill. All it is is that the marriage certificates from that time on are tainted. There is no way to tell which ones are legal and which ones are illegal. So they are rejecting all of them until something is worked out. It's just like someone who is known to be passing hot checks in town. As a merchant you reject all checks from them, even if they are good ones because you can't tell which are good and which are bad.
homosexual men do marry women.
The DMA would allow the heterosexual marriages to be recognized if the partners could provide proof of marrige. As it is they are producing documents from a government entity known to be issuing fraudulent documents (homosexual marriages). What would you do? As is there's no way to tell if the marriage is valid or not based on that community's marriage licenses.
Do you have a problem with that? I thought that was what we wanted them to do.
I was just explaining the previously stated point.
The only thing these small counties are going to accomplish is to have the larger state government take over their function to prevent such uncertainty.
This is likely an attempt by a Klinton hold-over to force the issue into court, where they view their chances as being favorable (and I think that they may be right).
Gay marriage would put a bigger drain on social security. Think what will be paid out in survivors benefits.
no problem (other than the bribe part but that is for another thread) My bad for not being more clear, I am in agreement.
I guess the example that was to me 24 years ago - a clear sense that things were not what they were purported to be, but that the record keeping system was incapable of distinguishing between a set of circumstances that could widely be seen as a "core marriage" as opposed to things that were "other". If you simply define marriage between a man and a woman and that's it - then you will not isolate the gay male "marrying " the lesbian female for employment benefits coverage exchange. I know this kind of thing is rare and probably exists in gay clusters (SF, NY, Minneapolis).
In the debate over homosexual marriage, which should polarize attention on the issues - I would hope that those who wish to protect traditional marriage will recognize that it's not enough to simply fright off homosexual marriage - but maybe it's time to try and define traditional marriage in ways which will strip away the marriages of convenience (e.g., gay male weds lesbian female for benefits coverage, does not live together) - cases where the marriage is really the exchange of forms (taxes) and mail - so the conduct of this marriage is to just mail it in.
You don't understand? It's not difficult. My speculation is that some bureaucrat who is sympathetic to homosexual marriage kicks all marriage licences so that the heterosexuals paperwork and possible benefits are held up.
I don't think that Bush has anything to do with this or was even aware of it until this.
I'm not making excuses for Bush. Check with the Bush bots. I'm not a fan. I'm just being realistic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.