Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Showdow

Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

winston53660 said:

Like Jefferson who ripped all the supernatural stuff out of the bible and had a habit of boinking his slaves or maybe Ben Franklin who had a habit of visiting houses of ill repute.

Click to expand...

You guys always pull out the Jefferson card. So predictable :roll:

Jefferson did not sign The Constitution. 55 other men signed The Constitution. 51 of them took a sworn and solemn oath that The Bible was the word of God. That Jesus Christ was the son of God and that only through him could one find eternal salvation. Many were ministers, preachers, ect. In other words they didn't need to specifically write about gay sex and gay marriage at the time to know what they thought of it. It's a given.

You do these highly intelligent well read multi dimensional people a disservice and disrespect attempting to paint them in your one dimensional image.

Click to expand...

No actually The Founders did not approve of homosexual sex and the gay lifestyle. The concept of gay marriage would have been repulsive to them.

I bet more than one was gay.

Click to expand...

Yea right. Sure. Lincoln took it up the butt too right? :lol:

Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Bronson said:

You guys always pull out the Jefferson card. So predictable :roll:

Jefferson did not sign The Constitution. 55 other men signed The Constitution. 51 of them took a sworn and solemn oath that The Bible was the word of God. That Jesus Christ was the son of God and that only through him could one find eternal salvation. Many were ministers, preachers, ect. In other words they didn't need to specifically write about gay sex and gay marriage at the time to know what they thought of it. It's a given.



No actually The Founders did not approve of homosexual sex and the gay lifestyle. The concept of gay marriage would have been repulsive to them.



Yea right. Sure. Lincoln took it up the butt too right? :lol:

Click to expand...

Wow you pull out the Bible thumping non-sense how predictable

Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Bronson;10623236531.)Of course it matters 2.)This has nothing to do with "equal rights". 3.) If it's about equal rights said:

1.) no it factually doesnt because its not the late 1700s. what they thought is meaningless
what did they think about slavery, womens rights, incest, internet? who cares
its 100% factually meaningless to the issue at hand

2.) 100% false. Law, facts, courts and precedence already disagree with you and prove you wrong

3.) false because that's not what equal rights is, again facts disagree with you. try to educate yourself on this mater.

4.) if you FEEL this way, thats fine by me, fight for that new right but it will have nothing to do with equal rights for gays, this fact as been clearly established already

5.) well we factually arent doing that so let me know when that factually happens and we'll talk about

let us know when you have something, ANYTHING relevant, that isnt pointless and actually adds to the conversation.

Click to expand...

Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

winston53660 said:

Wow you pull out the Bible thumping non-sense how predictable

Click to expand...

Not at all

I merely pointed out the truth. There were 55 Founders. 51 swore a solemn oath that The Bible was God's word. His truth. His revelation. That Jesus Christ was his son. Your refusal to look at that historical reality speaks volumes, which is why we're back at square one and why these weekly "Gay sex and gay marriage is awesome and if you don't think so you're a bigot" threads are becoming repetitive and boring.

Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Bronson said:

Not at all

I merely pointed out the truth. There were 55 Founders. 51 swore a solemn oath that The Bible was God's word. His truth. His revelation. That Jesus Christ was his son. Your refusal to look at that historical reality speaks volumes, which is why we're back at square one and why these weekly "Gay sex and gay marriage is awesome and if you don't think so you're a bigot" threads are becoming repetitive and boring.

Click to expand...

Are getting this from Wall Builders non-sense?

Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Bronson said:

Not at all

I merely pointed out the truth. There were 55 Founders. 51 swore a solemn oath that The Bible was God's word. His truth. His revelation. That Jesus Christ was his son. Your refusal to look at that historical reality speaks volumes, which is why we're back at square one and why these weekly "Gay sex and gay marriage is awesome and if you don't think so you're a bigot" threads are becoming repetitive and boring.

Click to expand...

i bet it does become boring posting lies over and over again, does your dishonest and hyperbole ever stop, this is why nobody honest and respected takes your posts seriously, nobody

" "Gay sex and gay marriage is awesome and if you don't think so you're a bigot"
please feel free to post more lies we can laugh at

Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

winston53660 said:

Are getting this from Wall Builders non-sense?

Click to expand...

when SOME people have no legit and honest argument or even any logic or facts to support their positions its easier just to make stuff up than admitted.

Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

AGENT J said:

1.) well they already called marriage a right 14 times and this is not very different than interracial marriage. Precedence all leads that way. IMO whats going to happen, is eventual theres going to be a national foundation established and equal rights granted to gays.

states will still have rights to determine the minor things( just like now nothign is going to change) in marriage but they will no longer be allowed to discriminate and deny equal rights.

2.) thats just absurd, i agree with state rights also but not when they violate other individual rights. expecting these two to just pack up and leave and live in MASS for a whole year is just wrong IMO. i see zero justification to it. no logic no rational IMO.
3.) well they arent activists but we are going to have them(activist) anyway and its why the court system is there to determine these things. its how the system is supposed to work.
4.) i would do this personally if it wasnt a felony , luckily these men arent breaking any laws and you know as well as i do if that wasnt a felony it would have been done by now. Probably would of had a million rifle march. I woulda went!

also on a side note i think thats another area states are completely over stepping their bounds ESPECIALLY since its in the constitution. theres no reason why my CWP shouldn't be national like my drivers license. But fighting it is a different measure.

5.) set? thats our history its how minorities, women, interracial marriage etc have all been done and those are just the major issues, there 1000s of little ones

6.) theres no facts to support that just opinion.
nobody knows what the future holds sometime marriage dont last and we have no idea why they are living in texas? job/career? business? family? death? etc etc maybe a dad dead and they are running a company business, maybe a family member is sick/disabled and they are taking care of them, hell maybe they just wanted rainbow cowboy boats. THe thing is they are free to move around in the US and if this was straight marriage it be a non-issues and thats what gives it the grounds to make it this far.

Click to expand...

My only issue with all of this is the fact that the Federal gov't, SCOTUS in particular, are becoming more and more the end all be all of everything. If someone doesn't agree with a law that was democratically voted on and passed, they simply sue the state. It works its way up the chain until Federal circuit courts/SCOTUS are dictating what states do. Instead, these Federal circuit courts should uphold most laws that are passed in this manner in the state. Yet another symptom of our give it to me now society. Instead, they should be putting their effort into getting politicians they don't agree with voted out of office.
Don't get it confused, I'm cool with the Federal gov't recognizing gay marriages and giving them the same benefits (claims on taxes, etc), however, I'm not cool with every state being forced to accept gay marriage. Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a privilege that I really believe gov't should have NO hand in, no matter the sexes of the parties involved.

AGENT J said:

also please note to spectators. MTP, IMO is a good poster, a respected poster. I have seen his share of playing games and giving people crab and playing with trolls but in general he speaks his opinion ADMITS when its his opinion, acknowledges mistakes and identifies facts also. Me and him dont agreee on things but its his ability to simply deal in REALITY, FACTS and OPINIONS that allows a general conversation like this above.

Click to expand...

I appreciate the compliments bro. I do give people crap. Usually only those dang librals though :2razz:

Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

sangha said:

That doesn't say that Congress can grant powers to states.

It says that Congress can decide the basis on which public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings can be proven and the effect thereof.

IOW, it takes power *from* the states. It doesn't give any power to the states

Click to expand...

Actually what you said was:



I didn't say anything about "Congress can grant powers to the states."

What I said was when Congress exercised it's Article IV Section 1 powers, they exempted States from being required to recognize Public Acts from another State. That was a power granted to Congress in the Constitution.



>>>>

Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

MarineTpartier said:

1.) My only issue with all of this is the fact that the Federal gov't, SCOTUS in particular, are becoming more and more the end all be all of everything.
If someone doesn't agree with a law that was democratically voted on and passed, they simply sue the state.
3.) It works its way up the chain until Federal circuit courts/SCOTUS are dictating what states do.
4.) Instead, these Federal circuit courts should uphold most laws that are passed in this manner in the state.
5.) Yet another symptom of our give it to me now society. Instead, they should be putting their effort into getting politicians they don't agree with voted out of office.
6.) Don't get it confused, I'm cool with the Federal gov't recognizing gay marriages and giving them the same benefits (claims on taxes, etc),
7.) however, I'm not cool with every state being forced to accept gay marriage. Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a privilege that I really believe gov't should have NO hand in, no matter the sexes of the parties involved.


8.) I appreciate the compliments bro. I do give people crap. Usually only those dang librals though :2razz:

Click to expand...

1.) well im not sure this is anything new, i think some of the hot topics get more media frenzy and crying from extremists for or against the issue
2.) while i agree in principle some things should never go to a democratic vote and IMO this is definitely one of them just like interracial marriage and other "similar" issues.
3.) but many things dont make it because they fail the requirements so again i think the system is working
4.) IMO they do IF they pass the test, do you disagree? Like i said many never make it. I mean besides this issue that has been a matter of equality/discrimination many times what other issues have their been.
5.) well, cant disagree there, there are many people that have that attitude. Now i agree 100% on the back issue to. We do need to replace politicians we dont agree with at a much better rate. THe problem is though it doesnt seem people really seem interested. Not enough people are active enough IMO.
6.) thats fine by me too.
7.) this is where we disagree. Im totally fine with it and think its exactly how it should be in this case (a matter of individual rights) For me i see no reason to separate this issue form interracial marriage and now that the fed sees it and other states its just the way it has to be.

also since SCOTUS already stated its a right 14 times the precedence is set, nearly impossible to go back now.

also as far as gov getting out of marriage, i wouldnt want that either. Marriage comes with about 1200 federal rights/protections alone, some that cant be granted any other way so i wouldnt want to stop that. I want my wife and family protected.

8.) no problem, you are welcome and i do the same, i dont give dishonest posters and trolls one inch. Only liberals huh? well what do you know you should be giving me a hard time then since a poster says im a liberal simple for supporting this issue lol

Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Bronson said:

1.)Of course it matters

2.)This has nothing to do with "equal rights".
3.) If it's about equal rights, then every deviant sex group should get to marry too.
4.) Group Marriage and Polygamy should be legal in all 50 states.
5.) If we're going to trivialize marriage and make it about the feelings of people who put things in dirty holes, then no limits should be set.

If you don't agree with what I'm adding to the conversation and if you don't like it, you're welcome to stop responding to my posts at any time.

Click to expand...

1.) no it factually doesnt because its not the late 1700s. what they thought is meaningless
what did they think about slavery, womens rights, incest, internet? who cares
its 100% factually meaningless to the issue at hand

2.) 100% false. Law, facts, courts and precedence already disagree with you and prove you wrong

3.) false because that's not what equal rights is, again facts disagree with you. try to educate yourself on this mater.

4.) if you FEEL this way, thats fine by me, fight for that new right but it will have nothing to do with equal rights for gays, this fact as been clearly established already

5.) well we factually arent doing that so let me know when that factually happens and we'll talk about

let us know when you have something, ANYTHING relevant, that isnt pointless and actually adds to the conversation.

Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

AGENT J said:

1.) no it factually doesnt because its not the late 1700s. what they thought is meaningless
what did they think about slavery, womens rights, incest, internet? who cares
its 100% factually meaningless to the issue at hand

Click to expand...

Gays are not being denied the right to vote. They are trying to force their dirty morality on the rest of society. I have a right to resist and refuse to accept their dirty disgusting behavior as "normal". There is no genetic proof that it is.

2.) 100% false. Law, facts, courts and precedence already disagree with you and prove you wrong

Click to expand...

Nope. Unless you believe gays should be elevated above transgendered and polygamists which would make you a bigot

3.) false because that's not what equal rights is, again facts disagree with you. try to educate yourself on this mater.

Click to expand...

What's your definition of "equal rights" then

4.) if you FEEL this way, thats fine by me, fight for that new right but it will have nothing to do with equal rights for gays, this fact as been clearly established already

Click to expand...

What's your opinion on the subject? Should polygamy be legal in all 50 states?

5.) well we factually arent doing that so let me know when that factually happens and we'll talk about

let us know when you have something, ANYTHING relevant, that isnt pointless and actually adds to the conversation.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what we're doing. Gay marriage is a laughable pointless sham. Adds nothing of value to society.

Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Bronson said:

1.)Gays are not being denied the right to vote.
2.) They are trying to force their dirty morality on the rest of society.
3.) I have a right to resist and refuse to accept their dirty disgusting behavior as "normal".
4.) There is no genetic proof that it is.
5.)Nope. Unless you believe gays should be elevated above transgender and polygamists which would make you a bigot
6.) What's your definition of "equal rights" then
7.) What's your opinion on the subject? Should polygamy be legal in all 50 states?
8.) That's exactly what we're doing. Gay marriage is a laughable pointless sham. Adds nothing of value to society.

Click to expand...

1.) who said they were? thats right nobody just a meaningless stupid point brought up as more deflection
2.) false they are fighting for equal rights and your subjective morals and opinions are meaningless to that fact.
3.) nobody is forcing you to accept anything so again another meaningless stupid failed point that is another failed starwman
4.) theres no genetic proof you are normal either but then again that doesnt matter and is yet another meaningless point that is a failed strawman.
5.) again facts, laws, rights and precedence destoy your failed strawman. another fail
6.) "my" definition doesnt matter that what you dont get, just like YOURS dont matter either, they just are, its what will be decided in court and what is already written in law.
what you are trying to do and majorly failing at is making a slipper slope argument for equal rights where there isnt one

if you disagree PLEASE PLEASE argue your point with facts. Simply show us all how granting equal rights to gays will directly leads to polygamy marriage based on soley nothing but factual precedence from the gay marriage.

Id LOVE to read it, please do this, my guess is you wont even try because you know it will further destroy your failed arguments.

7.) i have no opinion on the subject because i have no interest in it. BUT if polygamist want to fight for that new right that would be fine by me as long as it follows the rules of other marriage legal age consenting sound mind adults and doesnt violate any rights.

its simple non of my business in that cases.

their biggest issues is how to write the NEW law for them, what happens when somebody dies, divorces etc etc. My guess is if this new right ever happened a basic marriage contract would be set up and the rest would have to be determined by the parties involved.

8.) again factually wrong on the first part and your opinion on the second part is meaningless, the funniest part of about your failed arguments is some how you think that YOU get to determine peoples rights and what morals they should have, if thats not the purest definition of hypocrisy i dont know what is

again let us know when you have something, ANYTHING relevant, that isnt pointless and actually adds to the conversation.

Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

WorldWatcher said:

Actually what you said was:

​

I didn't say anything about "Congress can grant powers to the states."

What I said was when Congress exercised it's Article IV Section 1 powers, they exempted States from being required to recognize Public Acts from another State. That was a power granted to Congress in the Constitution.



>>>>

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. If I was confused about you saying that congress can grant powers to the state, it was only because you said

WorldWatcher said:

You should read what is above. The Constitution grants the power to Congress in Article IV Section 1, Congress exercised that power in DOMA Section 2.
>>>>

Click to expand...

However, the constitution does not say that congress can exempt states from being required to recognize public acts from another state. It says the opposite.

However, it does say that congress can determine the manner in which those public acts can be proved and the effects thereof which may give them some wiggle room when it comes to SSM.

Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

AGENT J said:

1.) who said they were? thats right nobody just a meaningless stupid point brought up as more deflection

Click to expand...

You're the one who made the comparison. It was a lousy comparison.

2.) false they are fighting for equal rights and your subjective morals and opinions are meaningless to that fact.

Click to expand...

Morality isn't relative. The Founders certainly believed that as well. Founders > You. Gays don't deserve special rights.

3.) nobody is forcing you to accept anything so again another meaningless stupid failed point that is another failed starwman

Click to expand...

Yea sure and Obama's IRS and NSA aren't purposely targeting people for their religious beliefs. Oh wait they are. Nevermind.

4.) theres no genetic proof you are normal either but then again that doesnt matter and is yet another meaningless point that is a failed strawman.

Click to expand...

No gay gene. Homosexuality = not genetic

5.) again facts, laws, rights and precedence destoy your failed strawman. another fail

Click to expand...

Nonsense. The groundwork is already being laid. Nothing about homosexuality is special. It's sexual deviancy and perversion like any of the others, including pedophilia. Gender identification based upon mental illness and fetishes. "We're born this way so it's normal and acceptable".

6.) "my" definition doesnt matter that what you dont get, just like YOURS dont matter either, they just are, its what will be decided in court and what is already written in law.
what you are trying to do and majorly failing at is making a slipper slope argument for equal rights where there isnt one

Click to expand...

The courts are filled with activist lawyers in black robes. The people should decide, but you wouldn't want that because you know you'd lose.

if you disagree PLEASE PLEASE argue your point with facts. Simply show us all how granting equal rights to gays will directly leads to polygamy marriage based on soley nothing but factual precedence from the gay marriage.

Click to expand...

What is your definition of equal rights? Can't answer a simple question?

7.) i have no opinion on the subject because i have no interest in it. BUT if polygamist want to fight for that new right that would be fine by me as long as it follows the rules of other marriage legal age consenting sound mind adults and doesnt violate any rights.

So you're not for equal rights after all. Got it.

its simple non of my business in that cases.

.) again factually wrong on the first part and your opinion on the second part is meaningless, the funniest part of about your failed arguments is some how you think that YOU get to determine peoples rights and what morals they should have, if thats not the purest definition of hypocrisy i dont know what is

again let us know when you have something, ANYTHING relevant, that isnt pointless and actually adds to the conversation.

Click to expand...

Factually correct actually. If gay marriage was such a great idea, it would have been tried in the past and found to be successful. It's never been considered a good idea for obvious reasons, but hey Lady Gaga says homosexual perversion is cool and trendy so let's get on the internet and yell at each other over gay people.

Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Bronson said:

1.)You're the one who made the comparison. It was a lousy comparison.
2.)Morality isn't relative. The Founders certainly believed that as well. Founders > You.
3.)Gays don't deserve special rights.
4.)Yea sure and Obama's IRS and NSA aren't purposely targeting people for their religious beliefs. Oh wait they are. Nevermind.
5.) No gay gene. Homosexuality = not genetic
6.)Nonsense. The groundwork is already being laid. Nothing about homosexuality is special. It's sexual deviancy and perversion like any of the others, including pedophilia. Gender identification based upon mental illness and fetishes. "We're born this way so it's normal and acceptable".
7.)The courts are filled with activist lawyers in black robes. The people should decide, but you wouldn't want that because you know you'd lose.
8.) What is your definition of equal rights? Can't answer a simple question?

9.)So you're not for equal rights after all. Got it.

10.)actually correct actually. If gay marriage was such a great idea, it would have been tried in the past and found to be successful. It's never been considered a good idea for obvious reasons, but hey Lady Gaga says homosexual perversion is cool and trendy so let's get on the internet and yell at each other over gay people.

Click to expand...

1.) nope you did, and its a lie but i agree it was silly for you to try and make the comparison. FAIL
2.) well this changed nothing, morals are subjective and your opinion and the founders are meaningless to the law, facts and rights, FAIL
3.) good thing nobody is talkign about giving them "special rights: this strawman always fails
4.) cool story, what does this change again? thats right nothing nobody is forcing you to accept anything so again another meaningless stupid failed point that is another failed starwman AGAIN
5.) meaningless to equal rights: FAIL
6.) more lies you cant prove and that have been defeated many times. its hilarious you thinkn anybody buys your lies. again facts, laws, rights and precedence destroy your failed strawman. FAIL
7.) yeah yeah your opinion the jugdes are all evil lol sorry we dont vote on taking rights away from others. ANd you are right of course i wouldnt want that because thats not how the country works, I like the government that protects the rights of my fellow americans. You dont like that because you want to force your morals and bigoted views on others. fortunately the country doesnt listen to your hurt feelings.
8.) i factually answer, you have no come back so you are deflecting.

so ill ask you AGAIN
if you disagree PLEASE PLEASE argue your point with facts. Simply show us all how granting equal rights to gays will directly leads to polygamy marriage based on soley nothing but factual precedence from the gay marriage.

i noticed you dodge this question

9.) another failed lie and defletion, got it

10.) please list thes fact then
like i said again factually wrong on the first part and your opinion on the second part is meaningless, the funniest part of about your failed arguments is some how you think that YOU get to determine peoples rights and what morals they should have, if thats not the purest definition of hypocrisy i dont know what is

well your post got destroyed with fact again

again let us know when you have something, ANYTHING relevant, that isnt pointless and actually adds to the conversation.

do you have ANY facts to support your failed claims, any that dont get destroyed

Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

winston53660 said:

We are talking about individual rights

Click to expand...

Wrong, that right is not afforded to them in Texas and they knew it before they moved here.

Again nothing but another attempt to change the laws of a [what should be] sovereign state for selfish reasons.

Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

disneydude said:

Well....you are just plain and simply wrong. There is something in the Constitution called "Equal Protection". It was exactly what Kennedy was referencing in his majority opinion in the DOMA case and the reason why Scalia was so vitriolic in his dissent. The writing is on the wall. This war is over, only a small battle or two remain, but this one is DOA for the bigots who are clinging to their fight against marriage equality.

Click to expand...

Except equal protection doesn't apply when it something you disagree with, like Bush v Gore.

Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

disneydude said:

Sorry...but the Supremacy Clause trumps states rights when dealing with a fundamental right.

Click to expand...

That hasn't come before the SCOTUS. Neither has SSD.

Fact of the matter, if the FedGov continues to push their agenda on the states, it will set a dangerous precedence.

Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

If you go into a store in Massachusetts and buy a widget at a local store and return it home to Texas, don't try to return it to a local store in Texas since it wasn't that store that sold you the widget in the first place.

Why should Texas issue a divorce when it doesn't recognize them as being married. Don't want to be married? Great, you aren't. Married people can't just do that, but SSM people can. So much for equal protection.

Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Bronson said:

Yes we need to set societal standards on what is moral and decent. Standards which are not subject to change and not subject to interpretation.

Every deviant is going to come out of the cracks claiming they are "born that way and normal" so they deserve to get married too

Click to expand...

These are my thoughts on this subject also.

Where does it end?

Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

AliHajiSheik said:

If you go into a store in Massachusetts and buy a widget at a local store and return it home to Texas, don't try to return it to a local store in Texas since it wasn't that store that sold you the widget in the first place.

Why should Texas issue a divorce when it doesn't recognize them as being married. Don't want to be married? Great, you aren't. Married people can't just do that, but SSM people can. So much for equal protection.

Click to expand...

Just a technical correction, the couple in Texas is still Civilly Married as determined by the State where they got married and under Federal law and remain married even though Texas does not recognize their marriage. SSM people can't just say "we aren't married anymore" any more than a DSM couple can. Just as there is a legal process to enter into marriage, there is a legal process to exit marriage.


The easier and more reasonable solution is for States to change their residency requirements for divorce to: (a) if married outside the state - _________ months residency, or (b) if married by the state in which you are seeking a divorce then residency requirement is waived since that is were you got married.


Under such a plan the couple could then file for divorce in MA without having to relocate there for a year.



>>>>

Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional S

Bronson said:

We're talking about Identical DNA here. The most recent studies show only a 7% attraction among IDTwin males and around 5% for females. If it's genetic, it would be certain 100% of the time. More than 8 major studies have been done across many countries trying to answer this question. It's the same result every time. Homosexuality is not genetic. All research leads to post birth factors. We can't have that discussion though, because that would mean that homosexuality as a condition can be cured through intensive therapy and treatment. For those homosexuals who know they are living a dirty life of sin and debauchery, the option should be there for treatment, but the Left wants to deny them that right.

Click to expand...

Thats like saying cancer doesn't have a genetic component. If there were no genetic component then there would be no difference between monozygotic twins and dizygotic twins. Each study shows there is, and among the 8 studies the results have varied from 7 to 50% concordance between the two groups.

Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional S

johndylan1 said:

Sorry, but you have been misinformed. No study conclusively has found a genetic link to homosexuality. Not that it matters in this debate.

Click to expand...

Twin studies show a multi factorial modality for homosexuality. There is no misinformation I'm afraid.

Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Bronson said:

Morality isn't relative. The Founders certainly believed that as well.

Click to expand...

You are completely incorrect there. Morals ARE relative. It used to be immoral for a white person to marry a black person. Now it isn't immoral. And if the Founding fathers believed morality to be set in stone, they wouldn't have allowed ways for amendments to be added to the Constitution.

Gays don't deserve special rights.

Click to expand...

Please list the special rights that gays would receive that YOU could not have. If gay marriage is legalized YOU can marry someone of the same sex to so it isn't a special right.

Yea sure and Obama's IRS and NSA aren't purposely targeting people for their religious beliefs. Oh wait they are. Nevermind.

Click to expand...

No, they aren't. If anything they are targeting for political purposes (which is wrong), but they aren't doing it because of religious beliefs. There are consitution groups that didn't get accepted and they aren't religious.

No gay gene. Homosexuality = not genetic

Click to expand...

You keep saying this, but it is compeltely erroneous. They haven't FOUND a gay gene which is not the same as no gene exists. How long are you going to repeat this lie?

It's sexual deviancy and perversion like any of the others, including pedophilia.

Click to expand...

Going down on a woman is considered perversion to some. Your OPINION that homosexuality is a perversion is nothing more than your opinion.