• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

johndylan1 said:
1.)I did note that neither state allows divorce for the purpose of pushing a gay rights agenda, which you said you'd be ok with. Funny how some will approve of just about anything if it fits their agenda.

2.) No need to respond, just a pointless observation.
Click to expand...

1.) huh? i dont even know what you are saying
BOTH states allow divorce
ONLY texas is currently not allowing it for gays
Mass does in fact allow it

get back to me when you know what you are talking about

lastly what is the gay rights agenda?

im pushing for equal rights, period

but YES if these people were trying to fight for their equal rights i would support that 100%. just like i support rosa parks and countless other men, women, races, religious people and genders fighting for their equal rights. Weird you think that is wrong.

2.) yes i agree it was a pointless observation, very pointless, at least you even know how dumb of an observation it was.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

johndylan1 said:
I did note that neither state allows divorce for the purpose of pushing a gay rights agenda, which you said you'd be ok with. Funny how some will approve of just about anything if it fits their agenda. No need to respond, just a pointless observation.
Click to expand...

And your agenda is what?
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

winston53660 said:
By recognizing benefits and joint tax filing the Feds have recognized gay marriage legally. Why should they be beholden to states that so do not do not recognize gay divorce?
Click to expand...

If you read the tax law you'll find that acceptance of marital status by Fed is based on each individuals state recognition. They say we were married in Mass. feds say ok.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

AGENT J said:
maybe try reading the OP again the all the links and this thread and it will fix the unbelievable lack of logic in your post.
Click to expand...

Yea I've read this and I hold to my point.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

johndylan1 said:
If you read the tax law you'll find that acceptance of marital status by Fed is based on each individuals state recognition. They say we were married in Mass. feds say ok.
Click to expand...

And since they can not get a divorce they are still stuck in that situation. And in the case of SS there is the 10 year rule.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

AGENT J said:
1.) weird you like to just make things up don't you? who said anybody wanted them banned from enterrting the state? it was even slightly suggested
2.) nobody has broken any laws, so again another meaningless point
3.) false, texas doesnt grant those marriages but they exist hence way theres a SSC trial scheduled.
4.) nothing to deal with because what you said was not a fact.
Click to expand...

1. responded to a post that said exactly that, so you lied.
2. There are criminal laws and there are civil laws, one doesn't have to break a law, I couldn't type this any slower for you.
3. false logic. "Exist" doesn't mean state sanctioned
4. false
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

johndylan1 said:
Yea I've read this and I hold to my point.
Click to expand...

awesome double down on a failed point and yours post unbelievable lack of logic, good job
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

winston53660 said:
Social Security I bet is going recognize this couple as married unless they get a legal divorce.
Click to expand...
yes because their marriage in Mass. is sufficient for federal acceptance.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

johndylan1 said:
yes because their marriage in Mass. is sufficient for federal acceptance.
Click to expand...

They moved they want a divorce why shouldn't they be able to get one and dissolve this on the federal level?
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

johndylan1 said:
1. responded to a post that said exactly that, so you lied.
2. There are criminal laws and there are civil laws, one doesn't have to break a law, I couldn't type this any slower for you.
3. false logic. "Exist" doesn't mean state sanctioned
4. false
Click to expand...

1.) no it factually did not, but please continue to make stuff and posting lies, the link to my post proves you wrong, try something called context. it was talking about how its assumed they just shouldnt come there, NOBODY said people wanted them banned. thanks for playing your posts loses again.
2.) and this changes nohting, nobody broke any laws so your point is mute and meaningless
3.) you are 100% correct, you posted false logical because nobody mentioned state sanctioned, please link me saying its state sanctioned, thats right you can. in fact in my post i said it was not recognized by the state but for some reason you still made this wrong meaningless post.
4.) facts disagree with you and you have been proven wrong.
wow you really do make up a lot in your head.

hint: stick to what is actually written and if you get confused, ask question, youll have much better success then all these failed and wrong assumptions
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

winston53660 said:
Hello bright eyes. You are missing the point. The federal government recognizes the marriage. Should they want to get a divorce they should be able to.
Click to expand...
Read your tax law, fed recognizes based on state marriage. They were legally married in Mass. that's the basis.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

AGENT J said:
1.) weird can you quote where i said they did? wow you do like to make stuff up and argue against it. thats called a strawman and it failed.
2.) nope it did not, it didnt even tackle the subject, it left it stale mate for now
3.) actually to the discussion i was having in its context, not only did it have a barring it was factual, but i can see your confusion since you make stuff up, your mistake.
Click to expand...

1. wrong
2. wrong
3. wrong
please say something intelligent that adds to the discussion.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

johndylan1 said:
Read your tax law, fed recognizes based on state marriage. They were legally married in Mass. that's the basis.
Click to expand...

And as far as I know they can still file a joint income tax statement and the Social Security rules still apply even though they live in Texas and are Texas residents. They want to dissolve all this and they should be able to from here just like a heterosexual married in MA would be able to.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

johndylan1 said:
1. wrong
2. wrong
3. wrong
please say something intelligent that adds to the discussion.
Click to expand...

1.) so you have no quote, thats what i thought thanks for proving yourself wrong
2.) factually true http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf
3.) nope the content proves you wrong, at no time were we saying it had anything to do with what you made up
4.) if you ever get anything right we can talk bout until you stop making stuff up and all these mistakes im just gonna correct you and prove you wrong.

like i said, stick to what is actually written and if you get confused, ask question, youll have much better success then all these failed and wrong assumptions
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

winston53660 said:
And since they can not get a divorce they are still stuck in that situation. And in the case of SS there is the 10 year rule.
Click to expand...

They can get a divorce. Just not in TX. Freedom of movement amongst the states is there for the taking. Probably would take less time, energy, and money to go back to Mass and wait for residency, than this court case and subsequent appeals will take.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

johndylan1 said:
To respect state laws and resist the federal growing imposition.
Click to expand...

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

winston53660 said:
They moved they want a divorce why shouldn't they be able to get one and dissolve this on the federal level?
Click to expand...

Because marital laws are left to the states constitutionally as recent scotus rulings have held.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

johndylan1 said:
They can get a divorce. Just not in TX. Freedom of movement amongst the states is there for the taking. Probably would take less time, energy, and money to go back to Mass and wait for residency, than this court case and subsequent appeals will take.
Click to expand...

Why should they have that extra burden? Not to mention having to leave their jobs and what not.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

johndylan1 said:
They can get a divorce. Just not in TX. Freedom of movement amongst the states is there for the taking. Probably would take less time, energy, and money to go back to Mass and wait for residency, than this court case and subsequent appeals will take.
Click to expand...

court is scheduled in nov
they would have to move to Mass for a year before they could even ask for a divorce and who know what that does to jobs, business, family, money property, kids there etc

thats a very shortsighted and illogical assumption.

although i dont think the TEXAS SSC rules against them and they will have to push it to SCOTUS and then SCOUTUS will make it so. thats my guess. But even with that its irrational to just expect them to move without knowing anythign about them. Maybe the whole reason they are here is taking care of a sick family member or something.

Nah they should stay and fight for their equal rights.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

johndylan1 said:
Because marital laws are left to the states constitutionally as recent scotus rulings have held.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS also said they get federal benefits like income tax and SS.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

winston53660 said:
Discriminatory laws
Click to expand...

yep when pushed this has been the decisions so far
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

winston53660 said:
SCOTUS also said they get federal benefits like income tax and SS.
Click to expand...

sure, because the state of Mass (or which ever state issued the licence to the ss couple in question) granted them status.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom