Tennessee lawmakers know how to fix the same sex marriage "problem"

[StLucieBengal]

(09-21-2015, 02:46 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Why did you get legally married?

i am going to follow the law.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-21-2015, 03:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Government mandating what? My question to you was how does legalizing SSM infringe on anyone's freedoms? Do you have any evidence to show that it does?

You also stated that with the government involved in marriage, they choose what we can and cannot do. Can you expand on that? How does the government's acceptance of my marriage in any way change that I may or may not be married to anyone/anything in my eyes and/or the eyes of a deity, organization, social group, etc.?

Obviously the lady in Kentucky feels differently .  

If you were right then the bakers from Oregon wouldn't have lost everything.   the gov should not be forcing social beliefs on people.

We don't need a gov marriage. Explain to me why we need one?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-22-2015, 10:19 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We don't need a gov marriage.   Explain to me why we need one?

After you explain why you have a fake government marriage.

[Belsnickel]

(09-22-2015, 10:19 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Obviously the lady in Kentucky feels differently .  

And she is wrong. When your are a government official, your signature on a document like that has nothing to do with your personal views, only that the marriage is legal and valid according to the laws of the state. If she has a problem with stating something like that, then she should not be in the job she is in. No one is forcing her to be in that position.

(09-22-2015, 10:19 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If you were right then the bakers from Oregon wouldn't have lost everything.   the gov should not be forcing social beliefs on people.

Nondiscrimination laws and the legalization of SSM are two separate issues. I'm asking you about the legalization of SSM.

(09-22-2015, 10:19 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We don't need a gov marriage. Explain to me why we need one?

It's been explained to you, a number of times, on the old board. Marriage is very much a legal contract and so will always have government involvement. But, all of that doesn't answer my question. You stated government being involved in marriage restricts what we can and cannot do. Can you expand on that?

[*Nately120*]

(09-22-2015, 10:19 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We don't need a gov marriage.   Explain to me why we need one?

Please tell me you tried this line on your now-wife at least once.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(09-22-2015, 02:40 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Please tell me you tried this line on your now-wife at least once.

This question has been asked to him in various forms in various threads on the subject and we still have yet to get a satisfactory answer.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-22-2015, 02:50 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: This question has been asked to him in various forms in various threads on the subject and we still have yet to get a satisfactory answer.

Probably because he's not really married and is a troll alter. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-19-2015, 03:16 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It's not just SSM.  There are loads of people who know that this government tramples on our rights.   It's bigger than a petty SSM debate.   This was never about SSM, it was about personal freedom.  

Move some place else where the government doesn't trample your rights.

Quote:They will say yes,  freedom of the SSM crew.  But to give them their freedoms they trample on someone else's.   The only real solution in all of this is to get rid of government marriage all together.   Then everyone has their freedoms restored.

How were your rights trampled upon by the Supreme Court's decision against same sex marriage bans?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-20-2015, 10:36 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: No one wants to limit the ability for them to marry.

Except conservative Christians.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-20-2015, 12:33 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: The truth be told, most of the resistance over the years were financial.
Social Security and Insurance companies didn't want to pay out survivorship benefits.
Now SS will dwindle quicker and Ins premiums will go up.
So I guess a level of self-preservation could be the culprit for some resistance.

I don't remember a single instance involving Social Security or an insurance company objecting to same sex marriage.  Do you have any examples?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-21-2015, 01:39 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I have never had an issue with SSM.   There are times that people are forced to participate.  That's what I have issue with and there is only forced participation.  Somehow we think we need the govs permission to marry who we love.    We don't ....  Just marry who you wish and if you need legal protection then write a contract.  

When the gov is involved they choose what we can and can not do... That should never be the case.     A gov marriage doesn't give you anything more than a contract would give.

Then why do you claim you have a fake government marriage when you could just write up a contract for legal protection?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-21-2015, 02:34 PM)Blutarsky Wrote: Yet the ones caught leaving here trying to join ISIS were young snot nosed liberals.  Yes, those American hating Islamist apologists.

One of my favorite quotes:
Here the country had finally given liberals a war against fundamentalism and they don’t want to fight it. They would have, except it would put them on the same side as the United States.

Its a wonder why liberals haven't gone there in droves.
You know why...because America is the greatest country on the planet, something liberals like you would never admit to because it's not PC,  right?

Only 1% of our country has deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan.  Clearly, conservatives like you can't be bothered to get up off you asses, either.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-22-2015, 10:14 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: i am going to follow the law.

Please explain how the law forces you to get married?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-22-2015, 10:19 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Obviously the lady in Kentucky feels differently .  

If you were right then the bakers from Oregon wouldn't have lost everything.   the gov should not be forcing social beliefs on people.

We don't need a gov marriage.   Explain to me why we need one?

She can choose to work anywhere else.  No one is forcing her to work there.  If she doesn't want to do her job, quit.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-22-2015, 10:14 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: i am going to follow the law.

The law forces you to get a government marriage license?

[*Nately120*]

(09-23-2015, 02:17 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Please explain how the law forces you to get married?

It didn't.  He entered into something he says is flawed because he got government benefits for doing so. 

[Rotobeast]

(09-23-2015, 01:20 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I don't remember a single instance involving Social Security or an insurance company objecting to same sex marriage.  Do you have any examples?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/20/your-money/social-security-benefits-same-sex-couples.html

The insurance I meant to speak of was relative to health plans, which were in the midst of doing the right thing before the ruling.
I was erroneous in including it in conjunction with survivorship benefits, as anyone can be a beneficiary on life insurance.

Below has listed things that shall be changed, including health plans.

http://benefitsattorney.com/employee-benefits-effects-of-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision/

[StLucieBengal]

(09-22-2015, 12:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And she is wrong. When your are a government official, your signature on a document like that has nothing to do with your personal views, only that the marriage is legal and valid according to the laws of the state. If she has a problem with stating something like that, then she should not be in the job she is in. No one is forcing her to be in that position.


Nondiscrimination laws and the legalization of SSM are two separate issues. I'm asking you about the legalization of SSM.


It's been explained to you, a number of times, on the old board. Marriage is very much a legal contract and so will always have government involvement. But, all of that doesn't answer my question. You stated government being involved in marriage restricts what we can and cannot do. Can you expand on that?

Ok will try and hit these. If I miss any Lemme know. It's hard when you break things up on my phone.

1. Never said the lady wasnt wrong. She needs to follow the law. Or get another to do it. This is easily fixed by making accomodations for her. Imo no reason she or anyone should need to sign off on a marriage except the two being married.

2. Non discrimmination laws are a joke as well. There for when people use them as hate or to exclude. Any business should be able to deny service unless for the crazy chance they are the only business within 40 miles of the area. Which is so ridiculously few. 40 miles is good. Most work commutes are similar. But a business should be able to deny anyone for religious, safety, or previous negative behavior. As it relates to SSM, the pro SSM people seem to want to wrap the two together so that's why I mentioned.

3. Ok last one. Lemme say this first before I get to the question. A contract between two people can sort out all legal issues. Maybe an attorney here can weigh in on specifics. Ok now for your question about restriction. in my county there are several things you have to meet before getting a license. It's more than just blood test and ceremony signing off. Proof of divorce, has to be 6 month waiting period after a divorce, plus a class. Sorry but this is a ridiculous amount of hoops. Yes I went through them. But none of this is needed when I could have called my attorney wrote up contract and submitted. These extra steps is nothing more than the gov being to involved. And the thing is this is probably a republican who did this and that's my problem with progressives. They think by forcing us to do things it will somehow make our lives better.

If I need to explain anything further pls let me know . I am traveling today so will check as we make our way south.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-23-2015, 02:20 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: She can choose to work anywhere else.  No one is forcing her to work there.  If she doesn't want to do her job, quit.

I agree.  Follow the law.  Her job isn't forced upon her.  

[StLucieBengal]

(09-23-2015, 02:22 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: The law forces you to get a government marriage license?

If I want to be married, I have to go to the court house and pay the lords their money so they can allow me to marry legally.