A friend of mine stated that same sex couples should marry in those states where it is legal, then return to their states where it is not legal and sue the state for not recognizing their marriage. If the states got enough lawsuits, he is certain the states would rather recognize gay marriage than have to deal with the lawsuits.

(June 26, 2013 at 11:49 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: A friend of mine stated that same sex couples should marry in those states where it is legal, then return to their states where it is not legal and sue the state for not recognizing their marriage. If the states got enough lawsuits, I am certain the states would rather then recognize gay marriage than have to deal with the lawsuits.

Judges are allowed to toss out frivolous lawsuits though....I would see many judges doing so for people attempting to do as your friend suggested. Remember the law rarely sides on the side of compassion.

(June 26, 2013 at 11:51 pm)Polaris Wrote:

(June 26, 2013 at 11:49 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: A friend of mine stated that same sex couples should marry in those states where it is legal, then return to their states where it is not legal and sue the state for not recognizing their marriage. If the states got enough lawsuits, I am certain the states would rather then recognize gay marriage than have to deal with the lawsuits.

Judges are allowed to toss out frivolous lawsuits though....I would see many judges doing so for people attempting to do as your friend suggested. Remember the law rarely sides on the side of compassion.

Well they can't just toss them out as frivolous if people are legally married in one state, move to another state, establish legal residency and then show a genuine loss or inequity. Only those schlocky, ultra conservative supreme court justices can get away with that, as they show time and time again.

(June 27, 2013 at 12:39 am)whateverist Wrote:

(June 26, 2013 at 11:51 pm)Polaris Wrote: Judges are allowed to toss out frivolous lawsuits though....I would see many judges doing so for people attempting to do as your friend suggested. Remember the law rarely sides on the side of compassion.

Well they can't just toss them out as frivolous if people are legally married in one state, move to another state, establish legal residency and then show a genuine loss or inequity. Only those schlocky, ultra conservative supreme court justices can get away with that, as they show time and time again.

Well that would be a different issue that someone from a state that does not recognize it getting married in a state that recognizes it while still a resident of that state....aka someone from Alabama getting married in California later this year and informing their state they now deserve marriage rights in Alabama....even though this sounds barbaric, the pre-Civil War runaway slaves laws show the precedent with siding with the states that oppose same-sex marriages.

The issue you brought up may easily make it back to the Supreme Court down the road....them deciding not to rule on Prop 8 is merely delaying the inevitable.

Also, most of America (as in number of states, not population) have those conservatives in control one way or the other.

I foresee this being a long battle...maybe not as bad as the 1807-1865 gap, but still long.

(June 26, 2013 at 10:53 pm)CleanShavenJesus Wrote:

(June 26, 2013 at 10:42 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Wait... what? Can you rephrase?

I think he's saying what I said a few pages back, but in a much shittier manner.

Yep. Gotcha.

(June 27, 2013 at 1:05 am)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(June 26, 2013 at 10:53 pm)CleanShavenJesus Wrote: I think he's saying what I said a few pages back, but in a much shittier manner.

Yep. Gotcha.

Did you forget about DOMA Section 2, aka the legal justification for states to not recognize the same-sex marriages of the 13 states?

Only Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was deemed unConstitutional.

Prop 8 would have also destroyed Section 3, so the case was not decided upon...it's why you had dissent from a couple of the liberal justices. They likely wanted to see gay marriage fully legalized in the US, but what ended up having was yet another compromise.

In the ramification of gay marriage as it stood before these rulings and how it stands now, you cannot view one without the other.

I view these just like the pre-Civil War compromises....we're just going to see tensions rise in the coming years.

So odd that I agree with Polecat but the ideal case would be for a couple married in California to move to one of the nutty states out (Idaho, say) west but still in the IXth Federal Appeals Circuit and file a federal suit against the state.

Eventually the appeal would reach the IXth circuit which is rightfully considered the most liberal in the country. A decision there against the state would force the governor to either appeal to the Supreme Court, thereby overcoming the objection which caused the Supreme's to reject the Prop 8 case or not appeal...in which case a precedent would have been set.

Interesting stuff.

(June 27, 2013 at 1:20 am)Polaris Wrote: I view these just like the pre-Civil War compromises....we're just going to see tensions rise in the coming years.

I can see it already. After the tensions continue to rise to a boiling point a number of Southern States will declare secession rather than legally recognize gay marriage. The president orders the border states to raise a militia to quell the rebellion.

Most border states refuse and join the secession.

After a long and bloody war with the Southern states in defeat, it's industry and livestock obliterated, half its military aged men either maimed or dead, the rest of the country starts reconstruction by giving homosexuals control over all state legislature of the rebellious Southern states. Then after a few years the rest of the country loses interest starting a nearly hundred year repression of homosexuals in those states.

Then gay pride marches break out all over the place, the country remembers to finish what it started, everyone becomes at least legally equal, and then we stop paying attention all together.

(June 27, 2013 at 1:20 am)Polaris Wrote: I view these just like the pre-Civil War compromises....we're just going to see tensions rise in the coming years.

Seriously?

(June 27, 2013 at 12:30 pm)CleanShavenJesus Wrote:

(June 27, 2013 at 1:20 am)Polaris Wrote: I view these just like the pre-Civil War compromises....we're just going to see tensions rise in the coming years.

Seriously?

Yes...have you heard the anti-gay whatevers say they'll continue to fight this with whatever they can come up with?

Now if you viewed it as bringing about an actual civil war, well then....

If there was a civil war, it would not be about homosexuality...it would be about the crap of the military-industrial complex, but Americans don't seem to have the stomach for civil war.