Jump to content

BREAKING NEWS. USA Catches Up with SL, Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2029 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

"'Second Life has sanctioned partnerships between couples regardless of gender or identity for years," explained Justice Anthony Kennedy, 'and it's begun to hurt our bottom line. America has permitted itself to fall behiind SL and countless other MMOs. This country can no longer afford to let the growing Marriage Gap go unanswered: we are begining to lose users!'"

Of course, this is a slippery slope. How long before SCOTUS bows to pressure and legallizes marriages between Furries, dragons, robots, and sports cars?

;-)

 

More seriously, congratulations to the US and to my American friends for this ringing confirmation of the power and importance of Love. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites


LaskyaClaren wrote:

How long before SCOTUS bows to pressure and legallizes marriages between Furries, dragons, robots, and
sports cars
?

I'm my '99 Miata's second owner, but she's my first Miata and I'm in love. It's not the kind of D/s relationship I had in mind, but she goes where I steer her... so quickly it makes me giddy. So if they make it legal for me to marry her that would be two kinds of awesome.


More seriously, congratulations to the US and to my American friends for this ringing confirmation of the power and importance of Love. :-)

Thanks!

;-).

Link to post
Share on other sites


Madelaine McMasters wrote:


LaskyaClaren wrote:

How long before SCOTUS bows to pressure and legallizes marriages between Furries, dragons, robots, and
sports cars
?

I'm my '99 Miata's second owner, but she's my first Miata and I'm in love. It's not the kind of D/s relationship I had in mind, but she goes where I steer her... so quickly it makes me giddy. So if they make it legal for me to marry her that would be two kinds of awesome.

"D/s"? That's a kind of transmission or motor, right? 

I don't drive myself, which means that I can only be an "ally," I guess, but as I once became inordinately attached to the streetcar that stopped regularly just outside my front door, I sort of understand your feelings,

We are completely non-judgemental here, in any case: whatever makes your starter roll-over. ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites


LaskyaClaren wrote:

"'Second Life has sanctioned partnerships between couples regardless of gender or identity for years," explained Justice Anthony Kennedy, 'and it's begun to hurt our bottom line. America has permitted itself to fall behiind SL and countless other MMOs. This country can no longer afford to let the growing Marriage Gap go unanswered: we are begining to lose users!'"

Of course, this is a slippery slope. How long before SCOTUS bows to pressure and legallizes marriages between Furries, dragons, robots, and sports cars?

;-)

 

More seriously, congratulations to the US and to my American friends for this ringing confirmation of the power and importance of Love. :-)

I'm sure there are many people that would love to marry their RL car, The problem is some car lovers are polygamist, and would want to marry more then one car, even in SL you can only have one partner.  The other question I would have about marring a car is who would own the title?   I all so wonder if it would lead to people marring their car just to change their last name.  That might be a good way for LL to allow people with out a last name to get one, I know that's been a big issue for years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read a great quote by Churchill the other day :

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." 

Which is why I support getting more of us Americans to join SL, because it's a much safer place to try thing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites


madman626 Fall wrote:

Dont get to happy yet, state law are beening place to stop it.

Federal law supercedes state law. There are two (so far) states that are attempting to delay things while they wait for the Supremes to issue a order finalizing their decision, and confirming that it takes place immediately. There will, of course, be some state government officials who will decry the decision and refuse to cooperate for a while, but they'll eventually cave, or face prosecution. They may, of course, find other ways to hamper the effectiveness of the court's decision, but they'll not be able to thwart it directly.

Constitutional amendments and Supreme Court reversals are pretty rare, and are the only means of undoing the court's decision. And any reversal will have to deal with the undoing of a tremendous number of same sex marriages. I don't see that happening.

Texas will make a lot of noise about this, as they often do about things Federal. Some Texans recently called for the state to prepare to defend itself against a planned "invasion" by the US Military. Never mind that Texas is part of the US, and hosts military bases that routinely perform military exercises. Everything is larger in Texas, from hats to paranoia, to empty bravado. We're just as nutty in Wisconsin, but we've got more pine forests to hide in.

There are a few more dominoes left to topple, including the crafting of federal laws barring discrimination against LGBT couples in hiring and housing. Popular opinion has shifted far and fast, but there are pockets of resistance that'll keep the debate going for some time, just as with Roe v. Wade. Still, I think last week's decision is worth getting happy about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use the word supersede to identify three classes of people

1. Those who know how to spell, and spell it supersede.

2. Those who don't know how to spell, and spell it superseed.

3. Those who pretentiously think they know how to spell, and spell it supercede.

Alec - to read etymological dictionaries.

Link to post
Share on other sites


madman626 Fall wrote:

Federal law supercedes state law, That true but that also be said that some State have laws That over Ride Federal law.

Tell that to James Madison, et al:

Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course not! No state law can override the Constitution. Since you specifically mentioned gun laws I assume you are talking about the Second Amendment, which includes among other things "....the right of the people to keep and bear arms....". Even though that does not specifically say 'FIREARMS', it is taken to mean them and in fact most historians agree that's what the framers meant.

No state can pass a law forbidding the possession or use of firearms. It would be struck down in seconds the first time it was challenged. US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

If you're talking from the NRA side and making reference to laws restricting the type of firearms that can be purchased and possessed, I'm afraid you're quite wrong. Those laws do not violate the Second Amendment in any way, shape, or form.

 

 

 

 

Edited multiple times for sentence structure and wording. Not one of my best written posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites


madman626 Fall wrote:

But yet we have state guns law that over ride the Constitution dont we.

The Supreme Court, whose job it is to determine whether or not laws are constitutional, has struck down state laws which they felt overrode the Second Amendment.

However, some variety of regulation of firearm owners was always intended for the states. This is the full original text of the amendment that became the Second Amendment, as requested by Virginia when they ratified the Constitution before the Bill of Rights was added:

17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You said No state can pass a law forbidding the possession or use of firearms. It would be struck down in seconds the first time it was challenged. US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

I just like to see you try open carry with out a CCW license in a state that have that for a law, you`ll be fine and your gun takeing from you.

This will be my last post here.

Link to post
Share on other sites


madman626 Fall wrote:

You said No state can pass a law forbidding the possession or use of firearms. It would be struck down in seconds the first time it was challenged. US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

I just like to see you try open carry with out a CCW license in a state that have that for a law, you`ll be fine and your gun takeing from you.

This will be my last post here.

 

Then I won't bother pointing out why the scenario you describe (so eloquently) in no way contradicts anything I wrote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why everyone acts like the US never had marriage equality before a few days ago.. Massachusetts was the first state to make it legal over 11 years ago. That's after The Netherlands, Belgium, Ontario and British Columbia. So, yeah, some of us were all for it years before most of the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2029 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...