Yeah, I had to huff a bit of the proverbial copium in my twenties when it really crashed down that I’d never hear a variant of the phrase “Set course at warp one, engage” in real life unless I was on a film set.
C’est La vie.
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
C’est La vie.
Anyone that has ever taken a DEI CBT/class/education at work knows it's a grift. I remember the last one we all put on together at work with our manager and laughed our asses off.
So just for the people who think CBS is left wing
This is the normal nonsense from 'Liberal' media. It's pretty much the same as Fox or Trump just with a nice coat of paint. This made me more angry than Tucker Carlson's anti-Churchill guest because at least he wasn't pretending to be good
Just because a media organisation is left of you, it doesn't make it left wing. Centrist ideas and policies are as extreme as anyone else
These are the guys backing Harris and Biden and this explains why so many have to hold their nose just to vote for them. They are terrible candidates who keep proflogating war crimes
This is the normal nonsense from 'Liberal' media. It's pretty much the same as Fox or Trump just with a nice coat of paint. This made me more angry than Tucker Carlson's anti-Churchill guest because at least he wasn't pretending to be good
Just because a media organisation is left of you, it doesn't make it left wing. Centrist ideas and policies are as extreme as anyone else
These are the guys backing Harris and Biden and this explains why so many have to hold their nose just to vote for them. They are terrible candidates who keep proflogating war crimes
When it says you're not supposed to treat people the same, you're in Crazy Town.
You ever gonna respond to how Boston "marriages" weren't official in any capacity like I said and you claimed they were. Funny how ya'll don't respond back when you're wrong.
Biden then proceeds to strongarm the CEOs of all shipping companies across the East Coast, and the Caribbean to hire 10,000 Dutch dock-automation experts.
You know, for someone who's mentally incompetent at being president, Biden sure seems to have a lot of power over literally everything that anyone ever does anywhere.
On behalf of those Dutch experts: bedankt Joe
The last thing I've ever seen you do is treat people the same.
What do you think Boston Marriages did?
I treat everyone the same. If someone treats me disrespectfully, I'd do the same in return like say Brawlman.
Boston Marriages were just people living together, it wasn't anything official. For most of American history, there wasn't really a reason/benefits why say 2 women would want to get officially married.
Where does it say that these "marriages" were official in any capacity or had any paperwork?
Boston marriage - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
So, your current position is that marriage equality didn't matter.
So, firstly: the General Accounting Office, in 1996 or 7, found over 1,000 federal provisions in which rights, benefits & privileges were contingent on marriage status at least in part. So, it's factually inarguable that there were legal benefits to marriage-- quite a lot of them-- when gay people couldn't marry. Let's get that out of the way.
But let's assume you think those benefits aren't important, or whatever. Let me ask: do you apply the same rationale to mixed-race marriage? Or just marriage in general, even? Are you going to argue that nobody had any reason to want to get married, and so therefore equal provision didn't matter?
I said most of American history...
It wasn't until ~1900 where women could own land in America (the entire country) so marriage for that purpose was important to woman. But if a woman married a woman, what would be the benefit? Plus, again, for most of American history, getting a divorce wasn't easy. So why would you want to get married (2 women) when you get like no benefits and then you'd have trouble getting divorced if you wanted to. Health insurance, for example, is one of the biggest marriage benefits now but it is less than 100 years old in America so that benefit of sharing a spouse's insurance wasn't a thing for most of American history.
Where to even start with this complete mess of an argument.
1. Women had access to certain rights through marriage in some US states as far back as the 18th century, gradually expanding throughout the 19th century. This included sole trading, will execution, parental rights, property rights, the right to file suit, etc. So yes, marriage conveyed property rights, including for women, in various states for the majority of the history of the US.
2. You've (wrongly) addressed... one benefit of marriage, primarily determined at state level, in a way that solely applies to woman-woman couples. As I said, there were over 1,000 federal statutes in which marital status was a determinant. A lot of them were in place much earlier than 1900; and there were at least several hundred in place at any point in the last 200+ years. So again: the majority of US history.
3. Why the fuck have you set this arbitrary rule about "for the majority of US history" anyway? A reminder: this started because you were trying to argue that same-sex marriage pre-Obergefell didn't matter. So... it's enough to prove there were significant legal rights contingent on marriage pre-Obergefell. And that's already been proven beyond question.
So to summarise: There were legal rights and privileges contingent on marital status; same-sex marriage was illegal; this was challenged to the Supreme Court, and they upheld the ban, and the Constitution didn't protect equal access to those rights.
Last edited:
- Jane Austin wrote books about a families with all daughters pointing out how dumb it was that they HAD to find mates because they couldn't inherit the family property.
- Name the 2 or 3 major benefits that women marrying women (or vice verse) during say 1850 would've conveyed to them. If you ask people right now the benefits of marrying, I bet everything they say would not be something that was a thing a 100+ years ago.
- I asked why gay people would even want to marry like 200 years ago like months ago probably. Most of American history, they wouldn't have cared.
indeed she did-- about British gentry in the late 18th century. And this is somehow supposed to support your argument that... American women would not have benefited from marriage unless it was to a man before 2015?Joint parenting rights, inheritance tax, joint filing (I.e., tax or bankruptcy), visitation, next-of-kin, custodial rights, transfer-of-property, spousal medical decisions, bereavement leave, the list is very long. These varied from state to state, but several date back even to the 18th century.
You asked that. But that's arbitrary in relation to our original topic of discussion, which was the role of the Constitution in protecting peoples' rights and privileges.
You said the Constitution protected these rights even before Obergefell. When it was pointed out that the Constitution didn't protect same-sex marriage (even when challenged, the SCOTUS explicitly ruled it didn't!), your response was that same-sex marriage didn't have rights and privileges back then anyway.
So it's completely arbitrary for you to set 1850 or whatever as the date. My case is that the Constitution didn't protect those rights and privileges before Obergefell. So it's sufficient to prove 1) same sex marriage was disallowed before Obergefell (already proven); and 2) marital status conveyed rights and privileges before Obergefell.
There's a possibility you think this is true. That doesn't mean it actually is. You're going have have to radically change your outlook if you ever want this to be actually true.
But, I'd dare say you're just going to pretend like you are now as it's so much easier
Specifically, for these women, it was to stop anyone else claiming their property. Eg like through inheritance. Without these arrangements, any family male could just claim it. They could open bank accounts by themselves and everything. This had been a problem for lesbians for centuries.
If you mean Boston Marriages aren't legal marriages, you're right. Homosexual marriages were banned at the time. If you are talking about the legal benefits you get from marriage, no. They legally made contracts that legally gave their partners legal benefits, just like a real married couple
Because English law and American law have 0 similarities...
Joint parenting rights, inheritance tax, joint filing (I.e., tax or bankruptcy), visitation, next-of-kin, custodial rights, transfer-of-property, spousal medical decisions, bereavement leave, the list is very long. These varied from state to state, but several date back even to the 18th century.
You asked that. But that's arbitrary in relation to our original topic of discussion, which was the role of the Constitution in protecting peoples' rights and privileges.
You said the Constitution protected these rights even before Obergefell. When it was pointed out that the Constitution didn't protect same-sex marriage (even when challenged, the SCOTUS explicitly ruled it didn't!), your response was that same-sex marriage didn't have rights and privileges back then anyway.
So it's completely arbitrary for you to set 1850 or whatever as the date. My case is that the Constitution didn't protect those rights and privileges before Obergefell. So it's sufficient to prove 1) same sex marriage was disallowed before Obergefell (already proven); and 2) marital status conveyed rights and privileges before Obergefell.
Joint filing is less than 70 years old, people hardly went to hospitals until recently (most babies were born at home 100 years ago for example) hence visitation wasn't important, people didn't get divorced so what is the point of custodial rights. Modern times are very different than just 100 years ago. Give me the 2 or 3 major benefits 2 woman would have in say 1850-1900 if they were married instead of listing off a bunch of stuff that isn't relevant like you always do. There wasn't much reason for gay people to really care about being married for a large part of American history; men had plenty of rights and if they wanted to live together, I don't think they'd run into many legal problems and it would be mainly cultural/societal issues at the time. And because law was rather sex-based, 2 woman living together and them being able to be married wouldn't net them any legal benefits anyway.
I said the constitution protects rights we don't know they protected, not specifically gay marriage. I said that until you ask if something is protected you can't b!tch about it not being protected. Then you said it (gay marriage) was asked in the 70s IIRC.
You really don't know me.
So they were able to make legal arrangements just fine without being married is what you're saying then? Which is basically my point.