Quote:HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (AP) — A judge ruled Wednesday that two women who were legally married in Iowa can’t divorce in Alabama, which doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages.

Circuit Judge Karen Hall of Huntsville issued a two-sentence order throwing out the uncontested divorce of Shrie Michelle Richmond and Kirsten Allysse Richmond.

Shrie Richmond filed the complaint this month saying the two were legally married in Dubuque, Iowa, in 2012. The suit said the two women, who are separated, no longer get along and want a divorce.

The other woman didn’t fight the divorce. But the judge’s decision said the case was being dismissed because laws in Alabama, which still prohibit same-sex unions, do not apply in such cases

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/03/12/j...n-alabama/

Just setting up the test case. The goal is to have cases running in all 50 states by the end of the year.

But on the specifics of the case...

If a Straight couple marries in Iowa and wishes to get divorced in Alabama, they are able to do so.
However if a Gay couple marries in Iowa and wishes to get divorced in Alabama, they cannot.

Its a pretty straightforward case of discrimination. The question for the courts, is there some rational basis for that discrimination. Since the Windsor ruling, this question has been asked 12 times. And the answer is that the discrimination is unconstitutional 12 times.

(03-13-2014 01:45 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

Quote:HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (AP) — A judge ruled Wednesday that two women who were legally married in Iowa can’t divorce in Alabama, which doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages.

Circuit Judge Karen Hall of Huntsville issued a two-sentence order throwing out the uncontested divorce of Shrie Michelle Richmond and Kirsten Allysse Richmond.

Shrie Richmond filed the complaint this month saying the two were legally married in Dubuque, Iowa, in 2012. The suit said the two women, who are separated, no longer get along and want a divorce.

The other woman didn’t fight the divorce. But the judge’s decision said the case was being dismissed because laws in Alabama, which still prohibit same-sex unions, do not apply in such cases

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/03/12/j...n-alabama/

Wish the present divorce laws didn't apply in mine, either. Oh, well. They don't know the "fun" they're missing by not being able to be divorced under no-fault laws.

(03-13-2014 01:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Just setting up the test case. The goal is to have cases running in all 50 states by the end of the year.

But on the specifics of the case...

If a Straight couple marries in Iowa and wishes to get divorced in Alabama, they are able to do so.
However if a Gay couple marries in Iowa and wishes to get divorced in Alabama, they cannot.

Its a pretty straightforward case of discrimination. The question for the courts, is there some rational basis for that discrimination. Since the Windsor ruling, this question has been asked 12 times. And the answer is that the discrimination is unconstitutional 12 times.

Tom, if any couple marries in the US and only one wishes to get divorced, but one wished to stay married in any state, they are unable to do so.

Its a pretty straightforward case of discrimination. The question for the courts, is there some rational basis for that discrimination.

Hold people to the contracts they agree to. If the couple makes an oral agreement about the marriage (their vows) then look what they were and legally hold them to that agreement. If they agree to be able to split up later for whatever reason, whenever they want, then fine. If they agreed to marry until death and said it in front of witnesses, then hold them to that.

In a way, "gay marriage" is a non-issue, because we don't currently have marriage at all in this country since the advent of no-fault divorce. So they are not fighting for a permanent union, they are fighting for a contract that can only be enforced in the negative, which is backwards from every other contract agreement that exists between parties.

Tom, if a state doesn't recognize it, they can't be divorced.. Which basically means the state of Alabama says, you might've been married in Iowa under their same sex law, but here you're not married. Piss poor way to push an agenda if you ask me.

Thought the thread meant all married women in Alabama could not
get a divorce.

(03-13-2014 02:31 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Tom, if a state doesn't recognize it, they can't be divorced.. Which basically means the state of Alabama says, you might've been married in Iowa under their same sex law, but here you're not married. Piss poor way to push an agenda if you ask me.

The legal team that has won the last 15 major court cases on these things feels differently as to way to push an 'agenda' (equality).

(03-13-2014 02:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 02:31 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Tom, if a state doesn't recognize it, they can't be divorced.. Which basically means the state of Alabama says, you might've been married in Iowa under their same sex law, but here you're not married. Piss poor way to push an agenda if you ask me.

The legal team that has won the last 15 major court cases on these things feels differently as to way to push an 'agenda' (equality).

Don't put quotes around agenda, because that's what it is. You're willing to travel to a place that'll marry you and then settle in a state that doesn't recognize it, so you're going to push it down their throats until they bend to your will. That's an agenda. No matter how right or wrong, it's an agenda, and using divorce as the tool is a piss poor way of doing it. It doesn't bother me if two people of the same sex get married. But don't tell me I have to be accepting and shove it down my throat. That's one right I have, I get to choose what I want to accept and what I don't get to accept.

Apparently you guys are so worried about what the federal government says, you forgot about State's Rights. And the state of Alabama chooses not to recognize it.

Quote:Just setting up the test case. The goal is to have cases running in all 50 states by the end of the year.

And you even admitted to it being an agenda.

(03-13-2014 02:44 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 02:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 02:31 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Tom, if a state doesn't recognize it, they can't be divorced.. Which basically means the state of Alabama says, you might've been married in Iowa under their same sex law, but here you're not married. Piss poor way to push an agenda if you ask me.

The legal team that has won the last 15 major court cases on these things feels differently as to way to push an 'agenda' (equality).

Don't put quotes around agenda, because that's what it is. You're willing to travel to a place that'll marry you and then settle in a state that doesn't recognize it, so you're going to push it down their throats until they bend to your will. That's an agenda. No matter how right or wrong, it's an agenda, and using divorce as the tool is a piss poor way of doing it. It doesn't bother me if two people of the same sex get married. But don't tell me I have to be accepting and shove it down my throat. That's one right I have, I get to choose what I want to accept and what I don't get to accept.

Apparently you guys are so worried about what the federal government says, you forgot about State's Rights. And the state of Alabama chooses not to recognize it.

Uh, they are Alabamians and have the right to equality under the law. The issue of states rights, especially in the furtherance of bigotry has been settled issue in this country for some time now.

(03-13-2014 03:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 02:44 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 02:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 02:31 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Tom, if a state doesn't recognize it, they can't be divorced.. Which basically means the state of Alabama says, you might've been married in Iowa under their same sex law, but here you're not married. Piss poor way to push an agenda if you ask me.

The legal team that has won the last 15 major court cases on these things feels differently as to way to push an 'agenda' (equality).

Don't put quotes around agenda, because that's what it is. You're willing to travel to a place that'll marry you and then settle in a state that doesn't recognize it, so you're going to push it down their throats until they bend to your will. That's an agenda. No matter how right or wrong, it's an agenda, and using divorce as the tool is a piss poor way of doing it. It doesn't bother me if two people of the same sex get married. But don't tell me I have to be accepting and shove it down my throat. That's one right I have, I get to choose what I want to accept and what I don't get to accept.

Apparently you guys are so worried about what the federal government says, you forgot about State's Rights. And the state of Alabama chooses not to recognize it.

Uh, they are Alabamians and have the right to equality under the law. The issue of states rights, especially in the furtherance of bigotry has been settled issue in this country for some time now.

So why is it I can legally buy a gun in Texas, take that gun to New York and suddenly it's no longer legal?

(03-13-2014 03:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 02:44 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 02:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 02:31 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Tom, if a state doesn't recognize it, they can't be divorced.. Which basically means the state of Alabama says, you might've been married in Iowa under their same sex law, but here you're not married. Piss poor way to push an agenda if you ask me.

The legal team that has won the last 15 major court cases on these things feels differently as to way to push an 'agenda' (equality).

Don't put quotes around agenda, because that's what it is. You're willing to travel to a place that'll marry you and then settle in a state that doesn't recognize it, so you're going to push it down their throats until they bend to your will. That's an agenda. No matter how right or wrong, it's an agenda, and using divorce as the tool is a piss poor way of doing it. It doesn't bother me if two people of the same sex get married. But don't tell me I have to be accepting and shove it down my throat. That's one right I have, I get to choose what I want to accept and what I don't get to accept.

Apparently you guys are so worried about what the federal government says, you forgot about State's Rights. And the state of Alabama chooses not to recognize it.

Uh, they are Alabamians and have the right to equality under the law. The issue of states rights, especially in the furtherance of bigotry has been settled issue in this country for some time now.

OMG... Declaring marriage as between one man and one woman is not bigotry or unequality. A "gay" person can marry whomever they want to marry, as long as they only marry one person and they are of the opposite sex. If you want to marry someone of the same sex, you've got to go to another state and if you want to marry multiple people, you cannot do that anywhere. Supporters of polygamy have a better argument, given the circumstances.

(03-13-2014 03:26 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 03:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 02:44 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 02:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 02:31 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Tom, if a state doesn't recognize it, they can't be divorced.. Which basically means the state of Alabama says, you might've been married in Iowa under their same sex law, but here you're not married. Piss poor way to push an agenda if you ask me.

The legal team that has won the last 15 major court cases on these things feels differently as to way to push an 'agenda' (equality).

Don't put quotes around agenda, because that's what it is. You're willing to travel to a place that'll marry you and then settle in a state that doesn't recognize it, so you're going to push it down their throats until they bend to your will. That's an agenda. No matter how right or wrong, it's an agenda, and using divorce as the tool is a piss poor way of doing it. It doesn't bother me if two people of the same sex get married. But don't tell me I have to be accepting and shove it down my throat. That's one right I have, I get to choose what I want to accept and what I don't get to accept.

Apparently you guys are so worried about what the federal government says, you forgot about State's Rights. And the state of Alabama chooses not to recognize it.

Uh, they are Alabamians and have the right to equality under the law. The issue of states rights, especially in the furtherance of bigotry has been settled issue in this country for some time now.

OMG... Declaring marriage as between one man and one woman is not bigotry or unequality. A "gay" person can marry whomever they want to marry, as long as they only marry one person and they are of the opposite sex. If you want to marry someone of the same sex, you've got to go to another state and if you want to marry multiple people, you cannot do that anywhere. Supporters of polygamy have a better argument, given the circumstances.

You are free to argue the merits or demerits of polygamy. It really isn't germaine to this argument.

However, your assertion that I have equal rights because I can marry the person of YOUR choosing, has now lost 15 times in a row. The anti-gay lawyers don't even bother to bring that up anymore.

The Alabama couple will win their lawsuit. Marriage will be legal and equal (and that means Gay marriage) within 2 years. Too much chaos is being created by a 'free state/slave state' scenario.

(03-13-2014 03:25 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 03:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 02:44 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 02:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 02:31 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Tom, if a state doesn't recognize it, they can't be divorced.. Which basically means the state of Alabama says, you might've been married in Iowa under their same sex law, but here you're not married. Piss poor way to push an agenda if you ask me.

The legal team that has won the last 15 major court cases on these things feels differently as to way to push an 'agenda' (equality).

Don't put quotes around agenda, because that's what it is. You're willing to travel to a place that'll marry you and then settle in a state that doesn't recognize it, so you're going to push it down their throats until they bend to your will. That's an agenda. No matter how right or wrong, it's an agenda, and using divorce as the tool is a piss poor way of doing it. It doesn't bother me if two people of the same sex get married. But don't tell me I have to be accepting and shove it down my throat. That's one right I have, I get to choose what I want to accept and what I don't get to accept.

Apparently you guys are so worried about what the federal government says, you forgot about State's Rights. And the state of Alabama chooses not to recognize it.

Uh, they are Alabamians and have the right to equality under the law. The issue of states rights, especially in the furtherance of bigotry has been settled issue in this country for some time now.

So why is it I can legally buy a gun in Texas, take that gun to New York and suddenly it's no longer legal?

A gun isn't a person.

It's not bigotry to deny a woman a marriage to a dog. Or any other freaky arrangement.

(03-13-2014 03:32 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 03:25 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 03:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 02:44 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 02:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The legal team that has won the last 15 major court cases on these things feels differently as to way to push an 'agenda' (equality).

Don't put quotes around agenda, because that's what it is. You're willing to travel to a place that'll marry you and then settle in a state that doesn't recognize it, so you're going to push it down their throats until they bend to your will. That's an agenda. No matter how right or wrong, it's an agenda, and using divorce as the tool is a piss poor way of doing it. It doesn't bother me if two people of the same sex get married. But don't tell me I have to be accepting and shove it down my throat. That's one right I have, I get to choose what I want to accept and what I don't get to accept.

Apparently you guys are so worried about what the federal government says, you forgot about State's Rights. And the state of Alabama chooses not to recognize it.

Uh, they are Alabamians and have the right to equality under the law. The issue of states rights, especially in the furtherance of bigotry has been settled issue in this country for some time now.

So why is it I can legally buy a gun in Texas, take that gun to New York and suddenly it's no longer legal?

A gun isn't a person.

Marriage isn't a constitutional right, a gun is.

(03-13-2014 03:32 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 03:25 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 03:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 02:44 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 02:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The legal team that has won the last 15 major court cases on these things feels differently as to way to push an 'agenda' (equality).

Don't put quotes around agenda, because that's what it is. You're willing to travel to a place that'll marry you and then settle in a state that doesn't recognize it, so you're going to push it down their throats until they bend to your will. That's an agenda. No matter how right or wrong, it's an agenda, and using divorce as the tool is a piss poor way of doing it. It doesn't bother me if two people of the same sex get married. But don't tell me I have to be accepting and shove it down my throat. That's one right I have, I get to choose what I want to accept and what I don't get to accept.

Apparently you guys are so worried about what the federal government says, you forgot about State's Rights. And the state of Alabama chooses not to recognize it.

Uh, they are Alabamians and have the right to equality under the law. The issue of states rights, especially in the furtherance of bigotry has been settled issue in this country for some time now.

So why is it I can legally buy a gun in Texas, take that gun to New York and suddenly it's no longer legal?

A gun isn't a person.

This may sound cruel, but this ruling actually seems to make people involved in same sex marriages as chattel.

(03-13-2014 01:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Just setting up the test case. The goal is to have cases running in all 50 states by the end of the year.

But on the specifics of the case...

If a Straight couple marries in Iowa and wishes to get divorced in Alabama, they are able to do so.
However if a Gay couple marries in Iowa and wishes to get divorced in Alabama, they cannot.

Its a pretty straightforward case of discrimination. The question for the courts, is there some rational basis for that discrimination. Since the Windsor ruling, this question has been asked 12 times. And the answer is that the discrimination is unconstitutional 12 times.

In Louisiana, you MUST get diviorced in the same Parish you got married in. It goes beyond just state, it's just like going to court for a misdemeanor or felony.

(03-13-2014 03:33 PM)Paul M Wrote:  It's not bigotry to deny a woman a marriage to a dog. Or any other freaky arrangement.

You are free to make that argument. However, your line of false equivalency has been tried, multiple times previously, and results in victories for our side.

(03-13-2014 03:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 02:44 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 02:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 02:31 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Tom, if a state doesn't recognize it, they can't be divorced.. Which basically means the state of Alabama says, you might've been married in Iowa under their same sex law, but here you're not married. Piss poor way to push an agenda if you ask me.

The legal team that has won the last 15 major court cases on these things feels differently as to way to push an 'agenda' (equality).

Don't put quotes around agenda, because that's what it is. You're willing to travel to a place that'll marry you and then settle in a state that doesn't recognize it, so you're going to push it down their throats until they bend to your will. That's an agenda. No matter how right or wrong, it's an agenda, and using divorce as the tool is a piss poor way of doing it. It doesn't bother me if two people of the same sex get married. But don't tell me I have to be accepting and shove it down my throat. That's one right I have, I get to choose what I want to accept and what I don't get to accept.

Apparently you guys are so worried about what the federal government says, you forgot about State's Rights. And the state of Alabama chooses not to recognize it.

Uh, they are Alabamians and have the right to equality under the law. The issue of states rights, especially in the furtherance of bigotry has been settled issue in this country for some time now.

Do you understand what "bigotry" means? You fuucking retard. Pushing your agenda is bigotry too... Dense damned dummy.