What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

LynahFan said:
Nonsense. I personally have known two heterosexual couples who would otherwise have not gotten married (been together for 10+ years) who finally caved and had civil ceremonies in order to obtain health care benefits. Their reasons for getting married had nothing whatsoever to do with religion, and everything to do with practical, financial benefits of legal marriage.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. It's going to be a nightmare to extricate ourselves from the current mess.

On the bright side: more work for lawyers!
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

amherstblackbear said:
Fair enough. It's going to be a nightmare to extricate ourselves from the current mess.

On the bright side: more work for lawyers!
Click to expand...

Like I said... just because it will be virtually impossible to do and no one in government will be willing, doesn't mean it's a bad idea.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Hell, in the last month I met a bisexual woman married to a gay man. Don't live together, don't "consummate their marriage", but they're getting the tax benefits from being married.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

LynahFan said:
Nonsense. I personally have known two heterosexual couples who would otherwise have not gotten married (been together for 10+ years) who finally caved and had civil ceremonies in order to obtain health care benefits. Their reasons for getting married had nothing whatsoever to do with religion, and everything to do with practical, financial benefits of legal marriage.
Click to expand...

Not only do some couples choose to get married because of this, but I personally know heterosexual couples that choose to NOT get married because of the loss of health care benefits they would otherwise have if they remain single.

Actually, if you want to throw in immigration, some couples (including at least one I personally know) choose to get married in order to legally keep their spouse in the country.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

FlagDUDE08 said:
Not only do some couples choose to get married because of this, but I personally know heterosexual couples that choose to NOT get married because of the loss of health care benefits they would otherwise have if they remain single.

Actually, if you want to throw in immigration, some couples (including at least one I personally know) choose to get married in order to legally keep their spouse in the country.
Click to expand...
Ah yes - how could I have forgotten immigration? How many immigration laws would need to be rewritten in order to eliminate the concept of marriage? Rough guess: all of them.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

LynahFan said:
Ah yes - how could I have forgotten immigration? How many immigration laws would need to be rewritten in order to eliminate the concept of marriage? Rough guess: all of them.
Click to expand...

Consolation prize for the religious right: No more anchor spouses!
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

LynahFan said:
Nonsense. I personally have known two heterosexual couples who would otherwise have not gotten married (been together for 10+ years) who finally caved and had civil ceremonies in order to obtain health care benefits. Their reasons for getting married had nothing whatsoever to do with religion, and everything to do with practical, financial benefits of legal marriage.
Click to expand...

You can make it three, kinda. The wife and I were already engaged, but I got health benefits and she didn't. We did a courthouse marriage on our lunch break. Did the "real" ceremony with family about 10 months later.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

unofan said:
You can make it three, kinda. The wife and I were already engaged, but I got health benefits and she didn't. We did a courthouse marriage on our lunch break. Did the "real" ceremony with family about 10 months later.
Click to expand...
And people in the Armed Services do it all the time as Uncle Sam does not recognize fiances as dependents. My cousin did the JoP route before going to Vietnam and a former youth teammate of my son got civilly married before shipping off to the Sand. Both came back safely and then they had the church wedding.

I don't think anyone in their right mind has problems with this, nor with what unofan did.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

geezer said:
I know almost nothing about him, which I know is a crying shame, but I remembered a story of my dad's about a very good friend/long time pastor who told him in the late 80s that Ike was the last presidential candidate he felt he could vote for.
(and was the last time he did vote)
Click to expand...

After spending time with his bio, I'd consider Ike an effective pragmatic who although cautious was quite progressive. He recently got hate on this site from both the right and left...which makes him great in my book. Here's an example of his stance on civil rights...which in the mid 50's was as controversial if not moreso than gay marriage today:

The Eisenhower administration declared racial discrimination a national security issue, as Communists around the world used the racial discrimination and history of violence in the U.S. as a point of propaganda attack. The day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brown, that segregated schools were unconstitutional, Eisenhower told District of Columbia officials to make Washington a model for the rest of the country in integrating black and white public school children. He proposed to Congress the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 and signed those acts into law. The 1957 act for the first time established a permanent civil rights office inside the Justice Department and a Civil Rights Commission to hear testimony about abuses of voting rights. Although both acts were much weaker than subsequent civil rights legislation, they constituted the first significant civil rights acts since 1875.

In 1957, the state of Arkansas refused to honor a federal court order to integrate their public school system stemming from the Brown decision. Eisenhower demanded that Arkansas governor Orval Faubus obey the court order. When Faubus balked, the president placed the Arkansas National Guard under federal control and sent in the 101st Airborne Division. They escorted and protected nine black students' entry to Little Rock Central High School, an all-white public school, for the first time since the Reconstruction era. Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote to Eisenhower to thank him for his actions, writing "The overwhelming majority of southerners, Negro and white, stand firmly behind your resolute action to restore law and order in Little Rock". (wiki)
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

FlagDUDE08 said:
Anyone who complains about corporations and thinks that the government should do something about them is no different from those about whom they are complaining. They want a monopoly for their "corporation", in this case, the government.
Click to expand...
That makes, literally, no sense.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Some humor:
cashforclunkers.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top