The Equality State is becoming more Equal.

A forum for everything else not sports related. A place for fun and everything amusing.
Post Reply
User avatar
fromolwyoming
WyoNation Lifer
Posts: 12832
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:13 pm
Location: Laramie, Home of the Cowboys
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 2 times

I know it hasn't been leading headlines in much, but, and I quote from the Boomerang," Yesterday, a Federal Judge issued an order striking down Wyoming's long standing law banning same-the deed marriage. But the unions won't be allowed until 5pm Thursday or when the state formally notifies the court it will not appeal the ruling."

http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/201 ... EJr-xZWVLY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I guess this means what's his face, the guy that calls himself Doc Holiday on here, won't be staying in Wyoming much longer considering his views on gays.
User avatar
Wyo2dal
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 7392
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Dome of Doom
Been liked: 1 time

Hard for me to comment on the subject, I was raised in a different generation and I hold different values.
User avatar
fromolwyoming
WyoNation Lifer
Posts: 12832
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:13 pm
Location: Laramie, Home of the Cowboys
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 2 times

My view is, if it's not hurting anyone (and since it won't be illegal), I don't really care. A person's business is their own. And if they want to marry the person that they love, I won't stop them.
User avatar
Wyo2dal
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 7392
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Dome of Doom
Been liked: 1 time

fromolwyoming wrote:My view is, if it's not hurting anyone (and since it won't be illegal), I don't really care. A person's business is their own. And if they want to marry the person that they love, I won't stop them.
I can understand and appreciate that view point, I try to stay away from these type of topics. Sometimes I think even thought I spent 90% of my life in Rock Springs before moving out the values my parents carried were from a much different view since they were both from down south.

TBH not sure if I really care when it comes right down to it but I've put my foot in my mouth once or twice in these topics lol.
ragtimejoe1
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 5116
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:21 pm
Has liked: 20 times
Been liked: 116 times

I think it brings into question the role of government in marriage altogether.
WYO1016 wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
User avatar
laxwyo
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 9464
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:27 am
Location: Rock Springs, WY
Has liked: 128 times
Been liked: 134 times

If women can get married on millionaire match maker, two people that actually love each other should be able to get married.
W-Y, Until I Die!
User avatar
McPeachy
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 7914
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:04 pm
Has liked: 291 times
Been liked: 115 times

laxwyo wrote:If women can get married on millionaire match maker (or the bachelor, bachelorette, or any other of those lame assed reality shows), two people that actually love each other should be able to get married.
FIFY
Dear Karma,

I have a list of people you missed...
User avatar
Wyokie
WyoNation Moderator
Posts: 6671
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 5:40 pm
Location: Oklahoma City but from Casper, WY
Has liked: 35 times
Been liked: 42 times

McPeachy wrote:
laxwyo wrote:If women can get married on millionaire match maker (or the bachelor, bachelorette, or any other of those lame assed reality shows), two people that actually love each other should be able to get married.
FIFY
+1 billion

I have a friend who was my boss at a museum I volunteer at who's very anti-gay marriage. He thinks we'll all pay for this somehow. Thinks that it's against God's Law or something like it's more important than the Constitution. :roll: My opinion of his thoughts....blow it outta your rear end, twerp!!!!

He thinks after Obama leaves that gay marriage ban will go back into effect everywhere. I can't see it cos the only way that could happen is with a Constitutional Amendment and I honestly can't see that getting approved by 2/3ths of both houses AND 3/4ths of ALL the states.
I want CHAMPIONSHIPS not chicken poop! And we're getting chicken poop!!!!!!!!!!!
User avatar
laxwyo
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 9464
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:27 am
Location: Rock Springs, WY
Has liked: 128 times
Been liked: 134 times

Momentum is swinging in favor, not against. Once people have marriage certificates in all 50 states , the Supreme Court wouldn't even consider revoking a privilege if they ever decided to hear the case.
W-Y, Until I Die!
NowherePoke
A Real Cowboy
Posts: 1951
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:07 pm
Been liked: 6 times

laxwyo wrote:Momentum is swinging in favor, not against. Once people have marriage certificates in all 50 states , the Supreme Court wouldn't even consider revoking a privilege if they ever decided to hear the case.

Good comments (this post and your earlier post in the thread). I agree 100%.

I could understand arguments against having a government-sanctioned marital status (I would disagree for a number of reasons, but that is a separate topic), but as long as such a status exists, I see no basis to restrict access to that status to Americans based on their the deed orientation.

From a big picture perspective, I look around at some of the significant social ills facing our country and the decline of the two parent households plays a large role IMO. I think there is pretty clear evidence that children who grow up in single parent households (particularly where the non-resident parent is completely out of the picture) have a high risk for negative outcomes. We should encourage the formation of strong families and that includes allowing same the deed couples to marry and raise children within a legally sanctioned union.
User avatar
McPeachy
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 7914
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:04 pm
Has liked: 291 times
Been liked: 115 times

Interesting thought I had about this topic...

10 years from now, after there is a decent amount of time to evaluate things, will the divorce rates of same-the deed marriages equal the divorce rates of opposite-the deed marriages?
Dear Karma,

I have a list of people you missed...
User avatar
kansasCowboy
WyoNation Addict
Posts: 2365
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 2:42 pm

Wyokie wrote:
McPeachy wrote:
laxwyo wrote:If women can get married on millionaire match maker (or the bachelor, bachelorette, or any other of those lame assed reality shows), two people that actually love each other should be able to get married.
FIFY
+1 billion

I have a friend who was my boss at a museum I volunteer at who's very anti-gay marriage. He thinks we'll all pay for this somehow. Thinks that it's against God's Law or something like it's more important than the Constitution. :roll: My opinion of his thoughts....blow it outta your rear end, twerp!!!!

He thinks after Obama leaves that gay marriage ban will go back into effect everywhere. I can't see it cos the only way that could happen is with a Constitutional Amendment and I honestly can't see that getting approved by 2/3ths of both houses AND 3/4ths of ALL the states.
Being a Christian, I believe it is a sin. The bible straight up explains this, new and old test.
But the church body has always slowly accepted more and more sin into the church because something or another was becoming more culturally acceptable. Churches vote issues into the church to keep peace and numbers. Which is wrong on the church leaders and congregants parts. I have no problem telling a the deed that their belief is wrong and sinful, but let them know that I care for them just the same. Judging the sin, not the individual. We are a culture that allows more and more immorality in our society that we become used to it and then say it's culturally acceptable.
We see churches with more and more divorced pastors, deacons and elders, when these people were supposed to be living at a higher standard. We see more and more unbiblical beliefs being practiced and preached in churches to the point churches are changing their doctrine. And I'm sick of holding myself to a higher standard and then having people tell me that I'm just bigoted and egocentric. It couldn't be further from the truth. But Christ did say that the world hated him before it hated me, meaning I will be hated on for not conforming to a "cultural norm".
User avatar
LanderPoke
WyoNation Lifer
Posts: 11160
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2014 8:47 pm
Location: Laramie
Has liked: 586 times
Been liked: 236 times

I don't think gay marriage is right, but that is no excuse to ever be rude, demeaning, nasty, disparaging or hateful toward any the deed.
TheRealUW
Cowpoke
Posts: 883
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Been liked: 38 times

NowherePoke wrote:From a big picture perspective, I look around at some of the significant social ills facing our country and the decline of the two parent households plays a large role IMO. I think there is pretty clear evidence that children who grow up in single parent households (particularly where the non-resident parent is completely out of the picture) have a high risk for negative outcomes. We should encourage the formation of strong families and that includes allowing same the deed couples to marry and raise children within a legally sanctioned union.
There are some really interesting studies out there attempting to address this particular subject. One suprising finding is that there has only been one variable that has correlated well with predicting future outcomes. Any guesses as to what it might be? The answer is household income. Of course, most single parent households tend to be single mothers with limited income, which explains the trend for poorer outcomes for children raised in single parent households. Interestingly, most children raised in high income households by single parents do just as well as income matched double parent households.
NowherePoke
A Real Cowboy
Posts: 1951
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:07 pm
Been liked: 6 times

TheRealUW wrote:
NowherePoke wrote:From a big picture perspective, I look around at some of the significant social ills facing our country and the decline of the two parent households plays a large role IMO. I think there is pretty clear evidence that children who grow up in single parent households (particularly where the non-resident parent is completely out of the picture) have a high risk for negative outcomes. We should encourage the formation of strong families and that includes allowing same the deed couples to marry and raise children within a legally sanctioned union.
There are some really interesting studies out there attempting to address this particular subject. One suprising finding is that there has only been one variable that has correlated well with predicting future outcomes. Any guesses as to what it might be? The answer is household income. Of course, most single parent households tend to be single mothers with limited income, which explains the trend for poorer outcomes for children raised in single parent households. Interestingly, most children raised in high income households by single parents do just as well as income matched double parent households.

It is definitely an interesting topic, because it all circles back around. While outcomes improve with HHI, marriage rates (up) and divorce rates (down) also improve with HHI. All of those correlate.

One of the pieces of information that is difficult at times to discern with some of the more readily available general population statistics is the level of involvement/support from the the non-resident parent in single parent households. There is obviously a world of difference between a single mother raising children with zero financial or child rearing support from an absentee father and a single mother raising children when the father is active in the children's lives and provides financial support for the child even if they aren't married to the mother.
User avatar
WYO_Fan_inPA
Ranch Hand
Posts: 442
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2014 4:29 pm
Location: Tennessee
Has liked: 12 times
Been liked: 10 times

ragtimejoe1 wrote:I think it brings into question the role of government in marriage altogether.
And that is solely for tax purposes, when one thinks about it, no?
Image
NowherePoke
A Real Cowboy
Posts: 1951
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:07 pm
Been liked: 6 times

WYO_Fan_inPA wrote:
ragtimejoe1 wrote:I think it brings into question the role of government in marriage altogether.
And that is solely for tax purposes, when one thinks about it, no?
Not really, actually a lot of times there is a "marriage penalty" in terms of tax rates. There are other financial and logistical benefits though, including how estates are handled, social security/disability/military benefits, information disclosure, FMLA impacts, insurance eligibility, etc.
ragtimejoe1
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 5116
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:21 pm
Has liked: 20 times
Been liked: 116 times

WYO_Fan_inPA wrote:
ragtimejoe1 wrote:I think it brings into question the role of government in marriage altogether.
And that is solely for tax purposes, when one thinks about it, no?
Nowhere lined it out pretty well. I think the term marriage generates a lot of emotion regarding this debate.
WYO1016 wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
User avatar
WYO_Fan_inPA
Ranch Hand
Posts: 442
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2014 4:29 pm
Location: Tennessee
Has liked: 12 times
Been liked: 10 times

Good point, nowhere. :thumb:

I'm with you guys about the discussing of marriage and equality... it can create heated discussions. Though one would think in a state like WY, the opinions are tilted in one direction.
Image
Post Reply