Yeah but it's not as simple as "don't move there". Using my Montana example, lets assume that one of the couple is originally from Montana. They avoid going back there but the Montana spouse inherits property from a relative there. Then a few years later, the Montana spouse dies. Does Montana even recognize the surviving marriage partner's claim on the property, since the marriage itself is not recognized?
Oh crap. You're right. They even put it in the State Constitution 20 years ago. I don't think that Montana today would still do that.
Get your wills in order gays! < ducks > More commonly, a married gay person gets terminally sick and moves home to Mom & Dad to help care for them because they can't afford it themselves, and the spouse is denied access to medical visits or almost anything else. What if those parents don't approve of the marriage? One might think this is a small concern, but tell that to people like Sounders or my uncle's partner.
I believe Congress passed a Respect for Marriage Act, or something like that, which recognizes marriages nationally. However, I believe there is a loophole that says states do not have to perform marriages if they don't want to.
That is a very sore spot for me, given my significant other died in Australia from a brain tumor and was staying with his family who were not receptive to me being part of his life.
This is correct as far as performing them goes. But it's still an open question (I've seen legal scholars on both sides of the issue) as to whether the RFMA would require other states to at least recognize the legality of said marriages via the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.
Did I hear right? I thought they said on the news last night that Biden was planning to issue 'pardons' to various people including Pelosi, Schiff and Fauci? Edit: nvm, found it... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c23v824g4v3o Of course, on that basis maybe he should issue another 300+ million of them to the rest of America
Along with many other you-would-think-that-would-be-disqualifying traits--I'm just utterly bemused at how many Americans feel good having a snarky internet troll as Commander in Chief of our military.
Not to mention his "Bully Diplomacy". It won't be long until our allies stop sharing important information with us.
Is it cynical to think that some pragmatic foreign secretary might use this channel to feed disinfo to Pooty? The dumb, the crazy, the monomania all seem to be aligned.
Yeah, but WHY. WHY do people WANT somebody like that as the leader of the country? Trump supporters don't even pretend to care about seriousness, propriety, honor, or integrity. Which would be FINE if they were picking their favorite pro wrestler or podcaster. But this guy has a very serious, important job. He represents our country. I just truly don't get it.
Too many people are ignorants dumfvcks who think that he's a billionaire and that leaders have to behave like assholes. Besides, they don't value real expertise and/or think that experts are arrogant elites.
It's my sig. Still. That tribe wants to hurt people. And they think Trump is the best person to help them accomplish that. I mean, Reagan wouldn't have survived Trump's slam on McCain.
While I agree that many of them are stupid, aggressively so, they are anti-intellectual. So when Trump says this shit, they believe him: 1221600458629898240 is not a valid tweet id Oh me... I almost spelled anti-intellectual wrong. 1:30 in the pm and I still need more caffeine.
Because if you really don't care about the values you stated, why would you care if the person who represents the country has the values?