 |
|
No - YOU weren't following the thread.
Posted on: January 5, 2018 at 14:51:14 CT
tigerdb MU
Posts:
58182
Member For:
24.54 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
What exactly do you interpret: "Same sex marriage should have been handled like marijuana - Let the states screw it up on their own." to mean?
The states "handled" SSM, until the SC intervened.
The states "handling" (until the SC intervened) was for a state that didn't allow SSM (such as MO), to not recognize the SSM of residents of their state, even if they were lawfully married in another state.
FOR EXAMPLE, if a SS couple were married in CA, and moved to MO, they weren't treated as married for such things as income taxes, health insurance, and other matters.
So the OP's thread was essentially - better off today, or better off the way it was?
You are dense, boy....
The states "handled" SSM, until the SC intervened.
The states "handling" (until the SC intervened) was for a state that didn't allow SSM (such as MO), to not recognize the SSM of residents of their state, even if they were lawfully married in another state.
FOR EXAMPLE, if a SS couple were married in CA, and moved to MO, they weren't treated as married for such things as income taxes, health insurance, and other matters.
So the OP's thread was essentially - better off today, or better off the way it was?
You are dense, boy....
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
- 
No - YOU weren't following the thread. - tigerdb MU - 1/5 14:51:14