quote:

1) Texas - It is illegal to carry a concealed ice cream cone
2) Baltimore, Maryland - It is illegal to take a lion to the theater
3) Cicero, Illinois - You may not hum on public streets on Sundays
4) California - Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship
5) Joliet, Illinois - You may be fined up to $5 for pronouncing Joliet: Jollyet.
6) Gary, Indiana - Persons are prohibited from attending a movie house or other theater and from riding a public streetcar within four hours of eating garlic
7) Clawson, Michigan - It is legal for a farmer to sleep with his pigs, cows, horses, goats, and chickens
8) Zion, Illinois - It is illegal for anyone to give lighted cigars to dogs, cats, and other domesticated animals kept as pets
9) St. Louis,Missouri - It is illegal to sit on the curb of any city street and drink beer from a bucket
10) New York - You may not throw a ball at someone's head for fun
11) Lehigh, Nebraska - It is illegal to sell doughnut holes
12) Utah - You must yield to birds while driving on the highway
13) Tallahassee, Florida - One may have sexual relations with a porcupine
14) New Britain, Connecticut - Fire trucks must travel at a speed of 25 m.p.h., even when going to a fire.
15) Illinois - It is illegal to speak English, American is the officially recognized language
16) California - It is a misdemeanor to shoot at any kind of game from a moving vehicle, unless the target is a whale.
17) Tucson, Arizona - It is illegal for women to wear pants.
18) Alaska - It is illegal to push a live moose out of a moving airplane.
19) Iowa - Kisses may last for as much as, but no more than, five minutes.
20) Louisiana - It is illegal to rob a bank and then shoot at the bank teller with a water pistol.

quote:

Kathy Cox and Kim Whalen of Verona have been together for 20 years. They just celebrated that anniversary back in May. They went out for ice cream, just like they did the day they met. Now the couple is preparing for an even bigger milestone.

"We're going to get married on 08/08/08," Cox says.

They plan on getting married in California. The only state in the U.S. that issues marriage licenses to same sex-couples from out of state. The license is only valid in California, and if you're from Wisconsin, it's illegal.

An obscure law makes it a crime for Wisconsin residents to enter marriage in another state if that marriage is illegal here.

It carries a fine up to $10,000 and nine months in prison.

Julaine Appling, Chief Executive Officer of Wisconsin Family Council, says violators of the law should be charged with fraud.

"You purposely left the state for another state and you get married and you know it's not going to be legal where you reside and you have every intention of returning, that's defrauding the Government," Appling says.

Gay rights advocacy group Fair Wisconsin sent e-mails to 10,000 of their members informing them about the law. They don't believe the law will be enforced.

"The law is from 1915, five years before women could vote," says Fair Wisconsin Executive Director Glenn Carlson.

Fair Wisconsin says majority of their members don't care about the law, saying they would rather be prosecuted then persecuted. That includes Cox and Whalen who say it's well worth the risk.

"Pioneers get the arrows and settlers get the land. We'll take a few arrows," Cox says.

The prosecution of violators would be up to district attorneys and Fair Wisconsin doesn't believe any district court would go after same-sex couples who marry in California.

Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard said doing so would be a "poor use of scarce prosecution resources."

quote:

Originally posted by The_Bonesaw:
One prosecution is all it takes and it would be headed to federal court. The federal courts will most likely shoot down the Wisconsin law.

I'd doubt that many prosecutors would bother with it knowing it is probably a lost cause.

quote:

9) St. Louis,Missouri - It is illegal to sit on the curb of any city street and drink beer from a bucket

quote:

Originally posted by The_Bonesaw:
One prosecution is all it takes and it would be headed to federal court. The federal courts will most likely shoot down the Wisconsin law.

I'd doubt that many prosecutors would bother with it knowing it is probably a lost cause.

quote:

Originally posted by L0A1:
This is what the Law was originally intended for.

quote:

Originally posted by The_Bonesaw:
One prosecution is all it takes and it would be headed to federal court. The federal courts will most likely shoot down the Wisconsin law.

I'd doubt that many prosecutors would bother with it knowing it is probably a lost cause.

quote:

Originally posted by scoutsout1:
I don't agree...I do not see the fed courts overriding the individual states laws that limit what marriages they choose to honor, and if they did, the whole Gay marriage thing will be at the voters forefront yet again, since many states do not honor gay marriage from other states...States are designed to be sovereign and it should remain that way!!!

quote:

States are designed to be sovereign and it should remain that way!

quote:

Originally posted by L0A1:

quote:

Originally posted by The_Bonesaw:
One prosecution is all it takes and it would be headed to federal court. The federal courts will most likely shoot down the Wisconsin law.

I'd doubt that many prosecutors would bother with it knowing it is probably a lost cause.

Which would then open up the doors for kids to go to other states where marriage age is lower, get married then go back home.

This is what the Law was originally intended for.

quote:

Originally posted by Fightdirector:
15) Illinois - It is illegal to speak English, American is the officially recognized language

quote:

Originally posted by Fightdirector:

quote:

Originally posted by L0A1:
This is what the Law was originally intended for.

Actually, like many laws of it's type passed at the height of the Ku Klux Klan's political power, it was designed to prevent Caucasians from going out-of-state and marrying non-Caucasians, then bringing their non-Caucasian "spouse" back home - not to prevent underage children from getting married.

//Source: Hooded Americanism: A History of the Ku Klux Klan by David M. Chalmers, 3rd edition//

quote:

Originally posted by Fightdirector:

quote:

Originally posted by scoutsout1:
I don't agree...I do not see the fed courts overriding the individual states laws that limit what marriages they choose to honor, and if they did, the whole Gay marriage thing will be at the voters forefront yet again, since many states do not honor gay marriage from other states...States are designed to be sovereign and it should remain that way!!!

So, I gather you believe the Supreme Court of the United States of America made the wrong decision when it determined that laws forbidding inter-racial marriage (Loving vs. Virginia) were un-Constitutional. After all, by your own argument,

quote:

States are designed to be sovereign and it should remain that way!

quote:

Originally posted by Whirled_Peas:

quote:

Originally posted by Fightdirector:
15) Illinois - It is illegal to speak English, American is the officially recognized language

I say, old chap! Jolly splendid idea - Americans speaking American! It's precisely the reason why they have such trouble speaking English! By George, it's a foreign language to the fellows across the pond, poor souls.



Now... the marriage laws by state:

Some were intended to prevent interracial marriage, some were intended to prevent underage marriages, and some were intended to prevent in-breeding. The purpose depended on the state. The effect was the same.

Now, I dare ANYONE here to say that states should be allowed to prohibit interracial marriage. Go ahead. If state rights are so important, and the people of certain states wanted to prevent blacks from marrying whites, hispanics from marrying Asians, and so on, then why can't a state make a law like that? Oh, how about a little insignificant document called the Constitution?

States can make any laws they want, but if those laws violate the Constitution of the United States, the laws must be overturned, or the Constitution must be changed.

The Constitution didn't originally grant women the right to vote. While women couldn't challenge the Constitutionality of that, they could challenge the Constitution itself on the grounds of justice, freedom, and the spirit of the document. On those grounds, the Constitution was amended for the 19th time.

The Constitution of the US has NEVER been amended in order to prevent or remove a freedom. The Constitutions of various states can grant more freedoms, or can make certain minor restrictions within the bounds of the Constitution of the United States, but a state law or a state Constitution CAN NOT violate the Constitution of the United States.
I guess you forgot about Prohibition.
It was declared that state laws which prohibited interracial marriage were unconstitutional. As such, those laws were overturned by the Supreme Court, despite the fact that people were kicking and screaming about interracial marriage as the "downfall of society", and "unnatural". The majorities in quite a few states still wanted to prohibit interracial marriage. However, the Constitution didn't allow such prohibitions.

So... the origins of laws that punish people for crossing state lines to get a marriage that wouldn't be legal in their home states were to prevent interracial marriage (when some states still prohibited such things), underage marriage (because different states have different age requirements), and in-breeding (because some states still think in-bred hicks make good citizens). However, no state can discriminate racially for marriage licenses anymore, regardless of the wishes of the majority. Thank goodness most people have grown up enough to see that racism is pointless hate. It's only a matter of time before those who are truly educated in law recognize that discrimination is not written into our Constitution, and that criminalizing two consenting, non-related adults for having a legal union is absolutely unconstitutional.

quote:

Originally posted by L0A1:

quote:

Originally posted by Fightdirector:

quote:

Originally posted by L0A1:
This is what the Law was originally intended for.

Actually, like many laws of it's type passed at the height of the Ku Klux Klan's political power, it was designed to prevent Caucasians from going out-of-state and marrying non-Caucasians, then bringing their non-Caucasian "spouse" back home - not to prevent underage children from getting married.

//Source: Hooded Americanism: A History of the Ku Klux Klan by David M. Chalmers, 3rd edition//

Does it just cover interracial couples or does the law specify "anyone"?
If it specifies "anyone" then it will open doors for KIDS (the operative word) going to other states where the age of consent is lower, then returning maried. Perhaps even without parental permssion.

quote:

thorin001 wrote:
I guess you forgot about Prohibition.

quote:

Originally posted by scoutsout1:

quote:

Originally posted by Fightdirector:

quote:

Originally posted by scoutsout1:
I don't agree...I do not see the fed courts overriding the individual states laws that limit what marriages they choose to honor, and if they did, the whole Gay marriage thing will be at the voters forefront yet again, since many states do not honor gay marriage from other states...States are designed to be sovereign and it should remain that way!!!

So, I gather you believe the Supreme Court of the United States of America made the wrong decision when it determined that laws forbidding inter-racial marriage (Loving vs. Virginia) were un-Constitutional. After all, by your own argument,

quote:

States are designed to be sovereign and it should remain that way!

There is a huge difference between denying one traditional marriage because of race, vs. that of denying the marriage of things the public see as immoral, unnatural, sick, and/or wrong. . .Should states be required to honor incest marriages??? Should states be required to honor polygamy marriages??? Should states be required to honor Homosexual marriages??? Should states be required to honor under age marriages???


Just like homosexuality, these other things are unpopular as well, and in most states (if not all) are illegal, but to stand with homosexuality over the rest, you would be a self interested bigot to deny these other folks the right to practice whatever lifestyle choice they see fit as well (it is not like they are hurting anyone by their choices). By denying any group and allowing another to prosper, you are discriminating against others in some form, which in fact is normal in a society guided by morals, something many seem to lack in their cherry pickens!


You can not have your cake and eat it too, for some crap just don't fly!!!

quote:

Originally posted by thorin001:

quote:

Originally posted by scoutsout1:

quote:

Originally posted by Fightdirector:

quote:

Originally posted by scoutsout1:
I don't agree...I do not see the fed courts overriding the individual states laws that limit what marriages they choose to honor, and if they did, the whole Gay marriage thing will be at the voters forefront yet again, since many states do not honor gay marriage from other states...States are designed to be sovereign and it should remain that way!!!

So, I gather you believe the Supreme Court of the United States of America made the wrong decision when it determined that laws forbidding inter-racial marriage (Loving vs. Virginia) were un-Constitutional. After all, by your own argument,

quote:

States are designed to be sovereign and it should remain that way!

There is a huge difference between denying one traditional marriage because of race, vs. that of denying the marriage of things the public see as immoral, unnatural, sick, and/or wrong. . .Should states be required to honor incest marriages??? Should states be required to honor polygamy marriages??? Should states be required to honor Homosexual marriages??? Should states be required to honor under age marriages???


Just like homosexuality, these other things are unpopular as well, and in most states (if not all) are illegal, but to stand with homosexuality over the rest, you would be a self interested bigot to deny these other folks the right to practice whatever lifestyle choice they see fit as well (it is not like they are hurting anyone by their choices). By denying any group and allowing another to prosper, you are discriminating against others in some form, which in fact is normal in a society guided by morals, something many seem to lack in their cherry pickens!


You can not have your cake and eat it too, for some crap just don't fly!!!

Interracial marriage was described as immoral, unnatural, and sick; what is your point?
Incest laws vary from state to state. If you were to get married in a state that allows first cousins to marry and then move to a state that does not you would still be married. And the state has a valid puplic health justification for banning incest. That justification does not exist for gays. 'Sodomy' is legal, so that cannot be the health justification.

quote:

Originally posted by thorin001:

quote:

Originally posted by L0A1:

quote:

Originally posted by Fightdirector:

quote:

Originally posted by L0A1:
This is what the Law was originally intended for.

Actually, like many laws of it's type passed at the height of the Ku Klux Klan's political power, it was designed to prevent Caucasians from going out-of-state and marrying non-Caucasians, then bringing their non-Caucasian "spouse" back home - not to prevent underage children from getting married.

//Source: Hooded Americanism: A History of the Ku Klux Klan by David M. Chalmers, 3rd edition//

Does it just cover interracial couples or does the law specify "anyone"?
If it specifies "anyone" then it will open doors for KIDS (the operative word) going to other states where the age of consent is lower, then returning maried. Perhaps even without parental permssion.

Gays may not be able to challenge this law because of the DOMA, but the guy marring a kid could. The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution makes a marriage valid in one state valid in all.

quote:

Originally posted by Whirled_Peas:

quote:

thorin001 wrote:
I guess you forgot about Prohibition.

Ah, you're right. And we all know how badly THAT experiment went!

quote:

Originally posted by PhoenixDark:
If the law in the Cox/Whalen case were used to prosecute them, it would wind up in the Supreme Court, and then it would wind up defeated on the same basic grounds (Full Faith clause of the Constitution) as the Loving v. Virginia decision - and that WOULD be a major setback to opponents of gay marriage.

quote:

Originally posted by L0A1:

quote:

Originally posted by The_Bonesaw:
One prosecution is all it takes and it would be headed to federal court. The federal courts will most likely shoot down the Wisconsin law.

I'd doubt that many prosecutors would bother with it knowing it is probably a lost cause.

Which would then open up the doors for kids to go to other states where marriage age is lower, get married then go back home.

This is what the Law was originally intended for.

quote:

Originally posted by scoutsout1:

quote:

Originally posted by The_Bonesaw:
One prosecution is all it takes and it would be headed to federal court. The federal courts will most likely shoot down the Wisconsin law.

I'd doubt that many prosecutors would bother with it knowing it is probably a lost cause.

I don't agree...I do not see the fed courts overriding the individual states laws that limit what marriages they choose to honor, and if they did, the whole Gay marriage thing will be at the voters forefront yet again, since many states do not honor gay marriage from other states. . .States are designed to be sovereign and it should remain that way!!!

quote:

Originally posted by PhoenixDark:
If the law in the Cox/Whalen case were used to prosecute them, it would wind up in the Supreme Court, and then it would wind up defeated on the same basic grounds (Full Faith clause of the Constitution) as the Loving v. Virginia decision - and that WOULD be a major setback to opponents of gay marriage.

quote:

Originally posted by Whirled_Peas:

The Constitution of the US has NEVER been amended in order to prevent or remove a freedom. The Constitutions of various states can grant more freedoms, or can make certain minor restrictions within the bounds of the Constitution of the United States, but a state law or a state Constitution CAN NOT violate the Constitution of the United States.

quote:

Originally posted by scoutsout1:

quote:

Originally posted by Fightdirector:

quote:

Originally posted by scoutsout1:
I don't agree...I do not see the fed courts overriding the individual states laws that limit what marriages they choose to honor, and if they did, the whole Gay marriage thing will be at the voters forefront yet again, since many states do not honor gay marriage from other states...States are designed to be sovereign and it should remain that way!!!

So, I gather you believe the Supreme Court of the United States of America made the wrong decision when it determined that laws forbidding inter-racial marriage (Loving vs. Virginia) were un-Constitutional. After all, by your own argument,

quote:

States are designed to be sovereign and it should remain that way!

There is a huge difference between denying one traditional marriage because of race, vs. that of denying the marriage of things the public see as immoral, unnatural, sick, and/or wrong. . .Should states be required to honor incest marriages??? Should states be required to honor polygamy marriages??? Should states be required to honor Homosexual marriages??? Should states be required to honor under age marriages???


Just like homosexuality, these other things are unpopular as well, and in most states (if not all) are illegal, but to stand with homosexuality over the rest, you would be a self interested bigot to deny these other folks the right to practice whatever lifestyle choice they see fit as well (it is not like they are hurting anyone by their choices). By denying any group and allowing another to prosper, you are discriminating against others in some form, which in fact is normal in a society guided by morals, something many seem to lack in their cherry pickens!


You can not have your cake and eat it too, for some crap just don't fly!!!

quote:

Originally posted by L0A1:

quote:

Originally posted by PhoenixDark:
If the law in the Cox/Whalen case were used to prosecute them, it would wind up in the Supreme Court, and then it would wind up defeated on the same basic grounds (Full Faith clause of the Constitution) as the Loving v. Virginia decision - and that WOULD be a major setback to opponents of gay marriage.

I don't care about gay marraige, I care about the law keeping kids from leaving the state, getting married and returning back.