Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It doesn't matter; it is one's own choice. I am a conservative and will point to the Constitution for reference. Is it mentioned in there? No, it is a state's concern and not federal. Any who wish to disagree aren't beholden to the law of the land and choose to make their own which can be a two edged sword.
It doesn't matter; it is one's own choice. I am a conservative and will point to the Constitution for reference. Is it mentioned in there? No, it is a state's concern and not federal. Any who wish to disagree aren't beholden to the law of the land and choose to make their own which can be a two edged sword.
When you said you believe in Constitution, do you also believe in its 14th Amendment?
You just alluded to the fact politicians are crooked oathbreakers. Why does the Constitution need interpretation? It wasn't written so. It is written in plain English and not in legal terms requiring lawyers. A judge should rule whether or not one is in accordance with federal or state law.
Supreme court justices (unelected officials) are legislating from the bench and congress needs to call them to task about it.
You didn't and never have read it if you can respond so quickly. Don't feel bad; you have lots of company.
All words need interpretation.
Even the Founding Fathers didn't agree on everything.
Supreme Court justices shouldn't be elected. That just means that the bullies in power get their way. There's a process and it's worked rather well over the decades.
You just alluded to the fact politicians are crooked oathbreakers. Why does the Constitution need interpretation? It wasn't written so. It is written in plain English and not in legal terms requiring lawyers. A judge should rule whether or not one is in accordance with federal or state law.
Supreme court justices (unelected officials) are legislating from the bench and congress needs to call them to task about it.
You didn't and never have read it if you can respond so quickly. Don't feel bad; you have lots of company.
Supreme Court Justices are doing exactly what the Constitution says they are supposed to do.
I never knew why people had a problem with polygamy. My justification is the same for polygamy as it is with incest: if it's between consenting adults... why the heck not?
The recent Supreme Court decision essentially changed marriage to a contractual agreement based on 'love' btw consenting adults . The number 'two' remained unchanged.
Much of the arguments were about visitation rights in hospitals, inheritance laws, etc not about other sexual orientations (polygamy, incestuous relationships, even singles)
But trad. marriage (Till death does you apart.) had already been changed prior by introducing the no-fault divorce laws, and without them gays would have not fought as intensely for this right. The no-fault divorce law cleared issues like child support, alimony, who keeps what, etc. Gay marriage ONLY works with easy divorce! That's the heterosexuals fault as they had already broken down the gates of their castle.
The purpose of marriage btw man & woman to rear children as the next generation of taxpayers was encouraged by the government via tax deduction, transfer of social security benefits etc. This was explicitly denied as arguments in several recent pro-gay marriage courts.
The status quo will not stay long as we keep on interpreting the purpose of marriage into ever more nebulous territory. Marriage by itself btw 2 consenting adults as 'sanctioned love' has no tangible benefits for the society--yet the tax deductions, social security pay-outs for gay widowers will go up. Meaning it costs more for society with no tangible returns. Politics, but more simple economics, will ultimately squeeze the government to fully get out of marriage regulation.
Before that happens tough, the clowns will dance in ever more bizarre ways.
This just shows that the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage in the first place. Separation of religion and state.
Well what you say maybe true, but it's the government that marries you. Not the religion. Don't believe it? You 'have' to get a marrage license from the gov. before you can say you are married.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
