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.
And that same precedent is already being used in the federal courts for SSM. It's quite easy to change nothing in the Loving opinion except the word race to sex, and it will equally apply to SSM cases. That's how ridiculously close the 2 cases are from a legal standpoint.
what about the part that connects it to procreation?
it was never legal because the word marry is only between men and woman. look at any dictionary from before this insanity began and you'll see that.
suppose the word no get a new definition that means a
That last sentence is complete gibberish... sorry, but I have no idea what you were trying to say there.
Regardless of what the dictionary says (definitions differ from version to version, fyi), the LAW never barred gay people from marrying in many states - otherwise, as I've already asked once or twice, why do they need to pass laws banning it? If the law were so clear on this issue, they wouldn't have to introduce amendments/props to make it official.
Remember folks gay marriage is rapidly shifting in the polls!
Yes it is, and the shift is quickly going in FAVOR of gay marriage... have you read any of these polls? I have, and more than half of Americans now think it should be legal - including our President and Vice-President.
because the state FORCES them to do so.......that isn't the premise of why people get married.
Skip the semantics.
But contractual laws are about semantics, and the whole point here is that the government DOES require a contract to be granted the benefits of marriage. You can have a ceremony without that contract, but you will never be entitled to the rights of a married spouse. Semantics matter an awful lot, when we're talking about legal rights.
And in case you weren't aware, the whole legal side of being in a contract is why many people marry. My sister, for example, was perfectly happy just living with her (then) boyfriend for seven years - they only decided to make things official when they wanted to have children, and knew it was better for the children's protection to have contractually married parents. Btw, my sister is a lawyer, so she understands this stuff better than most. I also know people who decided NOT to marry, because they get certain benefits (tax, tuition, etc) for being a single person/parent.
Quote:
Edit: And why not just whine about getting the same percs in a domestic partnership instead of trying to batter your way into an institution that never wanted you in the first place....???
That's exactly what they are doing, for the most part... and if "civil unions" or DPs were given the exact same benefits as marriage, there's a chance they would be okay with that. It's still a bit of a slap in the face (the whole separate but equal insult), but it would at least be closer to fair and equal.
How many here arguing against gay marriage are divorced I wonder?
That must be one of those other commandments Jesus mentioned that "Christians" aren't required to abide by.
Considering Jesus mentioned divorce and adultery on multiple occasions, and never once mentioned gays or homosexuality, I'm not sure why places like NC aren't putting their efforts into passing an Amendment to ban adultery and divorce.
I guess it's no fun to pass laws that hurt themselves huh?
Yes it is, and the shift is quickly going in FAVOR of gay marriage... have you read any of these polls? I have, and more than half of Americans now think it should be legal - including our President and Vice-President.
31 states have voted against a homosexual/sodomite marraige.
That's 62% of the states. Every state that had a vote, voted against. Every stateagainst.
Many people may say yes in a poll, but vote another way.
That is also why voting is done in private, so other people cannot force you to do something.
That is why Political Correctness is so dangerous.
"Sanctity of marraige"...hah. How come religious people don't realize that divorce is the single biggest threat to the "sanctity of marriage"? Whatever...the best places that this country has to offer (Boston, NYC, etc.) will always be the most educated and most rational.
you do realize that a vote to redefine marriage would have failed drastically in NYC. (and a vote for a constitutional ban against 2 members of the same sex "marrying would have passed)
between Jews (the conservative types), Irish, Italians, Blacks, Hisapincs, and Muslims it would have lost big in all 4 non Manhattan boroughs and would have done much better in Manhattan than most would think.
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.
