Apparently 29 of them are and the SCOTUS that said gay marriage is okay in CA says that Gay marriage bans are okay in those states too. If judicial activism were a baseball game, the old slaughter rule wouldn't seem to be favoring the left's position at the moment.
Actually SCOTUS said nothing about marriage...
whats out of context?
Yeah, and that's the problem with America. Just because a majority of people in a state follow a certain religion doesn't mean they should be able to oppress others in the state by forcing biblical based legislation on them.
Indeed.
Is someone making fun of your religion?
It's biological based legislation. Bushmen of the Kalahari, former headhunters from Papua New Guinea, Native American tribes, Hindus, Taoists..... everyone except a bunch of militant homosexuals in the USA get that the "man and woman" joining relationship is known as "marriage" and same sex relationships are known as "friendships".
There is no requirement to be sworn in on a Bible. It has been done before and it will be done again. Just because Presidents are individually religious doesn't mean every American is the same religion.
or perhaps civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage.
Good.
Dont forget these countries if you are going to talk about "militant homosexuals"
Only "militant homosexuals" from the United States believe in free choice. Riiiiight...
I'd go along with that. I'm not sure all the states want to go along with that, though. Still, I see no reason why any two people who want to live together shouldn't be able to draw up whatever sort of legal contract they wish and I don't even see why the state can't make concessions to give them some sort of similar legal structure as marriage. Civil Unions should resolve most of the issues including the "slippery slope" issue of marriage.
Well I agree with you premise but I think swearing in on the physical Constitution might be bad for it's condition. I mean you have to run first but you never know :lol:
It's like a who's who of nutcase progressive nations and damned if we didn't join them. I'm wondering how long France will keep homosexual marriage with the outrage people have expressed against it there.
I think the OP was directed less at the bible and more at the religious fools who pretend the bible supports their biases.
Marriage LAW has to do with property rights, inheritance, etc. It has nothing to do with your pseudo-darwinist socio-biology claptrap. There are plenty of good reasons marriage as an institution evolved. The reasons marriage LAW evolved is quite different. We're talking about marriage LAW in case you didn't notice, wallowing in lumpen sociobiology the way you were.
Let me put it to you this way, since Conservatives like to legislate with the Bible: here ya go
If the rest of the world favored killing people indiscriminately would you be advocating that as well?
Marriage law has to do with a lot of things covering the union between a MAN and a WOMAN and none of those things mean that marriage should be anything but a union between a MAN and a WOMAN.
The Bible has nothing to do with it, in my opinion. Common sense and some basic understanding of the birds and the bees and the institution thought of as "fundamental to our very existence and survival". That's got everything to do with it. While some people think it's fine if homosexuals mock up marriage for the sake of tax benefits or sticking a thumb in the eye of the evangelicals they hate with a passion, I think we should take it just a wee bit more serious than that and leave marriage the hell along since it's done a pretty good job for us for centuries without being modified into a freak of nature.