Now that's the worst slippery slope argument I have ever heard. In fact it's slippery cliff
1. Gays couldn't marry either. But, laws have been changed (ignored, overwritten through legislative edict) to force that upon us. The point you refuse to address is, if a girl can make the very adult decision to get an abortion at any age, then why can't she make the very adult decision to get married?
2. The fact that the ruling was made shows that steps in the wrong direction are being considered. Next time it may go all the way and give them full 'legal person" status. All that's needed is a activist judge to take it all the way. Just like we had with this SSM ruling.
The laws can discriminate. I'm not sure what your point is. The law discriminates against those who obtain consent before sex and rapists, for example. Some of my personal expenses, like real estate taxes, are deductible but I can't deduct new tires for my bike - darn!
That's possible, but the problem is when you, e.g., deal with a creditor, he'll have to look at YOUR contract to see if your wife is liable on the debt if you don't pay. It greases the wheels of commerce on both sides if you just notify the creditor that you're married, and then the creditor looks to well settled state law to know whether your wife has to make good if you skip town. Same with a day care center. Who can make decisions on behalf of the child? If you're married, they have laws that tell them whether mom and/or dad can do that. Otherwise, you have to show them YOUR contract, they pay their lawyer to read it, and determine if that contract allows YOU to,say, approve that child go to the hospital or whatever. Etc.....................................................................
Sheesh, the courts rule in accordance with state law, and state governments, not free markets, make state law.
Bottom line is even if this is all possible - free market solves all!! Marriage is a convenience to everyone. It settles a great many questions of legal rights and responsibilities, it's been litigated extensively and so you, your spouse, and other parties to any dispute involving your family have legal certainty based on centuries of settled law. What you're suggesting is they terminate this convenient set up and throw every relationship into legal limbo all because the state doesn't want to marry homosexuals. Or to use that as an excuse. It's insane enough to appeal to republicans but the rest of the world sees it as a no win proposition.
Now that's the worst slippery slope argument I have ever heard. In fact it's slippery cliff
Really? You want to take that leap? Hey, why not suggest that the 28 yr old man can marry his horse - the Supreme Court might back you up since they pull their rulings out of a horse's ass anyway.
Apples and oranges. Now, if you said the state allows married people to claim their new tires but not single people, you'd be in the ballpark of where the discrimination lies.
Imagine - businesses would be unable to get along without government? Really? If you're seeking credit, shouldn't matter if you're married or not - the loan is based on the ability of the signatories to pay - banks and businesses will figure it out without Nancy Pelosi advising them.
Of course you think it's insane because you come from an ideology and a mindset that believes all good things in life come from government. Lots of us, independent and capable individuals believe the opposite. Government has it's proper role, but in the bedrooms of its citizens isn't one of them.
Because marriage requires legal consent.
Once again, you're avoiding the issue. If a girl of any age can consent to getting an abortion at any age then why can't she consent to getting married?
I can't put it any simpler than that.
Start an abortion thread if you want to talk about that.
For marriage, there are lots of reasons why a 6 year old and a 14 year old cannot be bound by most contracts, and marriage is at its core a contract with your spouse with the rights and obligations defined by state and Federal law. There is no point articulating them.
Once again, you're avoiding the issue. If a girl of any age can consent to getting an abortion then why can't she consent to getting married?
I can't put it any simpler than that.
If social conservatives don't have a valid argument, why do they always bring up abortion?
The comedy is we allow government in our relationships. This is some old tyranny BS left over from monarchies. There is no need for government to be involved with marriage or the ability to hand out a license for said marriage.
/end rant
Abortion and marriage are now part of the same issue.
Now, can you answer the question or not?
Why on earth would you think the two are related?
I'm a fiscal conservative.
Do you have a valid answer or not?
Both are acts that require adult level decision making skills. But, one is restricted by age and one isn't. And, of the two, the one without restrictions id the most traumatizing.
Why on earth would you think the two are related?
It seems you have no clue what "public service" means.Now we get to see if a SCOTUS decision to expand one group's rights actually trumps an enumerated right that has been protected since the 1st amendment was created. This is when things get interesting.
Under state laws you couldn't married if you are gay. But, courts all over the country have voided those laws. Even in opposition to the voter's overwhelming disapproval.Because the law states you must be of the age of legal consent to get married.
Abortion is more traumatizing than being married to and presumably raped by a much older husband? Interesting notion.
I don't have a valid argument thus Abortion!!!!!!
Under state laws you couldn't married if you are gay. But, courts all over the country have voided those laws. Even in opposition to the voter's overwhelming disapproval.
Now that gay marriage has bee forced down our throats, how long do you think it will be before marriage at puberty is legalized as well?
It's not rape it you're married. Quit sensationalizing the issue.
Their condition of employment is that they perform the tasks that are normally performed in their position and that is public service. You may wish to look up that notion.just because they are a public employee they do not give up their 1st amendment rights one of which is free exercise of religions.
IE the government cannot force them to do something against their religious beliefs.
if anything texas will have to make reasonable accommodations for those people and find someone who will issue them.
I think you need to check into that. Since the early 90's various court rulings have kind of shot that to ****
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?