Simply pointing out that according to your stated concern about two same sex individuals using marriage fraudulently, seems to me plenty of heterosexual couples are doing the same in that they don't live in the same house, they don't have sex with each other, they don't behave in any matrimonial way but still claim the legal benefits of marriage, intentionally and mainly to retain those benefits. Are you outraged about those folks defrauding the benefits of marriage as you claim concern about it happening if SSM is legal?
No it doesn't. It means the opposite. It means protecting the individual from the tyranny of the majority or of the state.
No not really, but little of what you type is cohesive over the long haul.I've said 1000 times I think our government should stay out of marriage....
I don't care who screws who.... I shouldn't be our governments concern, yet our government makes it their concern so naturally using my brain I will attempt to throw the best solution I can concoct out there for public debate.
Make sense?
I've said 1000 times I think our government should stay out of marriage....
I don't care who screws who.... I shouldn't be our governments concern, yet our government makes it their concern so naturally using my brain I will attempt to throw the best solution I can concoct out there for public debate.
Make sense?
Look, it's a so-called American who doesn't believe in equal protection under the law. I didn't think those still existed.
Is there some "financial burden" you perceive arising from same-sex marriage?
Contract IS NOT BIASED (unless you're getting divorced)..
The United States DOES NOT and states DO NOT recognize marriage...
They recognize what you would understand as a compound contract...
The Church recognizes marriages, Christians recognize marriages as do the majority of religions - it's a religious even and celebration but NOT A STATE SPONSORED CELEBRATION...
That is the epic flaw in the homosexual psyche...
States and the Federal Government understand contracts NOT marriage.
I'm sorry if this is too hard for someone to understand.
Before it became obvious same-sex marriage was coming, you said this zero times I'm guessing.
If you don't care who screws who, why do you care who marries who?
And I'm sorry if this is too hard for you to understand, but what we're talking about here is state recognition of same-sex marriage contracts. Whether or not your particular church recognizes it or not is not part of this discussion. In fact, nobody cares whether you personally approve.
Some churches choose to approve. Other churches choose not to. This is their choice, and not relevant.
That's my point, not yours.Well, because marriage is a contract and that is why......
Yes, exactly. The religious component is not necessary. The government isn't really concerned whether or not you have a religious ceremony.One can choose to get married by a justice or have a religious wedding - it's their choice......
The simple fact they don't understand the contract procedures shows how bent they are on the social aspect and how obsessed they are with the religious aspect..... I'm sure there are plenty of gay couples that would like both but forcing one another to adhere to your desires is wrong... Most religious congregations (especially catholic) wont do a gay wedding no should they have to.
Religious institutions are NOT a public service. Weather I agree with that or not is irrelevant, but I think most know where I stand there.
There is not STATE RECOGNITION BEYOND CONTRACT LAW - I have said this about 10 times so far...
I wanted a quote from a strong pro-SSM that I could save and throw back at someone in a future debate. That's it. I wasn't trying to 'say' anything with that post. I was fishing for a sound-byte.Then what are you stating?
I love this **** "its all about love" - yeah, in about 5-10 years its about "I hate you and want all your ****."
Gay, straight or from Mars you will understand mediation or straight up litigation real quick....
Yes, exactly. So leave the religious discussion out of it. It's not relevant. A Christian's disapproval of same-sex marriage is not reason enough for the state to fail to recognize that contract.
Yes, some gay marriages will end in divorce. Very astute observation.
That was my point - Marriage is a) not state recognized (beyond contract law) and b) generally only recognized by the Church or in front of God..
The State doesn't recognize one or the other.... If they did the argument would be a First Amendment argument and not a Fourteenth (or other issues associated) "equal protection clause" argument.
The Fourteenth is useless given the aforementioned criteria.
Then what you call a prenup?
So according to you then the majority of the population are bigots who discriminate. So having a referendum now days is meaningless, if some progressive fascist smuck disagrees they shop it to a idealogical judge who will rule on socialist progessive idealogy & not the constitution. Welcome to a top down Authoritarian state as long as it go's your way who cares about the will of the majority huh?
The only bigots that I see in this issue are the ones who call others bigots for having a differing opinion.
But we're talking about contract law. You can't say "beyond contract law" because contract law is the entire scope of this discussion.
Prenup places modifications on the contract. There is nothing about a prenup that violates the Constitution.
It was figure of speech talking about the Church or Temple or whatever religion you vow under.
Agreed, but usually not after the fact - not in normal marriages.
Agreed, but usually not after the fact - not in normal marriages.
But we're talking about contract law. You can't say "beyond contract law" because contract law is the entire scope of this discussion.
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?