It wasn't meant as a real comparison, and the consent point is valid, but still, think about it. Does marriage have a definition, or is it just what society says? If the latter, is it inconceivable that "People" will be taken out of the definition?
Gay and marriage are a contradiction of terms because marriage means between a man and a woman, and I'd rather not California's state government be a bunch of Rednecks (Or any state government for that matter) who don't know what words mean.
Unless your name is El Presidente, I'm afraid no one can change the definition of marriage to meet their ends. Never mind the meaning changes across time, regardless of what some may desire.
Here's to it being struck down. Gay marriage shall triumph!
If it doesn't, well, I'm afraid I'm going to nuke Cali. It has failed me for the last time.
Maybe. But then it is not a marriage since it's not between two consenting parties, no? .
If one can somehow prove that a man loves an animal and the animal loves him back (or a woman loves an animal and the animal loves back...), then I see no reason why I cannot take away his/her right to marry that said animal.
Of course, it is creepy. In fact, it is very creepy. But I wouldn't make it illegal.
It wasn't meant as a real comparison, and the consent point is valid, but still, think about it. Does marriage have a definition, or is it just what society says?
The 9th has a track record of being fairly lib, and then being overturned by SCOTUS. Regardless of the finding, plan on this going all the way up to SCOTUS for final review. This is merely just another stepping stone on the way there.
Why not. Anyone can hold a private ceremony that does not receive recognition from the state or any religion. Gay marriage is looking for state recognition (to the extent that I support it). I'm not looking for any government to force a religious institution to perform a ceremony that they disagree with. Such institutions can already turn away heterosexual couples if they feel that the couple will not form a union that is in keeping with the religion's beliefs). If the state grants religious institutions the right to marry a gay couple, that doesn't mean the institution has to make use of that right.
The 9th has a track record of being fairly lib, and then being overturned by SCOTUS. Regardless of the finding, plan on this going all the way up to SCOTUS for final review. This is merely just another stepping stone on the way there.
Why not. Anyone can hold a private ceremony that does not receive recognition from the state or any religion. Gay marriage is looking for state recognition (to the extent that I support it). I'm not looking for any government to force a religious institution to perform a ceremony that they disagree with. Such institutions can already turn away heterosexual couples if they feel that the couple will not form a union that is in keeping with the religion's beliefs). If the state grants religious institutions the right to marry a gay couple, that doesn't mean the institution has to make use of that right.
I wonder why the Religious Right never complains that a ban on gay marriage allows the state to intervene in the affairs of religious groups, in that it is preventing them from conducting legal wedding ceremonies? That seems like a rather wilful double standard, if I may say so.
How the hell is this an argument? Yeah no duh that's the definition....until we change it.
Marriage used to mean between two people of the same race. Freaking race mixers spitting on tradition, right?
"Human" as the constitution defined it used to exclude black people. Damn abolitionists spitting on tradition, right?
Just stop arguing yourself into a hole. Appealing to tradition is a fallacy, Gay marriage will be everywhere in 10 years because it's about as common sense as you can get. You're not making yourself look better as a libertarian by trying to impose a theocracy on us.
A: Yes, incest was originally legitimate. God banned it at Moses' time because of Genetic decay, and because the family structure was not intact until then.
B: God did not endorse everything that happened in Scripture.
It's always nice to see a "strict constitutionalist" stand by something that seems to be unconstitutional. There's no religious motivation there, at all.
The family structure was not intact until Moses? Please keep the creationist screed out of this.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
.
