Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 73

Thread: Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage

  1. #51
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Like I said, when it's not you and it will never BE you, it's easy to trivialize the right of the state to punish some other disfavored minority for consensual act in their own home.
    I am not trivializing anything. People who constantly bring up miscegenation laws and segregation in the context of these issues are the ones trivializing. They are trivializing the extremely repressive conditions racial minorities had to endure for generations. Laws that are rarely enforced and have incredibly minor consequences are nothing compared to the various barbarities unleashed upon the African-American population, and other racial minorities for that matter.

    I suppose you mean it's the best for those who have nothing at risk and are quite happy with the status quo. For them, there is NEVER a 'dire need' to address anything affecting other people, not them. And can you name ANY major shift/accomplishment that happened with everyone asking nicely?
    Actually, it is best for everyone. Gay people aren't being arrested for getting married or facing any impediments not faced by countless long-term unmarried couples. There is no need for them to pursue such an uncooperative means of getting it legalized. Forcing gay marriage on deeply conservative states through court cases is unnecessary and creates the risk of serious backlash.

    Court battles aren't in lieu of anything, they are in addition to those other efforts.
    Nonsense, they know legalizing it through the legislature is not going to work in these states and so they are trying to get the courts to force them to legalize it.

    And the rest is just a version of, "I can get married and secure those very unique rights, benefits and obligations, in 10 minutes in Vegas. That gays cannot get married at all is no biggee to me, so since I don't care about their so called 'right' to marry, they shouldn't care either! Silly gays. And, hey, if businesses want to deny service to OTHER people, they should just get over it. Why should I care that some other people not like me are getting denied services?"
    The rest is suggesting that severely upsetting the social order should usually only happen when the need is great. For racial minorities, the serious disruption to social order that came about through the civil rights movement was completely reasonable given the level of abuse. Here you have people attempting to radically alter the social and political fabric of the country for something that, ultimately, is an unnecessary privilege. For something of such minor importance, a gradual and democratic shift is more appropriate.

    I think I understand - the Mozilla guy possesses a freedom of conscience to contribute to a fund that is intended to deny his gay employees the right to marry. I'm with you, he has that right. And he also has the right for his acts directed against the rights of his gay employees to be free from protest, and any real world consequences?
    Again the "not free from the consequences" schtick, which is basically an excuse for harassing or intimidating people into conforming or shutting up. You can say that "well they can still say and do these things", but the reality is people are much less likely to do or say those things when it results in harassment and intimidation. In that case it basically means people working there who oppose gay marriage realize they either have to keep their beliefs as secret as possible or forget about advancing their careers. People who have done anything that would put them on the public record as opposing gay marriage would realize that they can only advance so far as at a certain point they would risk being driven out of their position by activists. You can say as much as you want that it is about "consequences", but you cannot objectively argue that such consequences mean people are truly free to express their beliefs. When you face the loss of your livelihood and public shaming for expressing a belief, you are not truly free to express that belief.

    The whole thing is no more than, "It's 'obscene' for people to protest unless I share their concerns! Laws against discrimination against LGBT do not apply if the person declares a religious reason for breaking those laws!"
    Unfortunately, that is the real problem. Unlike with all previous civil rights movements, there is an ironclad religious basis for opposition. Someone who truly cared about rights and democracy would respect that there is an inherent conflict here with religious liberty and try to accommodate that. Requiring someone who feels homosexuality is a serious sin to go and attend a gay wedding to take pictures or to bake and decorate a cake for a gay wedding amounts to the government telling them they can either act according to their faith or lose their business. It hard to not see how that impacts religious liberty. Where people are forced to do things that conflict directly with their faith under threat of losing their livelihood it amounts to official state pressure to abandon closely-held religious beliefs and amount to an interference in a person's religious liberty. Would you suggest a Christian should also be required to attend a Satanist wedding as refusal would amount to religious discrimination?

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Failing to recognize a marriage deprives same-sex couples of various liberties. This includes the previously mentioned death benefits, property inheritance, medical power of attorney, automatic child custody, spousal privilege in a criminal or civil case, etc.
    Only spousal privilege is something that cannot be gained through existing legal measures. I would not consider it a right either.

    Irrelevant.
    It is relevant when you invoke the horrific image of Jim Crow as part of your propaganda.

    No, but if the state offers them at all, they must comply with the Equal Protection clause.
    Under any objective interpretation they do comply. We do not have much in the way of objective judges, though.

    Besides, you're wrong. Race and gender are protected classifications under the 14th amendment. Number of persons in a contract is not.
    Religion is a protected classification and there are religions where polygamy is encouraged. It is not the same as children or animals as one is an issue of consent and the other an issue of personhood. Fundamentally different legal principles are at issue there. Polygamy bans could easily be argued as a product of morality being enforced through legislation and as discrimination against religions that encourage polygamy.

    So you think interracial marriage bans are constitutional?
    The ones that were generally on the books were unconstitutional in various ways. I would say that they were not unconstitutional in the sense of violating a "right to marry". Unlike with gay marriage "bans", which are really just legal definitions of marriage that exclude same-sex marriage along the lines of the traditional definition, interracial marriage bans were more like outright bans that imposed penalties. Whether any version of a law barring recognition to interracial marriage would have constitutional issues depends. Given the difficulties in defining and identifying race, one could argue that it would be an equal protection issue on those grounds. Basically, since certain cases would leave the validity of a marriage subject to individual opinions, it would not really offer people equal protection as a marriage could be considered interracial in one jurisdiction and intraracial in another.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  2. #52
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,741

    Re: Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Actually, it is best for everyone. Gay people aren't being arrested for getting married or facing any impediments not faced by countless long-term unmarried couples. There is no need for them to pursue such an uncooperative means of getting it legalized. Forcing gay marriage on deeply conservative states through court cases is unnecessary and creates the risk of serious backlash.
    You are trivializing someone else's rights because it doesn't personally affect you.
    Nonsense, they know legalizing it through the legislature is not going to work in these states and so they are trying to get the courts to force them to legalize it.
    Minnesota would like a word with you.
    The rest is suggesting that severely upsetting the social order should usually only happen when the need is great. For racial minorities, the serious disruption to social order that came about through the civil rights movement was completely reasonable given the level of abuse. Here you have people attempting to radically alter the social and political fabric of the country for something that, ultimately, is an unnecessary privilege. For something of such minor importance, a gradual and democratic shift is more appropriate.
    You are not the arbitrator of what is "important enough" for courts to settle, nor of what is "appropriate" when it comes to a basic civil right. And, bull****. Nothing is being imposed upon you. There is nothing severely upset, nothing radically altered. Two dudes getting married doesn't affect you one bit. This hiding behind phrases like "social order" is just fancy terms from "I DONT PERSONALLY APPROVE."
    Unfortunately, that is the real problem. Unlike with all previous civil rights movements, there is an ironclad religious basis for opposition. Someone who truly cared about rights and democracy would respect that there is an inherent conflict here with religious liberty and try to accommodate that.
    They said there was a religious basis for opposition to interracial marriage too. And, again, bull****. There isn't a conflict between religious freedom and same-sex marriage and there's nothing to accommodate. Unless you're seriously suggesting to me that if I eat shrimp, it's in conflict with someone else's religion.

    Only spousal privilege is something that cannot be gained through existing legal measures. I would not consider it a right either.
    Completely wrong. There are literally hundreds, even thousands of benefits at the state and federal level that cannot be duplicated by a contract.

    Under any objective interpretation they do comply. We do not have much in the way of objective judges, though.
    No, under any objective interpretation they do not comply. The constitutional test for a gender-based classification is substantially related to furthering an important state interest. This test has not been passed. On any objective interpretation, Loving v. Virginia rejected exactly this logic. "Everyone has the same right to marry someone of the [same race|opposite sex]!"

    You claimed to be able to identify a compelling state interest for same-sex marriage bans. That's an interesting choice of words, because a compelling state interest can be used to justify a classification on race or religion.

    Name that compelling state interest.


    Religion is a protected classification and there are religions where polygamy is encouraged. It is not the same as children or animals as one is an issue of consent and the other an issue of personhood. Fundamentally different legal principles are at issue there. Polygamy bans could easily be argued as a product of morality being enforced through legislation and as discrimination against religions that encourage polygamy.
    Bans against polygamy are not done on any religious basis. Same-sex marriage bans are done on a basis of gender.


    The ones that were generally on the books were unconstitutional in various ways. I would say that they were not unconstitutional in the sense of violating a "right to marry". Unlike with gay marriage "bans", which are really just legal definitions of marriage that exclude same-sex marriage along the lines of the traditional definition, interracial marriage bans were more like outright bans that imposed penalties. Whether any version of a law barring recognition to interracial marriage would have constitutional issues depends. Given the difficulties in defining and identifying race, one could argue that it would be an equal protection issue on those grounds. Basically, since certain cases would leave the validity of a marriage subject to individual opinions, it would not really offer people equal protection as a marriage could be considered interracial in one jurisdiction and intraracial in another.
    Gender is easy to identify and discrimination is being done on this basis.
    Last edited by Deuce; 04-16-14 at 03:07 PM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  3. #53
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,730

    Re: Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    I am not trivializing anything. People who constantly bring up miscegenation laws and segregation in the context of these issues are the ones trivializing. They are trivializing the extremely repressive conditions racial minorities had to endure for generations. Laws that are rarely enforced and have incredibly minor consequences are nothing compared to the various barbarities unleashed upon the African-American population, and other racial minorities for that matter.
    Deuce addressed most of the other points and I have little to add, but do you actually know any gay people or have a memory that goes back a few years? I don't have any idea how you define "minor" when it comes to gays, but anti-sodomy laws are nothing more than a big old F YOU! to gays that reflected the general consensus of the population. Society was telling them their activities, who they loved, deserved to land them in jail, and that attitude persists at places like AFA, where Bryan Fischer has compared gays to Nazi storm troopers, and worse. The anti-sodomy laws reflected attitudes that were expressed throughout society in general - from jobs to housing, careers cut off, beatings, etc. Families routinely then and now abandoned, disowned, their gay siblings and children, and coming out meant the end of being welcome in church, most social institutions of any kind, and abandoning most of your friends. One couldn't be an open homosexual and attain any position of authority. In many parts of the country, that's still true. It's only recently that coming out wasn't a form of political/career/social suicide, and even now only in some areas.

    And now that immense progress has been made, a lot of it through tactics you decry, and open bigotry now has real consequences, you're complaining about those tactics, the result of which allow you to declare that being gay carries with it no meaningful societal cost. It's pretty stunning actually.

    Again the "not free from the consequences" schtick, which is basically an excuse for harassing or intimidating people into conforming or shutting up. You can say that "well they can still say and do these things", but the reality is people are much less likely to do or say those things when it results in harassment and intimidation. In that case it basically means people working there who oppose gay marriage realize they either have to keep their beliefs as secret as possible or forget about advancing their careers. People who have done anything that would put them on the public record as opposing gay marriage would realize that they can only advance so far as at a certain point they would risk being driven out of their position by activists. You can say as much as you want that it is about "consequences", but you cannot objectively argue that such consequences mean people are truly free to express their beliefs. When you face the loss of your livelihood and public shaming for expressing a belief, you are not truly free to express that belief.
    That is self evidently true, but so what? Your problem isn't that expressing a belief has consequences, you just do not believe that expressing a belief hostile to the rights of homosexuals should have consequences. I'm in the Bible Belt. If I took a public stand and contributed to efforts to, say, strip churches of their tax exempt status, I should expect the very large and influential church community in my area to vigorously oppose me were I to be named CEO of a company that served large numbers of evangelicals. You're whining that taking a stand on controversial issues has consequences for a person in the public eye. Yes, and tomorrow is Thursday....

  4. #54
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,736

    Re: Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    I wholeheartedly agree, but that does not make an ends justify the means approach the right one. Let us be clear, there is nothing even remotely authentic about this flood of challenges to non-recognition of same-sex marriage. This is all a tactic by activist organizations who have opted for staging incidents to get favorable judicial action, recognizing it could be a very long time before more natural or democratic means could achieve the same outcome. Manipulating the system and making up completely new interpretations of the U.S. Constitution to push a political agenda outside of democratic processes is not something anyone should be cheering. Making the constitution say whatever you want it to say in a given case is taking a centuries-old legal document and reducing it to an Etch-a-Sketch.
    Then I dont understand...if it is the 'right thing to do' then why should they have to wait at all? Should blacks have had to deal with years and years of Jim Crow? It took them standing up and fighting for their civil rights to finally end it. Women had to fight for their civil rights too. Yes, both fights caused 'inconviences.' Sorry....but how long is too long to wait for your civil rights? Lots of people were put out, and offended, during those protests and legal battles and marches. But how long 'should' they have waited quietly?

    And states have democratically voted for SSM....mine is one of them. It's the right thing to do...there's no justification for making them wait just to make segments of society 'more comfortable.' Did they look 'comfortable' in the news reels when they were integrating the first black students into the all-white schools? No...they were pissed. And ignorant as Hell.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  5. #55
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,736

    Re: Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Using this case to promote anything is pretty low class. This case is about a couple who are dealing with cancer and possible death. Dancing in the isles is extremely tasteless.
    So is denying them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  6. #56
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,736

    Re: Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    No one has a right to legal recognition of a marriage. It is not and was not part of the Constitution explicitly or implicitly. Even the Supreme Court has never explicitly stated that people have a right to legal recognition of a marriage. Some judges may have been fooled by that phony reasoning, but I suspect a large number of them simply saw a plausible legal argument that would allow them to implement an agenda they supported before the case even came to them. Since the court system has no meaningful democratic accountability, this is essentially manipulating the courts to circumvent the democratic process. Legislatures and even referendums are proving successful at getting same-sex marriage legalized and cultural acceptance will be easier over time as a result. Not only does this judicial approach betray democracy and attack the integrity of the constitution, it also will generate a lot more hostility.
    And yet...the govt does. (IMO it shouldnt, but it does) So it is discrimination, pure and simple, when they deny gays.

    Can you give me any examples of unrelated straight adults being denied marriage? People in jail can get married.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  7. #57
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,736

    Re: Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    wow talk about tramping all over state soverenty. who the hell does this judge think he is.

    i guess this judge needs a lesson on the 10th amendment. technically he just violated the 10th amendment.
    he should be dismissed from the bench and removed for failure to uphold the constitution which is a failure of office.

    I think these judges need to go back to law school so they understand the constitution and their job to uphold the constitution.
    they seem to have forgotten that.

    these cases should be dismissed as these people do not have standing to sue.
    I'm unaware of any states not recognizing 'straight' marriages from other states in any case, event, or situation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  8. #58
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,736

    Re: Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    They seem to get away with it with concealed carry permits.
    Unfortunately, yes. It's a total joke.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  9. #59
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,736

    Re: Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    You should pay attention to what I am saying. I strongly support legalizing gay marriage. There is a difference between that and supporting efforts to declare it a constitutional right.

    .
    It's no more or less a Constitutional right than straight marriage. I dont necessarily agree that it is.

    OTOH, since the fed govt recognizes marriage and accords benefits, privileges, and legal protections to married straight couples, then it is discriminating against gays if it denies them the same.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  10. #60
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    You are trivializing someone else's rights because it doesn't personally affect you.
    It is hardly trivializing to point out that people are not being arrested or being treated differently under the law than other unmarried couples. Inheritance, medical proxy, child custody arrangements, and so on can all be arranged through normal legal procedures that do not include marriage contract. A marriage contract is basically a simpler all-in-on legal instrument that covers all these other contractual arrangements.

    Minnesota would like a word with you.
    About what? You had Democrats in charge of both houses and the governor's office. In the states we are talking about you have Republican officials in a position to block legislation. Some, such as Michigan, would probably be able to get it passed through a referendum, but it would have to get onto the ballot.

    And, bull****. Nothing is being imposed upon you. There is nothing severely upset, nothing radically altered. Two dudes getting married doesn't affect you one bit. This hiding behind phrases like "social order" is just fancy terms from "I DONT PERSONALLY APPROVE."
    I personally approve of gay marriage being legalized as a matter of fact. Being in support of it does not mean that I fail to recognize it is a big shift in social standards. The movement to allow two men or two women to get married to each other under the law is a fairly new phenomena. Historically, while you may find plenty of examples of homosexuality, I do not know of many societies that would recognize a marriage in any legal sense. We still live in a country where most people adhere to a religion that condemns homosexuality as immoral and destructive. Even if societal attitudes have shifted to where a majority support recognizing gay marriage, it is a slim majority and the other side often consists of people who point to their faith, which labels homosexuality as an "abomination" before God. For all the states where it is not recognized and the vast majority of people strongly condemn homosexuality, forcing legal recognition on them through the courts does upset the social order. When it is achieved through the democratic process, you may get grumbles and annoyance from the minority, but nowhere near the same level of hostility you can expect if the Supreme Court decides to overrule the democratic decision of over 30 states.

    The religious factor is a big part of the problem as well. While most of the population is religious, much less of the population is devout. It is the latter segment that is truly leading the drive for legalization of gay marriage and the fact they condemn opponents as bigots and generally seek to demonize them creates a conflict between those who strongly adhere to faith and those who do not. Such a thing is not occurring in isolation either. You have the same courts gradually pushing religion out of public life with increasingly restrictive interpretations of the "separation of church and state" legal fiction concocted by judges some time back. Then you have these instances of activist Internet lynch mobs trying to enforce political correctness such as with Phil Robertson or Mozilla.

    They said there was a religious basis for opposition to interracial marriage too.
    If they did then they presumably did not know too much about their own religion as no condemnation of such a thing exists in any religious that I know about. The religious texts of the Abrahamic faiths, however, explicitly condemn homosexuality. No debate exists on the matter and no one denies it or argues that it is not the case.

    And, again, bull****. There isn't a conflict between religious freedom and same-sex marriage and there's nothing to accommodate. Unless you're seriously suggesting to me that if I eat shrimp, it's in conflict with someone else's religion.
    It is, of course, not the same thing as the whole eating of shrimp thing is a dietary law and not a major issue throughout the texts of the Abrahamic faiths. Homosexuality is explicitly condemned and a major focus of one of the earliest narratives with those engaging in the sin subject to divine retribution that is most severe. No cities are destroyed due to their consumption of shellfish.

    Completely wrong. There are literally hundreds, even thousands of benefits at the state and federal level that cannot be duplicated by a contract.
    Since you are throwing out such an incredible figure, perhaps you would be willing to provide a significant list of examples.

    No, under any objective interpretation they do not comply. The constitutional test for a gender-based classification is substantially related to furthering an important state interest.
    You see, this is part of the problem with how the Supreme Court has expanded its power. No constitutional test exists in the actual amendment. Were you to look at the context of when the amendments were written, the whole idea of equal protection was that no group should be singled out for a lighter or harsher form of justice under the law due to prejudicial attitudes. It has since been expanded to cover things it was never intended to cover. That is mostly because the Supreme Court, back in the early days of the United States, made a partisan political power grab in giving itself sole authority over interpreting the constitution and that has since lead to the Supreme Court essentially becoming a body where anything it says becomes law that can only be overturned through a cumbersome amendment process. You have the Supreme Court inventing law by issuing interpretations that have no viable basis in the actual text of the constitution and every new decision becomes a new precedent that can lead to further inventions. In this case the "gender-based classification" argument is comically absurd and does not even adhere to the spirit of the original decision in creating such an inventive loophole, because "sexual orientation" was not provided as a legitimate basis for invoking strict scrutiny.

    You claimed to be able to identify a compelling state interest for same-sex marriage bans.
    Discouraging relationships that by their very nature do not involve procreation.

    Bans against polygamy are not done on any religious basis.
    Then what basis would you say is used?

    Gender is easy to identify
    Exactly my point. Interracial marriage bans would always be vague by their nature and create all sorts of opportunities for arbitrary decisions. That would also make it a due process issue as people should be assured that any law will be clear and consistent. Since you are unlikely to have any serious hassles enforcing a law saying only marriages between a man and a woman can be legally recognized, the same constitutional argument does not apply.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •