- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,807
- Reaction score
- 30,059
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
He means that if the state wants to re-define marriage the people should have some say in it, so make a law and pass it, but you know that the oligharchy won't stand for the people's voice being heard.
But it will be, whether they want it or not.
If they were truly "redefining" marriage, not just trying to restrict people from marriage, then the people would have a say in it. But that isn't what is happening here. Marriage is legally defined by how it functions, not who can or can't enter into it.
If we had these legal restrictions of marriage in place, no one under the age of 18, must be two humans of the same sex, within 40 IQ points of each other who live in the same state, the definition of marriage is not "two humans of the same sex, who are at least 18 years of age, and not more than 40 IQ points apart or citizens of different states". That simply is not how we define stuff. That is merely restrictions on entering into something.
Marriage is defined as a legal agreement between people that creates a legally recognized kinship between those people which comes with state and federal benefits, rights, and privileges under the law.