- Joined
- Oct 18, 2011
- Messages
- 6,769
- Reaction score
- 1,936
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Hopefully the SCOTUS will intelligently realize that a same-sex couple can no more rightly get themselves a marriage license than a man can get a dog license for his own self.
A man isn't a "dog".
A same-sex couple isn't "a man and a woman as husband and wife".
Hopefully the SCOTUS won't succumb to the three-generational brainwashing by gay activists utilizing the liberal media repeating the oxymoronic mantra chants over and over of "gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage".
Hopefully the SCOTUS will rule that there is no constitutional right for a same-sex couple to "marry" by definition.
Hopefully they will rule that, by a different name, say "homarriage" or appropriate whatever, that the will of the majority of Americans (70%) to allow public and private recognition of same-sex committed romantic relationships will be granted by virtue of requiring states to create such a domestic partnership civil union statute for same-sex couples, while still respecting the will of the majority of Americans (63%) that such a statute not be called "marriage", obviously.
But if they rule that on a state by state basis that each state can decide if "marriage" applies to same-sex couples, that would be both as definitive propriety wrong as it can be to let any state "define" erroneously that marriage could include same-sex couples while at the same time allowing same-sex couples to lose their right to recognition in states that don't make that definitive propriety mistake.
Better is for the SCOTUS to recognize that "marriage" is and always has been "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", but that same-sex couples have an equal right of recognition .. and that a new name, other than marriage, must be coined to associate that recognition for same-sex couples.
A man isn't a "dog".
A same-sex couple isn't "a man and a woman as husband and wife".
Hopefully the SCOTUS won't succumb to the three-generational brainwashing by gay activists utilizing the liberal media repeating the oxymoronic mantra chants over and over of "gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage".
Hopefully the SCOTUS will rule that there is no constitutional right for a same-sex couple to "marry" by definition.
Hopefully they will rule that, by a different name, say "homarriage" or appropriate whatever, that the will of the majority of Americans (70%) to allow public and private recognition of same-sex committed romantic relationships will be granted by virtue of requiring states to create such a domestic partnership civil union statute for same-sex couples, while still respecting the will of the majority of Americans (63%) that such a statute not be called "marriage", obviously.
But if they rule that on a state by state basis that each state can decide if "marriage" applies to same-sex couples, that would be both as definitive propriety wrong as it can be to let any state "define" erroneously that marriage could include same-sex couples while at the same time allowing same-sex couples to lose their right to recognition in states that don't make that definitive propriety mistake.
Better is for the SCOTUS to recognize that "marriage" is and always has been "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", but that same-sex couples have an equal right of recognition .. and that a new name, other than marriage, must be coined to associate that recognition for same-sex couples.