So, sorry for your strawman, but it doesn't work here. Unless you're saying that marriage UNDER THE LAW has something to do with Religion?
Perhaps, but just because some don't mind screwing with the law doesn't change the fact that over complicating the law for little to no actual gain is with little to no actual compelling reason is not in the governments interest.I've never seen the government have a problem with over-complicated laws before...take the tax code or Obama'care, for example.
Incorrect, as illustrated above. If that was the interest then infertile people would be as SOL as gay people. If that was the interest then people who have no desire to have kids would be as SOL as gay people. If that was the case people with a vacectomy or tubes tied would be as SOL as gay people. None of this is the case, because that's not the singular reason the government has an interest in marriage and bestowing upon them benefits.The government's interest in marriage is the raising of children
No children, no government interest, no rational reason to put the government in your bedroom.
Sorry, but reality destroys you're argument.
Religion has nothing to do with marriage under the LAW, or are you arguing that the LAW should be dealing with RELIGION? Free religious expression would only be stifled if polygamy, as a private religious ceremony and pact, was illegal. Religion has no baring on whether LEGALLy it should be recognized and given beneits under the law, because the law should give precedent to NO religion. So no religious expression is being stifled.....free religious expression not FTW?
Kind of sounds like I'm commenting regarding your commentary specifically to this thread. You think its a personal attack, reported it and have another mod come take a look at this thread and see who, if anyone, is throwing personal attacks or baiting/trolling.That kinda sounded like a personal attack