No. Power of attorney does not grant all the same rights as a marriage.
Other than federal benefits such as social security, oh yes it does. Your argument then cones right down to social security and benefits like it, clearly a societies' decision to make, it's not a right.
Snarky as ever and still just as lazy in your analysis.
Snarky, unsnarky, lazy, whatever, my analysis is correct, and that's my only concern
Incorrect.
It is defined EXACTLY as I stated it and has been since that exact language was used in Perez v Sharp in 1948.
From our Federal Defense of Marriage Act:
No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman
So, you're dead wrong.
So? Laws get overturned. Especially when they are proven to violate equality.
Then overturn the laws. Quit pretending its ignorance or fear or homophobia or any one of the dozen names the Left tries to distract with. Actually win a referendum on the issue would be me advice, you're 0-31.
Why don't you familiarize yourself with the list of over 1400 rights granted by marriage and the body of case law that has contributed to marriage and then see if you can't give me a definition of marriage that suits you?
I gave you the federal definition and fought hard for this definition in my state constitution specifically defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
One thing is for certain, the language stating that two people name each other as irreplaceable will surface over and over again.
Not in this state not the majority who have passed amendments specifcally defining marriage.
But you were depthless and lazy in your mindless parroting of a trite sound byte as an analysis before so I don't really expect you to educate yourself any further.
Nothing to educate me on...nor anyone else, the easiest issue on the planet. We are all familiar with what marriage is, most of us have been married or know many people who are married. And the majority in this nation, in fact, an overwhelming majority, feel it should be restricted to one man and one woman and reject cries that someone is being denied rights. Cause they ain't.
It is grossly simplified.
It's not complicated, it cannot be over simplified. Any two bit high school drop out can make an educated decision as a member of society. Should marriage be restricted to one man and one woman only? And the overwhelming answer is yes it should be. Quite easy.
No, it is precise but it is not accurate.
Both precise and accurate, sorry.
No, what has happened is that the debate continually gets focused on a plethora of lies and red herrings as shown in California.
The lies are what got Obama elected in California, a front burner blue state. California though voted prop 8 overwhelmingly, there were no lies no red herrings. Society feels quite strongly that marriage be defined and defined by we the People. And we've done so in the majority of states, on the federal level, and consistently through referendum. Sorry, I think it's the truth and not lies that has defeated your endeavors here...jallman.
