• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

Absolutely. I reject the concept of "natural rights".

This is true. That's why laws are changeable based on societal needs and knowledge that we gain. Our current laws reflect information that we have learned... not information we knew 200 years ago.

If a future study came along and found that gay marriage is actually detrimental, I would think there would be many who would use this information to abolish it. Depending on the level of detriment, I would be on their side. Things need to be weighed in all areas. And yes, I think the APA stamp of approval matters.

As I said, I do not see anything as a fundamental right, which is why it's benefit to society is based on current knowledge, societal/individual needs, and is relevant based on what is discovered when the issue is studied.

You must admit this is pretty thin gruel given the general foundations of the arguments in favor of same-sex marriage. There are few who would agree with you on this. Very, very few, if any proponents of same-sex marriage argue for it primarily because it's a benefit to society. I'm sure they don't mind information saying it is, but in no way would it matter to them if that information wasn't there.

By making these arguments, you pre-torpedo the case for same-sex marriage, making it entirely dependent on information which could change at any time.

So, maybe you think this "easily dispenses" with the argument for polygamy, but if it does, on these terms, it pretty much does the same for same-sex marriage.

I, of course, don't agree, and believe in sound fundamental rights. And I've encountered no argument for same-sex marriage as a fundamental right which would not also apply to polygamy.
 
Last edited:
You must admit this is pretty thin gruel given the general foundations of the arguments in favor of same-sex marriage. There are few who would agree with you on this. Very, very few, if any proponents of same-sex marriage argue for it primarily because it's a benefit to society. I'm sure they don't mind information saying it is, but in no way would it matter to them if that information wasn't there.

And, IMO, this is why the GM argument usually fails at the legislative and public sense. Gay rights activists argue from a discriminatory position... a failure of a position. The societal benefits position, based on evidence, research, and definitions is an easy winner.

By making these arguments, you pre-torpedo the case for same-sex marriage, making it entirely dependent on information which could change at any time.

I am unconcerned with the future in this respect. It could change. If it did, it would be appropriate to try to change the law to reflect the current state of research. But it also might NOT change. And if it does not, the current laws remain.

So, maybe you think this "easily dispenses" with the argument for polygamy, but if it does, on these terms, it pretty much does the same for same-sex marriage.

Not currently, it doesn't.

I, of course, don't agree, and believe in sound fundamental rights. And I've encountered no argument for same-sex marriage as a fundamental right which would not also apply to polygamy.

Since I reject fundamental rights and have seen nothing to give them credence, my position is based on evidenciary information and societal change and relativity. Currently, same-sex marriage has been shown to be beneficial to individuals, family, and society. Polygamy has not. This is why government should sanction the former and not the latter.

We come from two completely different philosophies, here and will probably never see eye to eye, not only on the issue, but on how we arrive at our conclusions.
 
And, IMO, this is why the GM argument usually fails at the legislative and public sense. Gay rights activists argue from a discriminatory position... a failure of a position.

But it's how it's winning the judicial arena.


The societal benefits position, based on evidence, research, and definitions is an easy winner.

In which arena? Not judicially. I can't imagine it's going to gain much traction legislatively or from a populist position, either, so I don't see at all how it's "easy."


I am unconcerned with the future in this respect. It could change. If it did, it would be appropriate to try to change the law to reflect the current state of research. But it also might NOT change. And if it does not, the current laws remain.

Not currently, it doesn't.

It can change at any time. If same-sex marriage becomes universal, and new info comes along -- which it may well, considering the opportunity for actual broad-based empirical observation, which hasn't been there before -- you're really going to lobby to repeal it? Or vociferously support the repeal? Really?

I'm quite skeptical.


Since I reject fundamental rights and have seen nothing to give them credence, my position is based on evidenciary information and societal change and relativity. Currently, same-sex marriage has been shown to be beneficial to individuals, family, and society. Polygamy has not. This is why government should sanction the former and not the latter.

We come from two completely different philosophies, here and will probably never see eye to eye, not only on the issue, but on how we arrive at our conclusions.

OK, but your arguments are not the arguments of the vast, vast majority of the same-sex marriage proponents, and they are unlikely to sway any of the players in the key avenues to getting it done. You're pretty much on your own island here.

Besides, it's not so much about that as it is "easily dispensing" with arguments for polygamy while advocating same-sex marriage. On your own terms, they rise and fall on the same basis.
 
Last edited:
But it's how it's winning the judicial arena.

Perhaps it is how it will win... but after how long? The discriminatory position is fairly easily rebutted, logically. The benefit position is not. IMO, if the pro-GM position had been from the benefit standpoint from the beginning, GM would probably already be a reality.




In which arena? Not judicially. I can't imagine it's going to gain much traction legislatively or from a populist position, either, so I don't see at all how it's "easy."

I disagree. From a judicial standpoint, evidence and proof are often what wins. Much of the GM effort has been via the legislative process, a process that is more based on popular opinion. That's why there has been so much failure.




It can change at any time. If same-sex marriage becomes universal, and new info comes along -- which it may well, considering the opportunity for actual broad-based empirical observation, which hasn't been there before -- you're really going to lobby to repeal it? Or vociferously support the repeal? Really?

I'm quite skeptical.

Be skeptical. If there was solid, new information that refuted everything that was previously known, I would change my position. But what if that never happens? Then from an evidenciary standpoint, GM is the law.




OK, but your arguments are not the arguments of the vast, vast majority of the same-sex marriage proponents, and they are unlikely to sway any of the players in the key avenues to getting it done. You're pretty much on your own island here.

I don't disagree with you, here. I have argued with folks on DP how the discriminatory position is a failed position... and I can argue it pretty well. There are too many holes. The societal benefit position does not suffer from those holes.

Besides, it's not so much about that as it is "easily dispensing" with arguments for polygamy while advocating same-sex marriage. On your own terms, they rise and fall on the same basis.

Currently, based on the knowledge of the day, it is easy to dispense with arguments for polygamy and easy to advocate GM. I am uninterested in what could happen or what could be learned. Those issues are irrelevant. I base my position on what IS happening and what IS known. Makes sense to do so.
 
Thanks for being upfront and honest.

I agree 100%

Just shows that the arguments against gay marriage are root in religious bigotry and nothing else. Thank you for driving that home yet again.
 
Perhaps it is how it will win... but after how long? The discriminatory position is fairly easily rebutted, logically. The benefit position is not. IMO, if the pro-GM position had been from the benefit standpoint from the beginning, GM would probably already be a reality.

See below.


I disagree. From a judicial standpoint, evidence and proof are often what wins.

The discriminatory position is the only position you can argue judicially, because the definition of marriage and all of the public policy around it is exclusively a legislative matter. The judiciary has nothing to say about it unless it violates rights.



Much of the GM effort has been via the legislative process, a process that is more based on popular opinion. That's why there has been so much failure.

Why do you think popular opinion would change significantly in light of your argument?





Be skeptical. If there was solid, new information that refuted everything that was previously known, I would change my position.

Not the point. Would you argue it? Would you tell a married couple to their faces that, so sorry, we were wrong, and now you can't be married anymore?


But what if that never happens? Then from an evidenciary standpoint, GM is the law.

Well, that is self-evident.


I don't disagree with you, here. I have argued with folks on DP how the discriminatory position is a failed position... and I can argue it pretty well. There are too many holes.

I have pointed some out myself.


The societal benefit position does not suffer from those holes.

Then you have to get there legislatively. Good luck.


Currently, based on the knowledge of the day, it is easy to dispense with arguments for polygamy and easy to advocate GM.

I think there is a great deal of societal benefit in NOT basing public policy for something so fundamental to people's lives on something so potentially capricious -- particularly if it may mean, as you say it does, that the right to marry could be taken away later on that basis.


I am uninterested in what could happen or what could be learned. Those issues are irrelevant. I base my position on what IS happening and what IS known. Makes sense to do so.

Well, as I said above, good public policy takes the possible consequences into account, particularly when they are foreseeable, as they are in this case.
 
You need to start accepting the fact that it is a moral issue and not necessarily a religions one for some.

As I have said before I was against it even before I was a Christian.

Many issues have no religious bearing on them for me like abortion. I think abortion should be a last resort and only used in cases on incest or rape. It has nothing to do with my religion at all. I assume this is true for others and other issues like gay marraige.

Oh please.....Blackdog. The only people against gay marriage are the right-wing Christians who believe the GOD is against gay marriage. These are the same people who thought that GOD was against inter-racial marriage.

The same people who thought at one point that GOd was against shell-fish as well.
 
Just shows that the arguments against gay marriage are root in religious bigotry and nothing else.

Actually, I think the absoluteness of this statement is rooted in religious bigotry and nothing else.
 
If you are referring to the type of natural rights that John Locke proposed, yes, absolutely.
Well that's certainly an unconventional view. To which philosophy do you subscribe?
 
See below.

The discriminatory position is the only position you can argue judicially, because the definition of marriage and all of the public policy around it is exclusively a legislative matter. The judiciary has nothing to say about it unless it violates rights.

The discriminatory position cannot be argued, judicially, successfully... at least I don't think it can. The argument against gay marriage from a discrimination position is pretty solid. Gays can get married. There is no provision in any law in regards to marriage that says we have the RIGHT to marry anyone we want. No, the way to win would be for a state to pass GM and then for it to get challenged judicially... and for it to be defended via the benefits argument.

Why do you think popular opinion would change significantly in light of your argument?

People keep getting thrown the discrimination argument which is a negative, conflictual argument. The benefits argument has a positive, helping connotation that could tap into the more altruistic nature in folks. The current climate of the GM debate is too confrontational, by both sides. Reduce the conflict and increase the perception of societal benefits and l cooperation

Not the point. Would you argue it? Would you tell a married couple to their faces that, so sorry, we were wrong, and now you can't be married anymore?

Probably. I would currently argue that no one should be married, that all marriages should be changed to civil unions and that marriage should be left to the church.




Well, that is self-evident.

Uh-huh.


I have pointed some out myself.

Pretty easy to do.

Then you have to get there legislatively. Good luck.

And judicially. And someone has to go at it from my position. I haven't seen that happen yet.




I think there is a great deal of societal benefit in NOT basing public policy for something so fundamental to people's lives on something so potentially capricious -- particularly if it may mean, as you say it does, that the right to marry could be taken away later on that basis.

I disagree. If we learned tomorrow that automobiles were completely ruining society, it would make sense to eliminate them. But one also must understand the significant unlikelihood of something so fundamental being found to be completely flawed and dysfunctional. In general, research has proven inclusion, not exclusion in the context of what we are discussing.




Well, as I said above, good public policy takes the possible consequences into account, particularly when they are foreseeable, as they are in this case.

Good public policy would take the possible consequences into account, but not EVERY possibility, even the most remote. As I said, research tends to prove inclusion, not exclusion. If, suddenly, something changed, the law could change with it.
 
Well that's certainly an unconventional view. To which philosophy do you subscribe?

Much of my philosophical position is self-actualized. I do not, specifically, subscribe to a school of thought or follow any particular philosopher, though my beliefs are not as unconventional as you would think. I would say that I am a mix of legal positivism and moral relativism. To understand some of my way of thinking, read some of Jeremy Betham and Baruch Spinoza. I take parts of these philosophies to form my own.
 
The discriminatory position cannot be argued, judicially, successfully... at least I don't think it can. The argument against gay marriage from a discrimination position is pretty solid. Gays can get married. There is no provision in any law in regards to marriage that says we have the RIGHT to marry anyone we want. No, the way to win would be for a state to pass GM and then for it to get challenged judicially... and for it to be defended via the benefits argument.

I don't think you get it.

"Societal benefit" isn't a judicial question. It's a legislative one. Courts don't strike down laws because they prevent an esoteric "societal benefit." They can only do so if the legislature overstepped its authority -- did something it's not authorized to do or violated a fundamental right.

Besides, you've shifted the argument. If a state passes same-sex marriage, then, well, it's there, and there's really no basis on which to challenge it in court. The only recourse for those who don't want it is to get it repealed, or get a constitutional amendment passed, if that can be done by popular vote. There's nothing in particular for a court to do with the first -- it can't rule "this idea is so good that we hold it can never be repealed" -- and if a constitutional amendment is passed, there's really nothing for a court to do.

Of course, this all hinges on same-sex marriage being reached legislatively first.



People keep getting thrown the discrimination argument which is a negative, conflictual argument. The benefits argument has a positive, helping connotation that could tap into the more altruistic nature in folks. The current climate of the GM debate is too confrontational, by both sides. Reduce the conflict and increase the perception of societal benefits and l cooperation

I don't think it's that simple.



Probably. I would currently argue that no one should be married, that all marriages should be changed to civil unions and that marriage should be left to the church.

That's even less likely.







And irrelevant to the point.


And judicially. And someone has to go at it from my position. I haven't seen that happen yet.

Because it's a judicial dead end. I already explained. This isn't how it works.



I disagree. If we learned tomorrow that automobiles were completely ruining society, it would make sense to eliminate them.

Automobiles are not marriage.


But one also must understand the significant unlikelihood of something so fundamental being found to be completely flawed and dysfunctional. In general, research has proven inclusion, not exclusion in the context of what we are discussing.

It has never been studied on a societal level. It could not have been.



Good public policy would take the possible consequences into account, but not EVERY possibility, even the most remote. As I said, research tends to prove inclusion, not exclusion.

"Tends" to based on small sample sizes.

If, suddenly, something changed, the law could change with it.

Yes, that is understood. And it's the problem.
 
It still cannot be shown that the woman living next door to anyone on this forum taking a second husband affects anyone or inhibits another's rights nor affects another's marriage. Pro ssm obsevers view that same sex marriage can't be denied by government for those exact reasons and yet use that same government to deny others that same right.

Unless I'm mistaken, this is called hypocrisy, and it appears blatant to me.
 
Just shows that the arguments against gay marriage are root in religious bigotry and nothing else. Thank you for driving that home yet again.

I shows the exact opposite. Thanks for your hypocrisy. :roll:
 
Oh please.....Blackdog. The only people against gay marriage are the right-wing Christians who believe the GOD is against gay marriage.

This is absolutely wrong.

50% or more of the country is not what you would call "right wing Christians."

For example the majority of the population of CA is not right wing Christians. And yet, proposition 8 won.

That alone should show how misguided your answer is and that I am not a liar.

This should fill you in on how wrong you are.
These are the same people who thought that GOD was against inter-racial marriage. The same people who thought at one point that GOd was against shell-fish as well.

Yes they did and the Bible clearly does not support this. The Bible does however support homosexual behavior being a sin.

This however has nothing to do with my statement. It is nothing more than a fallacy on your part.

God was never was against "shellfish." Huge difference from eating healthy to sin. :roll:
 
I don't think you get it.

"Societal benefit" isn't a judicial question. It's a legislative one. Courts don't strike down laws because they prevent an esoteric "societal benefit." They can only do so if the legislature overstepped its authority -- did something it's not authorized to do or violated a fundamental right.

However, the judiciary can strike down or accept a law if they deem the societal benefit of said law (or of striking down the law). Louis Brandeis used to include social impact information when he decided upon a ruling. I recently read the SC's ruling on partial-birth abortion, and they used social benefit information to rule on that law, also. The judiciary uses whatever information they can to make decisions.

Besides, you've shifted the argument. If a state passes same-sex marriage, then, well, it's there, and there's really no basis on which to challenge it in court. The only recourse for those who don't want it is to get it repealed, or get a constitutional amendment passed, if that can be done by popular vote. There's nothing in particular for a court to do with the first -- it can't rule "this idea is so good that we hold it can never be repealed" -- and if a constitutional amendment is passed, there's really nothing for a court to do.

There are two issues, here. The first is to have the Supreme Court strike down DOMA. This has been attempted via discrimination lawsuits, but not via a social benefit attempt. Based on past SC behavior, this is a far more logical attack and, IMO, would have more of a chance of striking down the law. Second. IF a GM law were passed, either federally or in a state and an attempt to strike it down were made, the social benefit defense holds more water than the discrimination defense. In both cases, judicially or legislatively, the discrimination position is not strong, but the social benefit position is.

Of course, this all hinges on same-sex marriage being reached legislatively first.

Not necessarily, though probably.




I don't think it's that simple.

What I said was a broad stroke, but ultimately, it IS that simple.

That's even less likely.

I agree, though it is the most logical position.


Because it's a judicial dead end. I already explained. This isn't how it works.

No, as I explained above.





Automobiles are not marriage.

Irrelevant. The analogy addresses your point of what could happen if we found that something was ruining society that had been in existence for a long time. It applies.

It has never been studied on a societal level. It could not have been.

Of course it has... just as much as many other things have.

"Tends" to based on small sample sizes.

Reasonable sample sizes and universally consistent results. This is what is needed to identify credibility in research... which this research has.



Yes, that is understood. And it's the problem.

What would be the problem with that? That would be a GOOD thing, changing something that needs changing.
 
It still cannot be shown that the woman living next door to anyone on this forum taking a second husband affects anyone or inhibits another's rights nor affects another's marriage. Pro ssm obsevers view that same sex marriage can't be denied by government for those exact reasons and yet use that same government to deny others that same right.

Unless I'm mistaken, this is called hypocrisy, and it appears blatant to me.

The government has no reason to sanction something that is not beneficial to society. The basic argument for promoting GM is, for the government to sanction it, is it beneficial to the government, society, the family, and the individual. Evidence shows that it is, therefore, since there is proof, the government would have reason to sanction it. The same can NOT be said for plural marriage. If you can find evidence for this, present it.

And your argument that, just because what happens next door doesn't affect me means that it should not be inhibited is faulty and ridiculous. That is like saying that if your next door neighbor was abusing their child in the sanctity of their own home, without any impact on you, it would be OK for this act to be legal. See how foolish your argument is?
 
The government has no reason to sanction something that is not beneficial to society. The basic argument for promoting GM is, for the government to sanction it, is it beneficial to the government, society, the family, and the individual. Evidence shows that it is, therefore, since there is proof, the government would have reason to sanction it. The same can NOT be said for plural marriage. If you can find evidence for this, present it.

Is that the basic argument for "promoting" ssm? Because in the courtroom, that's not the case at all.

I don't agree the basic argument for same sex marriage is for the government to "sanction" it, I believe the 14th amendment and equal rights has always been the argument. I've not seen anyone argue it's beneficial to family, society, nor individual much less try to show evidence(that doesn't exist) that it's somehow beneficial. Besides, I can show where a one man/one woman marriage is the MOST "beneficial to society." I believe we can provide for these extra benefits you speak of through domestic partnership laws, marriage should be reserved to the definitions society places on it.

And your argument that, just because what happens next door doesn't affect me means that it should not be inhibited is faulty and ridiculous. That is like saying that if your next door neighbor was abusing their child in the sanctity of their own home, without any impact on you, it would be OK for this act to be legal. See how foolish your argument is?

If they were abusing their child, they'd be engaged in illegal activity, that does affect me. Furthermore, how long before they abuse someone else's children. My argument asks someone to show me how the woman living next door taking on another husband affects anyone or anyone elses's marriage, as THAT, rather than you goal post move, is the argument.
 
Why don't you understand that if you allow gays to marry then you have to allow other groups as classes of people to have the same right..Maybe you have no problem with that but I do..............

I have no problem with that; in fact, I welcome it. Let everyone (consenting adults) marry anyone they want and as many as they want.

We'll just raise your taxes to pay their benefits :mrgreen:
 
Why does this ridiculous argument keep being brought up as if it was legitimate?

Why don't you understand that if you allow gays to marry then you have to allow other groups as classes of people to have the same right..Maybe you have no problem with that but I do..............

The reason we "don't understand" is because it's not true.

Saying that there will no longer be discrimination against gays does NOT mean that therefore you have to allow polygamy or people marrying toasters or any other slippery slope outrageous thing you may claim.

Nothing under our laws would require that in the slightest. It didn't happen when we held that interracial marriages were unconstitutional, either.

It's a silly argument. It's not going to happen, and there is no law whatsoever that would require it. It hasn't happened in those states that have made gay marriage legal, and it hasn't happened in any other country that has made gay marriage legal.

Seriously, there is NO legal argument against gay marriage. "I don't like it" is NOT a legal argument.
 
However, the judiciary can strike down or accept a law if they deem the societal benefit of said law (or of striking down the law). Louis Brandeis used to include social impact information when he decided upon a ruling. I recently read the SC's ruling on partial-birth abortion, and they used social benefit information to rule on that law, also. The judiciary uses whatever information they can to make decisions.

I know of no case where they struck down a law based only or even chiefly on societal benefit. They do so for the reasons I said above. If you know of one, please indicate it.

Laws may be upheld because the societal benefit outweighs the protection of a right -- such as with a ban on partial-birth abortion -- but courts do not strike down laws based on public policy reasons alone. That's not a court's place.

Look, this is basic separation of powers in a tripartite government. Public policy is a matter for the political branches, not the judicial. In the case of partial-birth abortion, the policy had been decided on by the legislature. They did not substitute their own.


There are two issues, here. The first is to have the Supreme Court strike down DOMA. This has been attempted via discrimination lawsuits, but not via a social benefit attempt. Based on past SC behavior, this is a far more logical attack and, IMO, would have more of a chance of striking down the law.

And we're back to the same problem. It's not a basis on which they can strike down a law.


Second. IF a GM law were passed, either federally or in a state and an attempt to strike it down were made, the social benefit defense holds more water than the discrimination defense. In both cases, judicially or legislatively, the discrimination position is not strong, but the social benefit position is.

I already said that if same-sex marriage is passed, there are few, if any, judicial recourses to challenge it. There would be no reason to reach any public policy questions, because the case would be dismissed on other grounds long before it ever reached them.



Not necessarily, though probably.

Your construct of passing same-sex marriage and then bringing suit over absolutely DOES require that it be passed.


What I said was a broad stroke, but ultimately, it IS that simple.

Not from anything I've seen concerning public attitudes toward the subject.


I agree, though it is the most logical position.

The "logic" of a position depends entirely on what you're trying to accomplish. The "logical" thing to do toward one end is not necessarily the "logical" thing to do toward a different one.



No, as I explained above.

What can I say? You're simply wrong. Psychiatry is not my bailiwick, but the law is, and what I've explained about the place of the courts vis-a-vis public policy questions is correct.



Irrelevant. The analogy addresses your point of what could happen if we found that something was ruining society that had been in existence for a long time. It applies.

No, as we're talking in "public policy" terms, the idea of taking a car away from a family is absolutely not the same thing as telling a family that they're not a family anymore.


Of course it has... just as much as many other things have.

How could the benefits of something which has never existed on a societal level have been studied on a societal level?


Reasonable sample sizes and universally consistent results. This is what is needed to identify credibility in research... which this research has.

I'm not arguing what the research currently says; I never have. I'm simply saying that once the whole thing reaches a level that's never existed before, things could well change.


What would be the problem with that? That would be a GOOD thing, changing something that needs changing.

Then you be the one to tell a married couple that the government says they can't be married anymore, because it isn't such a good idea. Are you willing to do that personally? If not, then you see the problem.
 
Why does this ridiculous argument keep being brought up as if it was legitimate?

Why don't you understand that if you allow gays to marry then you have to allow other groups as classes of people to have the same right..Maybe you have no problem with that but I do..............

The reason we "don't understand" is because it's not true.

Saying that there will no longer be discrimination against gays does NOT mean that therefore you have to allow polygamy or people marrying toasters or any other slippery slope outrageous thing you may claim.

It depends on how you get there. If it's achieved entirely judicially on equal-protection or fundamental rights grounds, then the same arguments would apply to polygamy. Assuming polygamy is about consenting adults choosing form their relationships freely, there are no "rights" arguments which don't apply to both.

If it's achieved legislatively, because that's how legislatures choose to define marriage, then no, there is no such slope.


Nothing under our laws would require that in the slightest. It didn't happen when we held that interracial marriages were unconstitutional, either.

Because it was a different argument. No one challenged the idea that a "marriage" was about one man and one woman.


It's a silly argument. It's not going to happen

We'll see. As I said, depending on how same-sex marriage comes about, the avenues may well be wide open. It's open to someone who wants to marry more than one person to step forward and go for it.


and there is no law whatsoever that would require it.

No one said there is. But the arguments being made, if adopted, may well require it if someone presses the issue.


It hasn't happened in those states that have made gay marriage legal

It all just now happened. Maybe no one has yet brought suit, or has the resources to sustain one. It's not like the decisions leading to same-sex marriage in those states happened in a week, a year, or even a decade, either.


and it hasn't happened in any other country that has made gay marriage legal.

No other country has the same constitutional construct as we do.


Seriously, there is NO legal argument against gay marriage.

:confused: Other than legislatures having defined marriage otherwise?


"I don't like it" is NOT a legal argument.

Nor is it against polygamy.
 
Back
Top Bottom