Is one of those obligations that you cannot enter into contract with another? Borrow money, does that mean you cannot contract with a different bank? Can you work for two employers at the same time? Can you have more than one employee?
There are a ton of contracts that put just such stipulations on both parties. Entertainment industry contracts come to mind immediately.
Are you denied ANY other contract based on the fact that the two entering this obligation are first cousins?
Does that really matter? It's a stipulation for the contract. Contracts have all kinds of different stipulations. That just happens to be one for the marriage contract. Sorry you find that truth a little inconvenient but you just have to learn to live with reality at some point, won't you?
Can you buy a home, share a business, incorporate, purchase an automobile, estate planning, enter into a small business...with your brother or mother, father or daughter, sister or son?
Yeah, you can. It's called power of attorney. Look it up.
In fact.....who would possibly deny you entry into any type of contract...from legal to corporate from warranty to real estate based on the fact that you're related. What other contract can you being first cousins get you denied? What other contract do you enter....denying you entry into ANY other similar contract...for the rest of your life or until the previous contract is null and void?
Ummm, let's see. Lifetime rights contracts to parcels of land, employment contracts, representation contracts. You're just flat wrong on this count. The marriage contract is like any other contract in that it has stipulations placed on both parties with penalties for breaking the deal. Get over it.
Laugh all you want. If my state approves of polygamy and I take another wife....I'm not going to whine when my neighbors don't accept my behavior, much less my next state.
Except ummm, we aren't discussing polygamy here and you know that. When you want to get back on topic, let me know.
Polygamy and the other issues are relevant and happen to be items you yourself deny others and use the government in doing so. Then whine when the definition doesn't mirror your personal opinions on the matter.
Polygamy is a direct violation of the marriage contract in that it circumvents the requirement that you name a single person as irreplacable to you. The only one whining here is you. And that whining is irrelevant to the topic the rest of us are actually discussing.
Not only have we defined this institution either through representation or referendum, it's been a recent reality in California, New York, and many other states.
This confusion why I would support a marriage amendment. The Doma not sweeping enough and results in confusing opinions like this.
Your confusion is your problem, pal. I'm not surprised that you are confused given the strange ideas you have already developed concerning how a representative republic operates.
I've repeatedly mentioned this issue being decided in representatie legislative manner making a law...defining marriage without the possibility of misinterpretation by any court. We the People...do determine our own rights...We the People define our own institutions, the courts governing at our consent.
No, we the people vote in our representatives. Court appointees serve for life, not at our consent, but at the consent of our representatives. The Constitution is the framework of our rights and the courts interpret laws, created by our legislature, against that framework.
This is elementary civics. You should go back and brush up.
Argued time and again in courts across America.
Same Sex Marriage: An Act of Law
And nowhere in that is there any indication that one state may dissolve a contract formed in another state.
I highlighted the important points but, the link I found is well worth a read, gives you a history of this and then why the 14th doesn't apply.
Yes, a great amount of opinion. Thank you...but you know what they say about opinions...
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Thank you for repeating the basics, Captain Obvious. Now would you like to make a point with it?