I'm sorry it took me so long to respond, I was out having a few drinks. It's Saturday, sue me :lol:
I will. And then I will demand compensation for the intense emotional damages that have occurred as the result of this slight and rejection. I have had, since you cruelly implied that me - as a random internet person - wasn't worth your time, fear, stress, weight gain, bouts of depression, feelings of being overwhelmed, wounds received under assault from waves of flying monkeys, incontinence, impotence, and incense. My Feels > Your Drinks, Hatuey.
I perfectly understand where you're coming from. However, there are quite a list of bans/amendments which specifically singled out gay marriage
Agreed. Simply for the purposes of this, I think it's worth pointing out that you shouldn't lump all of the state moves that would prohibit SSM together.
Those that don't specifically mention gay marriage were adopted within the same political climate.
Which is immaterial. The law is (well, it is
supposed to be) the law. In a scenario where the law stated simply that marriage was between a man and a woman, polygamous relationships would not be able to argue that "well, the
climate was SSM, so
really we're still good".
Though your post doesn't deny that, I think it's pretty clear that the rest of the amendments/bans were adopted to fit that climate, and were also adopted with gays in mind.
Probably. Just as the Civil Rights Act was adopted with blacks in mind, but would apply to asians, hispanics, jews, gentiles, turks, arabs, whites, and indians. But not hippies.
Never hippies.
There simply was no wide scale movement to legalize other types of unions at the time. There still aren't.
No - it is still small. But they will be successful more quickly than the SSM folks were - a lot of their groundwork has already been laid.
So while some efforts to ban gay marriage were pretty up front about their intentions, others simply used vague wording that would cover it. Don't you think?
:shrug: I think that the law is the law - and that attempts to set down in stone what marriage was were attempts to set that down from
all attempts to alter it. If it happened in the context of a debate over SSM, that does not mean that the clear text is also intended to protect against things like polygamy.