Friday Free For All: Marriage Edition
by PubliusYesterday, a federal judge struck down the federal ban on same-sex marriages. On one hand, we’re sympathetic with the ruling because, when you are staring down the face of socialism, who cares if Billy and Bob get married. On the other hand, the judge based his decision on the ‘equal protection’ clause, so we are unsympathetic when judges just make shit up.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
824 Comments
While I can appreciate the sentiment on this topic Publius…. with that last comment, and considering a few other recent incendiary comments (Lee's "hubris" for instance *shakes head*), I'm coming to the opinion that you are dipping a bit into infantile comment territory. Which is fine, if that's what you're going for. I am however, taking your comments less and less seriously.
A bit sad given your avvy is Madison today….
Years ago, they applied the equal protection clause to interracial marriages. Why does anyone really care as long as marriage stays between 2 people? As Thomas Jefferson once said: "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Jefferson was a wealth of quotes: "Peace, prosperity, liberty and morals have an intimate connection."
This is why people hate the Republican party so much. If you stopped caring about stupid stuff like this maybe they would be able to get more support from people who are gay/gay sympathetic but otherwise pretty conservative. I talked to one girl who was super conservative but votes democrat solely because of this issue. Logical? not really, but it speaks volumes and there are many others like her. Who cares who gets married? Trying to ban others from getting married to enforce your moral code is stupid.
If you want people to become sympathetic to the conservative cause and to stop voting for morons like Obama then stop shooting yourself in the foot and let people do what they want. After all, isn't personal liberty a platform of the conservative ideology? Issues like this is why Republicans are often referred to as 'the stupid party'.
It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve…
A judicial fiat with out a doubt.
I will never attend a gay wedding. Not even if Dick Cheney is there.
I will never attend a same-sex marriage, not even if Dick Cheney is there.
how original, never heard that one before
I am fine with equal rights and civil unions etc. just do NOT call it Marriage.
God invented Marriage, and it is a man and a woman ONLY!
They do not want equal rights, they want to destroy the fabric and traditions of our country and up end the apple cart.
If they would campaign for civil unions with the same LEGAL rights as marriage (Including the sh!tty tax penalty) I would FULLY support all their campaigns and vote in favor.
But that is not what they want.!
Here is a MUCH better question that the one Publius set out.
WHO is the BENEFACTOR?
What political force, perspective, or movement (Call it what you will) that BENEFITS from this.
Who wins, who loses? I think it is not quite as easy to "follow the money" on this issue, but basically that is what i am asking.
I'll start, it is NOT the Gay couples, because they could get all they want with civil unions. PLUS They could gain acceptance from many of those they wish to gain it from.
Who Wins? Who Loses?
Was the original understanding of the equal protection clause in any way applicable to homosexual marriage when it was ratified?
Obviously it wasn't. If we stand by and allow this to happen, we've given up the fight against the idea that the constitution means merely whatever someone in a robe capriciously decides it means.
Good news everyone!
The U.N. Security Council is going to vote today to approve a statement condemning North Korea for attacking a South Korean warship and killing 46 of our allies' sailors.
Yes, you read that correctly.
North Korea is going to be condemned!
CONDEMNED!
I know many of you may think such language is kinda harsh but hey, harsh language is just what's needed after someone attacks one of our allies and kills 46 sailors.
Harsh language will put them back in their place.
I haven't read the entire ruling but I have always been of the opinion that marriage, like most other social issues, belongs to the states to decide. As to whether there are any so-called benefits from the federal government, I can clearly remember the marriage penalty on federal taxes but few benefits.
I'd satisfied with the will of the majority on social issues; let's vote on it.
Sometimes, one needs to call a thing what it is.
Here! Here! Well stated Mr. Montgomery!
Are homosexuals really that "gay"? Thirty years ago my ten-year-old son came to me and asked if I knew that gay also meant happy? We had a long talk.
Equal protection? How is it unequal that any consenting person may marry any other consenting person (besides "close" blood relations) of the opposite sex. If sophists want to argue that such equality is unequal, then why argue that restricting marriage to only two is equal? There are many who want to be in..um..novel marriages. Why is dismantling the definition of marriage for the sake of homosexuals "equal protection," but preventing bigamists and polyamorist from entering into legally recognized marriages, patterned as they please, also "equal protection?"
Homosexuals suck.
There is a gay couple living in the apartment below me.
I don't care that they are gay. It's none of my business. They are really nice guys and they have been together for something like 15 years.
When I first met them I did kinda wonder if one was the 'man' and one was the 'woman'. Well one day I was moving some new furniture into my place and 'Mark' came out and offered to help me move the stuff. After about 30 minutes work 'Jim' stuck his head out of the door of their apartment and said "Mark, dinner is going to be ready in about 10 minutes. Invite your friend to eat with us".
The dinner was great and I don't care what they do in the privacy of their own home.
I know this will be tough to understand, but equal protection means persons are treated equally. Since bigamy and other behavior is banned for heterosexual couples, it is still banned under the law. I would think persons on this site would applaud the Supreme Court decision which overturned state law on homosexual behavior. Seriously, do you want the police kicking down your bedroom door?
I didn't want to make this type of video on BHO's muslim pandering. The scenes are painful to watch. BHO's NASA outreach to muslims was the final straw for me. I made it before I read that he exploited his middle name again regarding Israel which is despicable beyond belief.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38gjmntHwL0
Well said. When it comes to leftists like this judge, the Constitution comes on a roll of perforated double-faced..er..ply sheets.
Making sh!t up, indeed.
Your pointless point was answered before it was asked. See above.
it is what it is.
"……..Seriously, do you want the police kicking down your bedroom door?…….."
but it's OK to kick down His door.
Why is it that the argument about gays has to begin with the basic premise that,………
His will does not matter.
The founders knew that they could not have predicted every legal question that was to arise, that is why the constitution is a limited document and also why they created the court system. Honestly, take religion out of it and give me 1 good reason why 2 people who love each other should not be married (excepting of course close relatives).
No, your understanding of the meaning of the term "equal protection" is flawed.
There is actually a supreme court case that deals with polygamy: http://supreme.justia.com/us/98/145/case.html
In it, polygamy was determined to be detrimental to the family unit by studies done at the time. there have been several studies on homosexual marriages over several decades and they have found no detrimental effects. The only reasons to deny them equal rights to straight people are homophobia or religious bigotry. People are born gay or straight, they are not born monogamous or polygamous.
Just more proof of the old adage, "You can lead lefties to knowledge, but you can't make them think."
BTW, was it you who down-dinged all my posts on this thread, except the one you responded to? That's so cute!
Take religion out of the debate and give me 1 reason that 2 people in love should not be afforded the legal protections of marriage. As John Adams said. "The United States is not in any sense founded upon the christian religion."
You misunderstand the argument. I'm not going to give you one good reason two same gendered people should not be married, nor any of my thoughts on the matter. It is entirely irrelevant.
The founders created the legislature to handle just these kinds of issues. They did just that with DOMA. The courts are attempting to supplant their legislative preferences for the legislature. That is the issue.
Thanks BC,
What do you ride?
I have a 95 Buell S2, a 2000 FXST, and a 2004 RoadGlide. (one is red, one is white, and one is blue). The wife rides a 2004 XL1200c… Red…
I'll withhold my celebration until we start launching the cruise missiles, lol.
I think we should concentrate all efforts on teaching muslims how to build rockets, they have proven to be completely trustworthy, I dont see muslims as the types who would attach bombs to the missle technology we give them, cause they deserve and have earned our help. All hail the One
"I'd satisfied with the will of the majority on social issues; let's vote on it."
That is a dangerous proposition, remember, people at 1 time voted for slavery and segregation. We have evolved over time, but it does not make what happened in the past as a result of majority rule right in any way.
You are a blind squirrel HLB, but this time you found a nut.
Tell me…Is it then possible to legislate morals???
Examples please. Christians are not persecuted here. In fact the US government illegally prints "in god we trust" on currency, places the words "under god" in the pledge, passes laws such as a ban on homosexual marriage on religious, not secular principles, etc. When the courts set things back to constitutional principles, you somehow believe that you are persecuted. How does allowing 2 homosexuals marry harm you or your family in any way?
The purpose of the courts is to be a check on the legislative and executive branches. The founders knew that there would be unconstitutional laws passed by the legislature. Therefore, it is the job of the courts to interpret the constitution and determine if the laws being passed and challenged meet constitutional muster. And I notice that you do not give any reasons because there aren't any.
I might if both lesbians were hot.
This ruling is a fine example of liberal judges legislating from the bench and NOT upholding the law. Americans have the right to vote people in who reflect their Judeo-Christians values and have those elected officials ban homosexual marriage. That's how a Representative Republic works!
We all KNOW, that if civil marriages are allowed, it won't be long before churches are MADE to perform homosexual or lesbian marriages. Maybe these liberals will use the IRS against these churches like they do now to infringe upon their first amendment rights of free speech and the freedom of religion.
You cannot make people moral by legislation, however, our laws are mostly based on moral principles. These principles can be arrived at through secular reasoning, which is why the 10 commandments are not legislated, among other morals from other religious texts. Now before you go getting all high and mighty, yes, there are 4 out of 10 of the commandments that are put into legislation, however it is not because they are in the bible that they are legislated, you can logically come to the conclusion that theft, fraud, murder, and rape are immoral without the help of any religious text.
What I wonder is, when did people decide to tolerate government involvement in recognizing marriage at all? Why do people BUY government licenses to get married? Isn't marriage not only between a man and a woman, but between them and God and their church?
I don't recall the bible recognizing Caeaser's role here…
Certainly the muslims don't bother involving government in their polygamous marriages they commonly engage in, even in the United States, though you never hear about it because they are only interested in prosecuting Mormons who do this…
Thank you for reading my mind and interpreting my hidden thoughts rather than my explicit words that I detailed in the preceding post. I do not know how I would convey my bigotry without your help.
Marriage is the sacred union between only one man and only one woman in holy matrimony. There is no and should never be any equivalent under the law or recognized in society.
Judges are supposed to uphold the law not overturn ones that do not reflect their liberal views. We need to clean out these courts of liberal judges who are hijacking the Constitution and replace them.
I think there needs to be civil ceremonies for this type of 'arrangement'…marriage should be kept between a man and a woman…otherwise we might as well be like the muslims and let a MAN have as many wives as HE wants…funny that the same law doesn't include a WOMAN having as many HUSBANDS as SHE wants…! Yeah, I know, opinions are like a%#holes and everybody has one!
His middle name could be Moses and they still wouldn't pay any attention to him.
Marriage most certainly is sacred. This ruling is a slippery slope and is the basest of human deviant behavior before a society completely collapses under it's own immorality. We are almost there any way.
Let see here…..First if they were born that way then it is a genetic flaw in the DNA that can be bred out or changed with gene therepy. YES I said flaw, because if everyone was gay there would be no reproduction and no advancment of species…
Second, if it is choice the we don't have to go any farther because not all acts of choice are protected let alone legal…..But this is all a side track
Government shouldn't be involved in sactioning marriage in the first place! So fixing a wrong with another wrong is the worst thing we can do with an already bloated government. The biggest thing though is that given the same rights, responsibilities and protections to gays wouldn't have been such a issue, just don't call it a religous institution as marriage is. They tried to give gays civil unions (same right and protections) and gays weren't happy with it, they wanted MARRIAGE. A religous word that they wished to corrupt, plus the fact they wanted religous institutions FORCED to preform marriages for them.
Marriage being between a man and a woman is purely a religious debate. Take religion out of it, and there are no valid reasons to deny 2 homosexuals (apart from close blood relatives) the same legal protections of all other married couples. As far as polygamy, that is settled law, in Reynolds v. US, 1878: http://supreme.justia.com/us/98/145/case.html
Polygamy was determined not to be a case of religious freedom because of it's detrimental affect on the children as determined by studies done at the time. There are studies over the last few decades on homosexual marriage, and the consensus is that they are no more likely to do harm than traditional marriages. As far as equal protection goes though, people are born straight or homosexual, they are not born monogamous or polygamous.
Why should the g a y community which is less than 1 % of the American population get to over turn laws that are made by a majority of the population which is the 80 % of Americans who believe in Judeo-Christians values? It's not Constitutional!!
I didn't claim to read your mind, I just said that there are no secular reasons to deny homosexual marriage. I also made the point about what the purpose of the courts is. I see nothing to indicate any bigotry, unless you are just feeling guilty……
With all due respect, you're projecting. And you failed to answer a simple yes or no question.
I'm very libertarian when it comes to this, as I feel it is not the duty of the state to make any decision as to how we live our lives. If two people of the same sex want to be with each other, because they are in love, then so be it. Why must they intrude on the institution of marriage to do so? Did you get married for the tax breaks, or did you marry because you were in love? I married my wife because I love her, and I want to spend the rest of my living days with her. For richer or poor, for better or worse…I will always love my wife and no government piece of paper can change that. Do gay couples deserve more than that…?
Quite. Why, look at one quarter of society in the US where a lack of respect for the institution of marriage has caused wholesale misery, in the form of poverty, incivility, and crime: poor urban blacks. Rather than trying to strengthen the institution, our betters are trying to gut it.
I would only disagree with your first sentence David, otherwise–well stated. Marriage is only between and Man and a Woman.
I don't agree with judges overturning laws from the bench, they are supposed to uphold the law. This so called equal protection rarely if ever applies to Christians.
It sactifies an act the prevents the propagartion of species and is either a genetic flaw in the DNA or a choice…..Take you pick
Genetic flaws should be bred out or fixed with gene therepy, not encouraged to "help" society get along.
Not all choices are legal let alone protected by the government.
Their laws have everyone searching to find a rock for today's big stoning event.
If their job was merely to uphold the law, then they would not be necessary at the federal level. At the federal level, their job is to determine constitutionality of legislation. You know as well as I do that Congress passes unconstitutional laws. When that happens and there is a challenge against them, it is the duty of the courts to strike them down. If however, the law is constitutional, and it is challenged, then the courts are supposed to uphold them. Nowhere in the constitution does it prohibit homosexual marriage, there is however, an equal protection clause.
Mr. Reeves, a shiver went down my spine when I saw the "C" word in all caps. Like me, you are one sarcastic son of a bitch!
Polygamy: the habit or system of mating with more than one individual, either simultaneously or successively.
There's far more scientific proof that people are born with polygamous impulses than homosexual.
Polygamy: having more than one spouse at one time http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=poly...
Again, people are born homosexual or straight, they are not born with any number of spouses.
Exactly. Our government has been attacking traditional marriage for decades. Liberals want unwed mothers beholden to them in the form of cradle to grave welfare. Government then becomes God and Daddy.
Around 70% of black children have no father around or even worse, 48% of black babies are aborted.
Sorry, but the "studies say" argument is thin gruel, indeed. You make a lot of assertions, expressions of opinion, as if they were fact. Further, arguing that something is "settled law," when the discussion is one of what should be legal, and what should not, rather begs the question. So, I put forth the challenge to you, the mirror image of the challenge you have put forth to others here: present an argument against polyamorous marriage, which is not based upon the secular religion of "studies."
We will convene a commission to study the effects of your withholding celebration.
That means trouble.
The UN.
Yes, and all consenting adults are free to marry another of the opposite sex, or not.
Marriage as an institution exists in cultures all over the world, it is not by definition a religious institution. And today there are several legal benefits to marriage. If it were just a ceremonial religious ritual and nothing more, then I would agree that churches should dictate marriages, but the fact is that we have many different faiths that all hold their own beliefs on marriage, and to hold everyone hostage to a christian definition is not equal protection. No one is saying that churches must marry homosexuals, as I said, it is a legal contract, we have Justices of the Peace to do that and keep religion out of it. But to deny people the same legal benefits as others based solely on sexual orientation is clearly discriminatory.
That’s a relief, now Lester and Bruce can get “married!” Further proof of the decline of our civilization.
Hey! …maybe we should take a page from the liberal moral equivalence meme, and take a look at Sharia Law? …I wonder how these stylish liberal ideas would do? Hmmm…
[C]hris_e is on much firmer ground here than you, your attempt at verbal slight of hand not withstanding.
[C]hris_e did not say it was natural to be born with multiple spouses, he said the urge to have multiple spouses was a natural one. Unless it is a quirk of some esoteric culture of which I am unaware, no one is born married, so let us dispense with the absurdity, shall we?
By that reasoning, I could claim that people are not born into same gendered marriages, therefore they should not be allowed to marry someone of the same gender.
Why do you care what I believe Mac, you called me an "asshole" Christian this week on another thread.
And you are wrong, wrong and still wrong on how a Representative Republic works.
FC,
We live in a sinful world and not all see the world the same. Sometimes we need to be tolerant of those things we find offensive in order to maintain a peaceful coexistence.
If being accepting of a civil union gives a same-sex couple equal rights UNDER the LAW, that is "Ceasar's" domain and I will follow the will of Ceasar.
Being judgemental is NOT what we are to be doing. We are to Love our neighbors as ourselves and even love our enemies, and it is HARD to do somedays let me tell you…
So… Have a blessed day and weekend!
As to polygamous prosecutions, I believe that we should be enforcing the laws. But we have seen, time and again, especially from this administration, a definite favoritism to muslims and minorities. This doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean we should not follow the laws in other areas. What we should do is hold our government's feet to the fire to ensure that equal protection means what it says.
Sounds like some nice rides! I sport a 98 Custom FXDWG, deep red w/ harlequin flames.
Come on people! Expand your thinking! If this is to be done correctly, then leave marriage alone. Anything else comes under the heading of a "contract"…
If you really believe as I, that marriage is sacred and was instituted by God the Father, then government (especially the feds) have no place defining what is or not a marriage or a civil union. That said, at least until dear leader finishes his work, we are a free people and two adult persons can enter into a contract with any such terms as they please. They can attach schedules that outline their wishes regarding medical information and their last testament…whatever they like.
There are only two reasons we have to spend calories on this topic:
1. At every level the government has intruded far too much into personal dealings with each other, it's an over reach that we have tolerated for far too long.
2. The homosexual "agenda keepers" love shoving this up our @$$es (figure of speech, no pun intended).
Good point. We all know that the Muslim so called "religion" is run rampant with homosexuals. Their hero Moohamhead was a molester of boys. Also, the Obama is taking up the cause of the homo agenda and allowing them in the military.
I know a guy who started a religion worshiping goats. He also believes in polygamy.
So your version of reality says he should be allowed to marry 20 women because that is his "version" of religion.
The slope your standing on is slippery as h3ll Mac…
As stated above, civil unions have all the same rights and protections as a marriage would have. So what is the big deal? If gay folks want to be together, then go for it.
The problem (as I see it, p'raps I'm wrong) is that they (gays) don't want the same, equal standards applied to themselves. For some odd reason, they feel that they deserve ADDITIONAL protections under the law and that the same standards that the rest of us adhere to, shouldn't apply to them.
My 2 cents.
The same-sex perverts conclude that if the govt. sanctions their perversion then it is somehow legitimate and moral. Its more gov. love, people who think the govt is the granter of inalienable rights and not god, its pure leftism!
Flies and sulfur, mac. Given how thoroughly you've been discredited this past month, I would think that YOU don't pay attention to you.
But that's my point. The LAW banned homosexual marriage. It's the judges job to UPHOLD the law.
I won't comprise on something that God calls an abomination. We are supposed to judge righteous judgment as well, and that means we are supposed to stand up for God's Word no matter what or who is offended. I also know that homosexual's can turn to God and get saved. You and I can love a person without loving their sin.
Yes…TGIF!
I'm glad to see that they did this all within the state law like the founders intended, though I disagree with calling the union of 2 men or 2 women "marriage". Marriage is the between a man and a woman, says so in the Bible, any term defined in the Bible should not be re-defined by a government that claims "separation of church and state". Thomas Jefferson also believed in a moral society, homosexuality is immoral whether you like it or not, just like there is an underlying Truth to everything. But again good job on a function of states rights.
NOT, ever seen a picture of code pink? militant short haired bull Napolitanos, youve been watching too much porn my friend
verbal slight of hand? I gave a definition and sourced it, hardly slight of hand. As far as urges go, I could have the urge to kill someone, it doesn't mean I should be allowed to do it. What matters is that marriage is a legal institution. As such, certain protections are afforded within a marriage such as survivorship, powers of attorney, etc. to deny those protections to someone because of their sexual orientation is discriminatory.
Good morning Kevin! What a thread …..eh? It think it's almost a book with 800 replies.
By your reasoning, marriage would not be an institution because people are not born married. My point is that sexual orientation does not involve choice, marriage does.
Where in the Constitution is there a prohibition on siblings marrying each other, or parent and child, or double-first cousins? For that matter, where does it say a man cannot marry his best friend, Fido?
Kagan has that frumpy lesbain look down "Pat".
OOOOOO!!!! Sounds NICE! I looked up "harlequin flames" and they are the layers and intertwining flames, right?
I like flames on a bike… Painted ones only!
"As Thomas Jefferson once said: "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." "
In this case, it picks our pockets, and adds enough insult as if it were trying to break our leg(s) so better luck next time in trying to formulate an analogy. 1) Concerning hijacking and mutilating our language, one of the most well established, defined and sacred millenia-old terms in the human lexicon is Marriage, -the union of one man and one woman. These people can pick some other term and steer clear of any pretense of mutilating and bastardizing the term 'Marriage'. 2) We all know what a financial ploy this is- simply to garner more social security milkings, so this will indeed pick everyone's pocket. If not, then prove that the financial gains from allowing a new class of non-productive social parachute program moochers is not enough to cause even more "gayness of convenience"
Leave the term that defines the highest bond between those of us who are producing and raising the next generation of taxpayers well enough alone, thank you very much.
I am actually against government granting benefits to anyone for any reason. Our Constitution is a contract between the INDIVIDUAL and the government. There are no collective rights or responsibilities defined in it.
I do not believe that the government has the authority to grant tax or any other benefits to married people or to sodomites shacking up just because they are what they are that they don't grant to individuals.
Now, with respect to heterosexual (ie: NORMAL) couples, there is a societal benefit in that you do want to encourage children (especially in this era, with muslim populations outbreeding the rest of the world) but I don't necessarily agree that doing so is actually Constitutional.
Apparently I am just bored enough to spell out for you what everyone else reading this has already grokked.
Polygamous marriage is not Polygamy the sexual theory. While it is the same word describing interrelated concepts, the first does not actually require the second.
For example: if one man marries two women at the same time, you don't have to automatically assume he's attracted to, or has sexual relations with both women.
This is the same as homosexuality the sexual theory v. homosexual marriage.
Example: Two men do not have to be sexually attracted to each other, or even to other men, in order to get married in Massachusetts.
However, a man would have to be attracted to other men to be considered a homosexual.
You argue that homosexuality (the sexual theory) is an inborn trait among certain people, and that therefore these people should be allowed to engage in homosexual marriage.
Therefore, under your argument, it would track that if polygamy (the sexual theory) is an inborn trait, that therefore people should be allowed to engage in polygamymous marriage.
Dig?
I understand your point, and I know it's truth.
But Homosexuality is not illegal here in this land. That is where I get stuck and have to find a path through it all without waging holy war on those around me.
Maybe I'm weak…
But I try to choose my fights and conserve my bullets for those things directly affecting my family, property, future, etc…
I'm very Libertarian in this regard, as I don't believe the state has any right or business telling the people how to live their lives. But…Did you marry for the tax breaks, or did you marry because you were in "love"? Myself, I married my wife because I truly love her, and want to spend the rest of my living days with her. For richer or poor, for better and for worse. I will always love her, and I don't need a piece of paper from the government to prove that, or to validate it. So why, would g a y people need anything more if they want to be "married"? Do they just want tax breaks or do they truly just love one another, with out regard to what others think? If it was all about love, then this wouldn't be an issue, but it's not about love. It's about "equal protections" in a society that is pathologically entitlement minded. So, do same sex couples want to be married for monetary reasons, or do they want it to be "official" in the eyes of the state? Does that little piece of paper matter that much when you intend to spend the rest of your life with the person you love…? I think not.
Man that is one colossal super huge IF. Report back to us when you ever stumble across that scenario.
You left me broad leeway. I could claim that my religion says anything I want it to, that doesn't mean that we should base laws on it. But a secular argument against polygamy is that in the most common form (one man with multiple wives), it encourages male domination, makes women subservient to men, gives a much higher probability that a family will have more children than they can financially care for and therefore increase poverty and the welfare burden. There will be feelings of jealousy between spouses which would probably lead to higher than average domestic abuse and consequentially a poor environment for children. There, now I am still waiting for your secular reasoning against homosexual marriage.
David, your argument is absurd. I do not defend polygamy, I do not defend beastiality. Both of those things are separately outlawed. Polygamy has been challenged in the supreme court and held to be unconstitutional in Reynolds v. US, 1878. There are secular reasons for laws against both polygamy and beastiality. I quote John Adams: "The United States is not in any sense founded upon the christian religion."
Im a bit confused. How is allowing gay marriage an attack on traditional marriage? It doesnt decrease the number of traditional marriages since these people wouldnt do that anyways.
Yes verbal slight of hand. I clearly gave my reason for characterizing your previous post thus.
All the features you list regarding marriage may be true, but ask yourself: why?
As to discrimination, people discriminate all the time. Some discrimination is legal (not to mention a net good, IMO), and some is not. Once again, you beg the question.
You must be logged in to post a comment.