A Simple Question For Those Still Opposed to Same Sex Marriage

[Jarlaxle]

I’m sure that’s true.

Anathema posted that he buys cheap televisions because he throws heavy objects through the screen.

Froot loop and violent. Nasty and dangerous combination.

Lost another one last night, actually. If people would just smarten up and do things my way it would be so much easier on everyone.

Hey, it isn't our fault your football team sucks rocks, dude. Maybe they should have tried to trade for Jimmy G. Your way sucks, try The Patriots Way.

 

[Rambunctious]

Will you please take your fag issues and shove em. The world does not revolve around your sexual predilections. Sickening.

You have to understand that the OP has an ulterior motive for starting this thread.

View attachment 163949

Coming from the author of scores of threads attacking gays and gay marriage- lol

You got me all wrong...LOL I just have had a gut full of it. Get your sex life out of my face...that's all nothing other than that.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Since we KNOW there are conflicts in beliefs, this is why it may be better
to set up Benefits and terms of marriage by Party, to manage collectively
for Members of the same beliefs. And keep the government's authority reserved for just NEUTRAL financial and legal partnerships, which do not specify social relationships.
(Again, "civil unions and domestic partnerships" could be agreed upon as neutral,
while keeping terms of "marriage" and "social benefits" separate by party membership
to prevent people from imposing or infringing on each other's conflicting beliefs.)

The govt could then enforce agreed contracts on
guardianship, custody, estates, medical directives, and other legal arrangements
while remaining VOID of references to marriage or social beliefs where people don't agree.

More gibberish. We have been all through this before. You are advocation for parallel systems and a neutral government to somehow accommodate everyone, Beyond absurd!

You actually read that stuff?

I have tried a few times- and actually challenged her to right a succinct post.

She can't- I won't bother to try to decode her posts.

It was hard, but I took the challenge knowing that she's a crackpot. It has now been almost a day and no response. I don't expect anything but more of the same .

 

[Boss]

To me, Jack is the key

Unless he has given up his parental rights, He gets to decide what happens to the children

NO! Here is the key: What is in the best interest of the child! PERIOD, END OF DEBATE!

No one OWNS the children!

Yes they do

The biological parents own the children and get to decide what is best for them

In this case, the non-custodial parent would be next in line to decide what is best for the child BEFORE a new spouse would

No they don't. People are not property (see 13th Amendment). Children are taken from their biological parents every single day.

 

[Pop23]

I have a simple question for those who oppose same sex marriage on the grounds that it is detrimental to children - which will come at the end of this post. But first allow me to present a senerio that is quite common.

The setting: A time and place where same sex marriage is not possible and only married couples can adopt .

The people: Kathy is a 29 year old divorced woman with two year old twins- a boy named Brandon and a girl named Britany . After the birth of the children, the husband , Jack, became abusive and angry which resulted in Kathy filing for divorce. Jack, over the last year and a half has had minimal contact with the children by his choice, and has had to be hauled into court several time for not paying child support

Kathy has always felt that she was more attracted to women than men but has supppressed those feelings because of taboos and social pressures, and wanting to avoid disapproval of friends and family . However, public opinion and social norms are changing and she is ready to embrace her feelings, be who she really is, and come out as a Lesbian.

Soon after her divorce, Kathy meets Angela, a Lesbian and they hit it off. The children like her and she is crazy about them. Within 6 months Angela moves in with Kathy in the home that Kathy owns exclusivly as a result of the divorce settlement. In time, it becomes clear that the children are bonding with Angela and she is very involved witgh them

A few years go by, the children are now in school and doing well. They are clearly well adjusted and have many friends. Then the unthinkable happens. Kathy is killed in an auto accident. Social Services at the hospital notifies Child Protective Services (CPS) that there are children living with an unrelated person who is not their legal guardian and investigates. The first thing that they do is to contact the father who has moved some distance away and is with another woman. They find out that the woman does not want kids and the father's interest is tempid at best. They consider charging him with abandonment but determine that placing the children with him might be putting them at risk of abuse or neglect because of the attiudes of the father and his girlfriend.

The next step is for CPS is to explore relatives on both sided of the family who might be able and willing to take the children but Kathy had not been close with any of them some austricized her for living with a woman. None are interested in taking in the children.

Meanwhile, Angela and the children are understanably devistated by the loss of Kathy . Compounding the grief is childrens fear that they will be taken away from Angela and sent off to live with people who they don't know, and away from their friends and school. And of course Angela is fearful of loosing the children.

To be sure CPS could reccomend to the court that Angela be given custody but there is no guarantee that they will, or that the court would follow that reccomendation. And, if a relitive later came forward and asked to be considered as the guardian, or if the father objected, Angela could loose custody at any time. It is also plausable that CPS would reccomend placement into foster care. Remember, Angela has no rights!!

Now one might say that children have rights, and these children are old enough- now 7- so express their wishes. However, that does not mean that their rights and wishes will be respected by the legal system and the adults who have power over them. The court might order a best interest analysis which would include a lengthy process of evaluating the degree of bonding between Angela and the children . But even if resolved in their favor, they will have already suffered unnecessary trauma and will bear those scars for the rest of their lives.

Of course, all of this could have been avoided if Kathy and Angela could have been married so that Angela could adopt the children as a second parent.

So now, my question is : Can anyone say that the best interest of Brandon and Britany were served in a system where Kathy and Angela COULD NOT GET MARRIED? Yes or No and why

Will you please take your fag issues and shove em. The world does not revolve around your sexual predilections. Sickening.

Single minded morons with a sick sexual fetish should not call others stupid.

"Single minded""

The fact that you presume to know something about my sexuality based on my politics is more than enough to confirm my assessment of you,

Of course we will have to take you’re word for it. For all we know you’re closteded. There is no DNA test for homosexuality after all, and it appears you spend an incredible amount of time on the subject.

 

[Boss]

To me, Jack is the key

Unless he has given up his parental rights, He gets to decide what happens to the children

NO! Here is the key: What is in the best interest of the child! PERIOD, END OF DEBATE!

No one OWNS the children!

Yes they do

The biological parents own the children and get to decide what is best for them

In this case, the non-custodial parent would be next in line to decide what is best for the child BEFORE a new spouse would

They have parental rights. You can't own a human being , not even when they are your offspring. Ownership of a human being was over with the civil war.

That being said, parental right- like all rights are not absolute . You must exercise those rights responsibly and within certain limits.

In this case, the father was a jackass who could care less about the children. He refused to take them in after their mothers death, was negligent in paying support, and did not visit with them much. The right decision would be to terminate his parental rights if he does not surrender them voluntarily in favor of Ange so that she can adopt them. Had the women been married, and this been done before the mothers death, the children would not be in danger of becoming wards of the state.

While they may be allowed to stay with Angela, a biased CPS official might not make that recommendation, and/ or a bigoted judge might not make the right decision.

"Marriage" would have nothing to do with anything. CPS would recommend and a court would order based on ONE criteria alone... WHAT. IS. BEST. FOR. THE. CHILD. PERIOD!

This has nothing to do with marital contracts or even parental rights. Consideration would weigh heavily on where the child resided, where is "home?" If the child is old enough, (usually 12 or older), consideration may be weighted toward what the child prefers. Consideration may also be made on the basis of who could best provide for the child but this consideration doesn't take precedent unless there is a compelling reason.

Again, there is no "guarantee in all cases" when it comes to custody of a child. The two of you are lobbying for that to be made the case and it is absolutely deplorable. What is in the best interest of the child should ALWAYS be the sole guarantee.

 

[BlackSand]

Simple answer ... Marriage (same sex or otherwise) shouldn't be any of the government's business in the first place.

If straight people want to be upset about same sex marriage laws ...
Or if homosexuals want to be upset about inequality under the law ...

... You ignorant twats shouldn't have ever left it up to the government to start with ...

.

 

[WinterBorn]

Simple answer ... Marriage (same sex or otherwise) shouldn't be any of the government's business in the first place.

If straight people want to be upset about same sex marriage laws ...
Or if homosexuals want to be upset about inequality under the law ...

... You ignorant twats shouldn't have ever left it up to the government to start with ...

.

THIS!!!! Why do we ask for gov't permission (and pay them for it) to marry?

 

[Boss]

The government out of marriage meme intended to avoid the marriage issue and that nobody has ever been able to explain how it would actually work in the real world .

Here's how it would work... Regarding any situation where we currently discern based on marriage, (contracts, insurance, inheritance, taxation, visitation, etc.) the distinction would be replaced by recognition of civil unions instead of marriage. It's not a "back seat of the bus" argument because everyone would be subject to the same criteria going forward. There would be no inequality. You are simply removing "marriage" from official sanction of government. This actually benefits gay couples as well as people in platonic relationships or unique arrangements where sexuality is not a factor. There are many domestic partners who are not sexual and maintain a partnership for convenience. Civil unions would allow them to enjoy the same benefits currently "married" couples now enjoy and there would be no presupposition regarding sexuality or sexual behavior.

Personally, I don't believe there should be any governmental advantage or benefit for "married" couples or any other domestic partnership. Taxes should be the same for all. That said, there are instances where legal instruments require such distinction and there is no reason this couldn't be transitioned to civil union partnerships from traditional marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

Personally, I don't believe there should be any governmental advantage or benefit for "married" couples or any other domestic partnership. Taxes should be the same for all. That said, there are instances where legal instruments require such distinction and there is no reason this couldn't be transitioned to civil union partnerships from traditional marriage.

The reasons states used to give benefits to men and women to marry was to secure the best possible child-raising environment for their future citizens. For them the money (and the studies behind it) made sense. States knew and know that a father/mother home for at least the duration until the children are emancipated was the best possible home to whelp future citizens that are productive, less depressed, less addicted, better educated...the list goes on and on...Banishment from this vital home-cocktail is Machiavellian.

Now states are forced to pay for contracts that do the exact opposite of that: banish children from either a mother or father for life. Why this was not discussed at Obergefell is an insidious mystery since many lawyers knew this would be the case, and stayed silent about it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The government out of marriage meme intended to avoid the marriage issue and that nobody has ever been able to explain how it would actually work in the real world .

Here's how it would work... Regarding any situation where we currently discern based on marriage, (contracts, insurance, inheritance, taxation, visitation, etc.) the distinction would be replaced by recognition of civil unions instead of marriage. It's not a "back seat of the bus" argument because everyone would be subject to the same criteria going forward. There would be no inequality. You are simply removing "marriage" from official sanction of government. This actually benefits gay couples as well as people in platonic relationships or unique arrangements where sexuality is not a factor. There are many domestic partners who are not sexual and maintain a partnership for convenience. Civil unions would allow them to enjoy the same benefits currently "married" couples now enjoy and there would be no presupposition regarding sexuality or sexual behavior.

Personally, I don't believe there should be any governmental advantage or benefit for "married" couples or any other domestic partnership. Taxes should be the same for all. That said, there are instances where legal instruments require such distinction and there is no reason this couldn't be transitioned to civil union partnerships from traditional marriage.

Sure Bossman, destroy marriage for absolutely no good reason other than because a few bigots and anti government fanatics don’t like it . Here is an interesting piece that will shed some light on the subject.


Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/can-government-get-out-of-the-marriage-business/


Selected excerpts with notations where needed:

In the debate last night, Ron Paul noted his position on marriage as follows:

get the government out of it. Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.

The Church? Really? Where does that leave people who are not religious or who just do not want to get married in a church? Will we then be discriminating against those people on the basis of religion? What are the implications for government benefits and the government’s role in mediating divorces? . Shall that be left too Jewish, Sharia or Cannon law? Not very well thought out.

Here’s the deal: much of the significance of marriage is very much linked to civil-legal matters in a way that makes it impossible for government to extricate itself from its definition. Marriage is many things that have nothing to do with government such as romance, love, friendship, lifelong companionship, and even sacred bonds. There is little doubt that those things can all be achieved without the government being involved (as is the case with friendship, for example).

However, marriage is also about certain mutual legal obligations regarding property, finances, children and whatnot, about which governmental intervention is sometimes necessary to resolve disputes (as is the case with any contractual relationship). Further, marriage diminishes legal complexity in a variety issues (children, death [i.e., funeral arrangements], hospital visitations, medical decisions, etc.).

Now, we could utterly remove marriage as a legal institution, but then we would have to replace it with something else, and that something else would almost certainly be more cumbersome in terms of government entanglements that the current system.

To put it as simply as possible: for government to truly get out of the marriage business it would have to stop recognizing the spousal relationship as having special legal standing.

This is because to recognize that relationship as having specific legal significances it would need a definition of “marriage” that could be held up to legal scrutiny (to, for example, stop people from arbitrarily claiming whatever privileges might exist for married couples). Such a stand would have to exist whether the government issued the licenses or not. Once the law has to define “marriage” then government is, by definition, in the “marriage business.”

To summarize the summary: the only way to truly get government out of the marriage business would be to reduce marriage to the same status of friendship, i.e., a social relationship utterly defined by private interactions and that lacks legal significance.

 

[Silhouette]

Sure Bossman, destroy marriage for absolutely no good reason other than because a few bigots and anti government fanatics don’t like it .

Well the states no longer get what they pay for. The states paid benefits to men and women to marry to get fathers and mothers stabilized in children's lives to produce the best citizens who are not statistically prone to drug abuse, depression,crime, indigence and filling the prisons. Hundreds if not thousands of studies show boys without fathers or girls without mothers grow up disadvantaged & susceptible...no matter how many imposters try to fill those rolls.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Personally, I don't believe there should be any governmental advantage or benefit for "married" couples or any other domestic partnership. Taxes should be the same for all. That said, there are instances where legal instruments require such distinction and there is no reason this couldn't be transitioned to civil union partnerships from traditional marriage.

The reasons states used to give benefits to men and women to marry was to secure the best possible child-raising environment for their future citizens. For them the money (and the studies behind it) made sense. States knew and know that a father/mother home for at least the duration until the children are emancipated was the best possible home to whelp future citizens that are productive, less depressed, less addicted, better educated...the list goes on and on...Banishment from this vital home-cocktail is Machiavellian.

Now states are forced to pay for contracts that do the exact opposite of that: banish children from either a mother or father for life. Why this was not discussed at Obergefell is an insidious mystery since many lawyers knew this would be the case, and stayed silent about it.

States do not pay anybody to get married. Marriage allows couple to file a joint state and federal return and may be able to reduce their tax liability -but no guarantee. PEOPLE are given a credit for children regardless of whether those children are cared for by a straight couple , a gay couple or a single person.

And you are still blathering senselessly about what children need while still not providing ant evidence from a credible source

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Hundreds if not thousands of studies show boys without fathers or girls without mothers grow up disadvantaged & susceptible...no matter how many imposters try to fill those rolls.

Let see a study that compares children from a single parent home with those from a same sex couple home. Then lets see one that rates the well being of children in two parent homes while controlling for same sex parents as an intervening variable.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Well the states no longer get what they pay for. The states paid benefits to men and women to marry to get fathers and mothers stabilized in children's lives to produce the best citizens who are not statistically prone to drug abuse, depression,crime, indigence and filling the prisons. Hundreds if not thousands of studies show boys without fathers or girls without mothers grow up disadvantaged & susceptible...no matter how many imposters try to fill those rolls.

It's not just that boys need fathers and girls need mothers. All children need both parents—a father and a mother. As a boy, I needed my father to show me how to be a man, and I needed my mother to show me what to expect in a woman. I needed both of them to show me how a marriage works, so that I can know how to relate to my own wife and my own marriage.

Even among children who grow up in less-than-ideal settings, the vast majority are going to grow up to be hetersexual; they are going to want to marry, and they are going to want to raise a family. Being raised in a proper family, with a father and a mother who are married to each other, and who treat their marriage and their relationship with the sacredness that is deserves, is essential to knowing how to go about it.

Children who are deprived either of a father or of a mother are at a significant disadvantage, as are children whose parents fail to fulfill their marital responsibilities toward one another.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Personally, I don't believe there should be any governmental advantage or benefit for "married" couples or any other domestic partnership. Taxes should be the same for all. That said, there are instances where legal instruments require such distinction and there is no reason this couldn't be transitioned to civil union partnerships from traditional marriage.

The reasons states used to give benefits to men and women to marry was to secure the best possible child-raising environment for their future citizens. For them the money (and the studies behind it) made sense. States knew and know that a father/mother home for at least the duration until the children are emancipated was the best possible home to whelp future citizens that are productive, less depressed, less addicted, better educated...the list goes on and on...Banishment from this vital home-cocktail is Machiavellian.

Now states are forced to pay for contracts that do the exact opposite of that: banish children from either a mother or father for life. Why this was not discussed at Obergefell is an insidious mystery since many lawyers knew this would be the case, and stayed silent about it.

124 Words From Justice Kennedy's Majority Opinion On Marriage To Remember Forever

Today's 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges will likely be studies by legal scholars for centuries. The crazed rantings of Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia notwithstanding, the decision is a fascinating read.

Here is just one passage:

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See,
e.g., Pierce
v.
Society of Sisters
, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and pre-dictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See

Windsor
,

supra,
at ___. This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.

Now shut the hell up about children and how much you care about them.!!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Personally, I don't believe there should be any governmental advantage or benefit for "married" couples or any other domestic partnership. Taxes should be the same for all. That said, there are instances where legal instruments require such distinction and there is no reason this couldn't be transitioned to civil union partnerships from traditional marriage.

The reasons states used to give benefits to men and women to marry was to secure the best possible child-raising environment for their future citizens. For them the money (and the studies behind it) made sense. States knew and know that a father/mother home for at least the duration until the children are emancipated was the best possible home to whelp future citizens that are productive, less depressed, less addicted, better educated...the list goes on and on...Banishment from this vital home-cocktail is Machiavellian.

Now states are forced to pay for contracts that do the exact opposite of that: banish children from either a mother or father for life. Why this was not discussed at Obergefell is an insidious mystery since many lawyers knew this would be the case, and stayed silent about it.

U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, §
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

OHIO CONST. art. XV, § 11 Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage

See the problem?? Here is more from the brief

The Petitioners, their children, and many like them have waited too long already. Ohio widowers James Obergefell and David Michener ran out of time when death took their spouses. The infants born to the Henry-Rogers, Yorksmith, and NoeMcCracken families could not wait to arrive in this world until a majority voted that their parents‘ marriages would be honored. And Adopted Baby Doe could not wait for a home until a majority of Ohioans chose to recognize the marriage of his New York adoptive fathers. No more children should be demeaned by states like Ohio; no more loving spouses should die without the dignity that accompanies respect for their marriages, while the democratic process grinds its slow way towards justice. Following in the path of U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Windsor , which held that guarantees of liberty and equality prohibit the federal government from demeaning the dignity and integrity of the families of married same-sex spouses, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2695-96 (2013), this Court should declare the Ohio bans on marriage recognition unconstitutional.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes the Justices were unaware at the time of the Infancy Doctrine and its prohibitions on contracts that adults implicitly share with children. So, with ignorance abounding, they found for Obergefell. That will be overturned on any of a host of fundamental flaws. Enjoy forced-gay marriage on states while it lasts. If I were a gay person looking to get "legally married", I'd still do so only in a state that originally enacted it in the first place. I wouldn't do it in California for example, where gay marriage is still not legal in their Constitution to this day.

So I'll repeat this warning to you: Your lawyers have to demonstrate and get written into judicial-legislation (ahem) that fathers and mothers are not psychological necessities to children, or face defeat via the Infancy Doctrine. You CERTAINLY cannot argue with a straight face that marriage isn't a contract, or "isn't a contract that implicitly anticipates children". Your best bet is to argue that fathers and mothers aren't important psychological necessities to children. That's the only area where you could potentially find a micron of wiggle room to do your creative false-premise style arguing.

 

[Boss]

The government out of marriage meme intended to avoid the marriage issue and that nobody has ever been able to explain how it would actually work in the real world .

Here's how it would work... Regarding any situation where we currently discern based on marriage, (contracts, insurance, inheritance, taxation, visitation, etc.) the distinction would be replaced by recognition of civil unions instead of marriage. It's not a "back seat of the bus" argument because everyone would be subject to the same criteria going forward. There would be no inequality. You are simply removing "marriage" from official sanction of government. This actually benefits gay couples as well as people in platonic relationships or unique arrangements where sexuality is not a factor. There are many domestic partners who are not sexual and maintain a partnership for convenience. Civil unions would allow them to enjoy the same benefits currently "married" couples now enjoy and there would be no presupposition regarding sexuality or sexual behavior.

Personally, I don't believe there should be any governmental advantage or benefit for "married" couples or any other domestic partnership. Taxes should be the same for all. That said, there are instances where legal instruments require such distinction and there is no reason this couldn't be transitioned to civil union partnerships from traditional marriage.

Sure Bossman, destroy marriage for absolutely no good reason other than because a few bigots and anti government fanatics don’t like it . Here is an interesting piece that will shed some light on the subject.


Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/can-government-get-out-of-the-marriage-business/


Selected excerpts with notations where needed:

In the debate last night, Ron Paul noted his position on marriage as follows:

get the government out of it. Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.

The Church? Really? Where does that leave people who are not religious or who just do not want to get married in a church? Will we then be discriminating against those people on the basis of religion? What are the implications for government benefits and the government’s role in mediating divorces? . Shall that be left too Jewish, Sharia or Cannon law? Not very well thought out.

Here’s the deal: much of the significance of marriage is very much linked to civil-legal matters in a way that makes it impossible for government to extricate itself from its definition. Marriage is many things that have nothing to do with government such as romance, love, friendship, lifelong companionship, and even sacred bonds. There is little doubt that those things can all be achieved without the government being involved (as is the case with friendship, for example).

However, marriage is also about certain mutual legal obligations regarding property, finances, children and whatnot, about which governmental intervention is sometimes necessary to resolve disputes (as is the case with any contractual relationship). Further, marriage diminishes legal complexity in a variety issues (children, death [i.e., funeral arrangements], hospital visitations, medical decisions, etc.).

Now, we could utterly remove marriage as a legal institution, but then we would have to replace it with something else, and that something else would almost certainly be more cumbersome in terms of government entanglements that the current system.

To put it as simply as possible: for government to truly get out of the marriage business it would have to stop recognizing the spousal relationship as having special legal standing.

This is because to recognize that relationship as having specific legal significances it would need a definition of “marriage” that could be held up to legal scrutiny (to, for example, stop people from arbitrarily claiming whatever privileges might exist for married couples). Such a stand would have to exist whether the government issued the licenses or not. Once the law has to define “marriage” then government is, by definition, in the “marriage business.”

To summarize the summary: the only way to truly get government out of the marriage business would be to reduce marriage to the same status of friendship, i.e., a social relationship utterly defined by private interactions and that lacks legal significance.

No. It's YOU who wants to destroy marriage and you want to use the power of government to do it. I am in favor of individual liberty and allowing marriage to be defined by the individual and their clergy. I believe marriage is an important cornerstone to civilized society and family structure and this is what Socialists such as yourself seek to destroy through power of the state over the individual.

What you fail to understand (or maybe you do understand) is that when you cede this authority to the government, they can determine whatever parameters they deem best and you have no control over that. So, in the future, they may determine marriage is only suitable for heterosexuals, or white people with blond hair and blue eyes, or Christians, or maybe "marriage" can include pedophiles and necrophiliacs? You've ceded that power to the government and it no longer belongs to you, the individual.

As I said, there is no reason we couldn't simply replace "marriage" with civil union contracts, with regard to governmental recognition. This would return "marriage" to the individual and remove it from government sanction forever. That is the only position that guarantees individual liberty. But you don't give one solitary shit about individual liberty OR gay rights... this is about government power over the people, because you're a Socialist.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So, in the future, they may determine marriage is only suitable for heterosexuals, or white people with blond hair and blue eyes, or Christians, or maybe "marriage" can include pedophiles and necrophiliacs?

And there in lies the problem. I will sooner trust the government and the constitution to guard against these extremes that the crazy fuckers out there who actually believe this shit