Bill O’Reilly and Andrea Tantaros misconstrue 14th Amendment and “equal protection of the laws”.

[NYcarbineer]

Bullshit.
Gay people can file joint federal income tax statements if they are legally married to someone of the opposite sex.

TA-DAAAAAAAA!

Black people can file joint federal income tax statements if they are legally married to someone of the same race.

Same bullshit, different decade.

Huh? That wasnt even logical. Not remotely. Gays are not Negroes. Keep saying it and maybe its meaning will be clear.

What if the law said everyone can marry anyone of their own Religion, but cannot marry anyone who wasn't of their religion. And people of no religion could only marry someon of no religion.

Everyone would have equal rights, eh?

No they wouldnt. It would discriminate on the basis of religious belief. That is no analagous to today where no one is discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. Show me the place where a person declares his sexual orientation on any form, state or federal.

No they wouldn't using your argument. Everyone would have the same exact right.

 

[Edgetho]

[
So you agree with me that the slippery slope argument is bullshit.

Whatever you say, snowflake.

Now get back to that spread sheet that's a week overdue

 

[rightwinger]

Straight marriage isn't a right then either.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

But they do tend to speak about equal protection of the laws

Kind of covers everything

gays have equal protection under the laws. which laws do not apply to gays?

gay men can marry, gay women can marry.

two man, straight or gay, not a marriage
two women, straight or gay, not a marriage.

When states pass laws that specifically exclude gays they violate the Constitution

Your "Gays can marry people of the opposite sex" is laughable

It was never even brought up in arguments before the Supreme Court...they knew they would be mocked by the judges

so they are also violating the constitution when they pass laws that 4 people cannot marry, or you can't marry your sibling or your parent, right?

your argument always falls apart when you try to take it to the next logical step.

Yea..yea...and you can't marry a sheep

Bigamy is illegal, so is incest.........homosexuality is perfectly legal

 

[The Rabbi]

My point is wrong? What I have stated is factually correct, contrary to you absurd response.


JWK

Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay did not. Thread fail, the end

agree, all of these gay threads run the same course with the same old tired failed arguments from the left. Its a waste of time and typing skills to participate in them.

everybody has the same rights. gay marriage is NOT a right.

BTW. Andrea is HOT. (just trying to stir up the lesbians)

Straight marriage isn't a right then either.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

You don't understand that not everything has to be mentioned specifically in the Constitution. In fact, in the Ninth Amendment, the framers made that clear.

Or the 10th where they said those were powers of the states? Yeah, marriage is a power of the state. Even federal courts have held that. Even the Supreme Court holds that.

Why then were laws against interracial marriage struck down? Those were STATE laws regarding MARRIAGE.

Because they discriminated on the basis of race. But outside of very narrow areas of federal interest states had the power to regulate marriage. That was the holding in Loving.

 

[The Rabbi]

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

But they do tend to speak about equal protection of the laws

Kind of covers everything

gays have equal protection under the laws. which laws do not apply to gays?

gay men can marry, gay women can marry.

two man, straight or gay, not a marriage
two women, straight or gay, not a marriage.

When states pass laws that specifically exclude gays they violate the Constitution

Your "Gays can marry people of the opposite sex" is laughable

It was never even brought up in arguments before the Supreme Court...they knew they would be mocked by the judges

so they are also violating the constitution when they pass laws that 4 people cannot marry, or you can't marry your sibling or your parent, right?

your argument always falls apart when you try to take it to the next logical step.

Yea..yea...and you can't marry a sheep

Bigamy is illegal, so is incest.........homosexuality is perfectly legal

Is there any place here where homosexuality is illegal?

 

[rightwinger]

The 14A does not mention, much less deal with, marriage. So your point is wrong from the start.
And there is no discrimination or lack of equality. All men are free to marry any woman, and vice versa. There is no "hetero test" to get married.

My point is wrong? What I have stated is factually correct, contrary to you absurd response.


JWK

Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay did not. Thread fail, the end

agree, all of these gay threads run the same course with the same old tired failed arguments from the left. Its a waste of time and typing skills to participate in them.

That's OK. Nobody says you have to like it, You just have to do it. Give everybody the same rights.

everybody has the same rights. gay marriage is NOT a right.

BTW. Andrea is HOT. (just trying to stir up the lesbians)

Straight marriage isn't a right then either.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

You don't understand that not everything has to be mentioned specifically in the Constitution. In fact, in the Ninth Amendment, the framers made that clear.

Or the 10th where they said those were powers of the states? Yeah, marriage is a power of the state. Even federal courts have held that. Even the Supreme Court holds that.

And the US Constitution still takes precidence

 

[The Rabbi]

My point is wrong? What I have stated is factually correct, contrary to you absurd response.


JWK

Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay did not. Thread fail, the end

agree, all of these gay threads run the same course with the same old tired failed arguments from the left. Its a waste of time and typing skills to participate in them.

everybody has the same rights. gay marriage is NOT a right.

BTW. Andrea is HOT. (just trying to stir up the lesbians)

Straight marriage isn't a right then either.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

You don't understand that not everything has to be mentioned specifically in the Constitution. In fact, in the Ninth Amendment, the framers made that clear.

Or the 10th where they said those were powers of the states? Yeah, marriage is a power of the state. Even federal courts have held that. Even the Supreme Court holds that.

And the US Constitution still takes precidence

The US COnstitution takes precedence over the US Constitution? Sure thing, Sparky.

 

[kaz]

Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay did not. Thread fail, the end

agree, all of these gay threads run the same course with the same old tired failed arguments from the left. Its a waste of time and typing skills to participate in them.

Straight marriage isn't a right then either.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

You don't understand that not everything has to be mentioned specifically in the Constitution. In fact, in the Ninth Amendment, the framers made that clear.

Or the 10th where they said those were powers of the states? Yeah, marriage is a power of the state. Even federal courts have held that. Even the Supreme Court holds that.

And the US Constitution still takes precidence

The US COnstitution takes precedence over the US Constitution? Sure thing, Sparky.

RW meant that the Constitution even when it doesn't say what he wants it to say takes precedence over what the Constitution actually says when he doesn't want it to day that

 

[The Rabbi]

agree, all of these gay threads run the same course with the same old tired failed arguments from the left. Its a waste of time and typing skills to participate in them.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

You don't understand that not everything has to be mentioned specifically in the Constitution. In fact, in the Ninth Amendment, the framers made that clear.

Or the 10th where they said those were powers of the states? Yeah, marriage is a power of the state. Even federal courts have held that. Even the Supreme Court holds that.

And the US Constitution still takes precidence

The US COnstitution takes precedence over the US Constitution? Sure thing, Sparky.

RW meant that the Constitution even when it doesn't say what he wants it to say takes precedence over what the Constitution actually says when he doesn't want it to day that

I ahree. Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[rightwinger]

Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay did not. Thread fail, the end

agree, all of these gay threads run the same course with the same old tired failed arguments from the left. Its a waste of time and typing skills to participate in them.

Straight marriage isn't a right then either.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

You don't understand that not everything has to be mentioned specifically in the Constitution. In fact, in the Ninth Amendment, the framers made that clear.

Or the 10th where they said those were powers of the states? Yeah, marriage is a power of the state. Even federal courts have held that. Even the Supreme Court holds that.

And the US Constitution still takes precidence

The US COnstitution takes precedence over the US Constitution? Sure thing, Sparky.

Sure as hell takes precidence over States Constitution

You lose

 

[The Rabbi]

agree, all of these gay threads run the same course with the same old tired failed arguments from the left. Its a waste of time and typing skills to participate in them.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

You don't understand that not everything has to be mentioned specifically in the Constitution. In fact, in the Ninth Amendment, the framers made that clear.

Or the 10th where they said those were powers of the states? Yeah, marriage is a power of the state. Even federal courts have held that. Even the Supreme Court holds that.

And the US Constitution still takes precidence

The US COnstitution takes precedence over the US Constitution? Sure thing, Sparky.

Sure as hell takes precidence over States Constitution

You lose

See Kaz's explanation for your barely coherent post. He's right.

 

[Jarhead]

That's OK. Nobody says you have to like it, You just have to do it. Give everybody the same rights.

everybody has the same rights. gay marriage is NOT a right.

BTW. Andrea is HOT. (just trying to stir up the lesbians)

Straight marriage isn't a right then either.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

There is no basis. Marriage and the way one marries should be an individuals decision....I have no issue with heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage, or multiple spouse marriages.

so you are ok with multiple person marriages and filling up our courts with very very complex divorce cases?

can you imagine the divorce of a 5 person marriage where 3 want one person divorced out of the marriage and one wants him/her to stay. multiple kids from multiple couplings, 7 or 8 cars, 401K accounts.

come on, Think

I have no issue with it at all. I will not have to deal with the aggravation as you described above....why should I care if others opt to?

And as for "filling up our courts".....divorces are doing that anyway....whether it is divorcing one, or two or half or whatever, it wont make a difference.

I am a conservative. You wish to make your life more difficult, go for it. Just don't expect me to be there to bail you out. I may opt to bail you out, but don't assume it is a given.

 

[The Rabbi]

everybody has the same rights. gay marriage is NOT a right.

BTW. Andrea is HOT. (just trying to stir up the lesbians)

Straight marriage isn't a right then either.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

There is no basis. Marriage and the way one marries should be an individuals decision....I have no issue with heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage, or multiple spouse marriages.

so you are ok with multiple person marriages and filling up our courts with very very complex divorce cases?

can you imagine the divorce of a 5 person marriage where 3 want one person divorced out of the marriage and one wants him/her to stay. multiple kids from multiple couplings, 7 or 8 cars, 401K accounts.

come on, Think

I have no issue with it at all. I will not have to deal with the aggravation as you described above....why should I care if others opt to?

And as for "filling up our courts".....divorces are doing that anyway....whether it is divorcing one, or two or half or whatever, it wont make a difference.

I am a conservative. You wish to make your life more difficult, go for it. Just don't expect me to be there to bail you out. I may opt to bail you out, but don't assume it is a given.

So your solution to the plethora of divorces s to increase them? I dont get it.
The end game here is not gay marriage. It is not polygamous marriage. It is the destruction of marriage. Once marriage ceases to have a sacred aspect it has none at all. That is the end game.

 

[Jarhead]

Straight marriage isn't a right then either.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

There is no basis. Marriage and the way one marries should be an individuals decision....I have no issue with heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage, or multiple spouse marriages.

so you are ok with multiple person marriages and filling up our courts with very very complex divorce cases?

can you imagine the divorce of a 5 person marriage where 3 want one person divorced out of the marriage and one wants him/her to stay. multiple kids from multiple couplings, 7 or 8 cars, 401K accounts.

come on, Think

I have no issue with it at all. I will not have to deal with the aggravation as you described above....why should I care if others opt to?

And as for "filling up our courts".....divorces are doing that anyway....whether it is divorcing one, or two or half or whatever, it wont make a difference.

I am a conservative. You wish to make your life more difficult, go for it. Just don't expect me to be there to bail you out. I may opt to bail you out, but don't assume it is a given.

So your solution to the plethora of divorces s to increase them? I dont get it.
The end game here is not gay marriage. It is not polygamous marriage. It is the destruction of marriage. Once marriage ceases to have a sacred aspect it has none at all. That is the end game.

huh? That is a flawed argument.

Why would a polygamous marriage INCREASE divorces. It may complicate them for those that are engaged in one....but increase them? I don't see it.

And who said I am seeking a solution for the plethora of divorces? You are a conservative. Why should you care if others are getting divorced at a high rate? I don't. That's their problem.

I have been married for over 30 years to the same beautiful woman....and during our lives together we have witnessed dozens of divorces....yet our marriage has not been affected by it one iota.

 

[Jarhead]

Straight marriage isn't a right then either.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

There is no basis. Marriage and the way one marries should be an individuals decision....I have no issue with heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage, or multiple spouse marriages.

so you are ok with multiple person marriages and filling up our courts with very very complex divorce cases?

can you imagine the divorce of a 5 person marriage where 3 want one person divorced out of the marriage and one wants him/her to stay. multiple kids from multiple couplings, 7 or 8 cars, 401K accounts.

come on, Think

I have no issue with it at all. I will not have to deal with the aggravation as you described above....why should I care if others opt to?

And as for "filling up our courts".....divorces are doing that anyway....whether it is divorcing one, or two or half or whatever, it wont make a difference.

I am a conservative. You wish to make your life more difficult, go for it. Just don't expect me to be there to bail you out. I may opt to bail you out, but don't assume it is a given.

So your solution to the plethora of divorces s to increase them? I dont get it.
The end game here is not gay marriage. It is not polygamous marriage. It is the destruction of marriage. Once marriage ceases to have a sacred aspect it has none at all. That is the end game.

To me, marriage is what my wife and I make of it.

I know one guy that cheats on his wife. Is his marriage, in my eyes, as sacred as mine? No. Does it affect mine? No.

You want to be against gay marriage because it is your religious belief that gay sex is a sin and therefore gay marriage will promote a sin...I get it. I am fine with it. You have the right to wish to protect your religious view of homosexuality.

But to say that someone elses marriage will result in the destruction of the sacredness of marriage...in particular...your marriage....I just don't see it.

Sorry.

 

[kaz]

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

There is no basis. Marriage and the way one marries should be an individuals decision....I have no issue with heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage, or multiple spouse marriages.

so you are ok with multiple person marriages and filling up our courts with very very complex divorce cases?

can you imagine the divorce of a 5 person marriage where 3 want one person divorced out of the marriage and one wants him/her to stay. multiple kids from multiple couplings, 7 or 8 cars, 401K accounts.

come on, Think

I have no issue with it at all. I will not have to deal with the aggravation as you described above....why should I care if others opt to?

And as for "filling up our courts".....divorces are doing that anyway....whether it is divorcing one, or two or half or whatever, it wont make a difference.

I am a conservative. You wish to make your life more difficult, go for it. Just don't expect me to be there to bail you out. I may opt to bail you out, but don't assume it is a given.

So your solution to the plethora of divorces s to increase them? I dont get it.
The end game here is not gay marriage. It is not polygamous marriage. It is the destruction of marriage. Once marriage ceases to have a sacred aspect it has none at all. That is the end game.

To me, marriage is what my wife and I make of it.

I know one guy that cheats on his wife. Is his marriage, in my eyes, as sacred as mine? No. Does it affect mine? No.

You want to be against gay marriage because it is your religious belief that gay sex is a sin and therefore gay marriage will promote a sin...I get it. I am fine with it. You have the right to wish to protect your religious view of homosexuality.

But to say that someone elses marriage will result in the destruction of the sacredness of marriage...in particular...your marriage....I just don't see it.

Sorry.

What if someone thinks the point of government marriage is encouraging children be born in wedlock? We only have so much tax money, why spend a bunch of it having gay marriage?

 

[Jarhead]

There is no basis. Marriage and the way one marries should be an individuals decision....I have no issue with heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage, or multiple spouse marriages.

so you are ok with multiple person marriages and filling up our courts with very very complex divorce cases?

can you imagine the divorce of a 5 person marriage where 3 want one person divorced out of the marriage and one wants him/her to stay. multiple kids from multiple couplings, 7 or 8 cars, 401K accounts.

come on, Think

I have no issue with it at all. I will not have to deal with the aggravation as you described above....why should I care if others opt to?

And as for "filling up our courts".....divorces are doing that anyway....whether it is divorcing one, or two or half or whatever, it wont make a difference.

I am a conservative. You wish to make your life more difficult, go for it. Just don't expect me to be there to bail you out. I may opt to bail you out, but don't assume it is a given.

So your solution to the plethora of divorces s to increase them? I dont get it.
The end game here is not gay marriage. It is not polygamous marriage. It is the destruction of marriage. Once marriage ceases to have a sacred aspect it has none at all. That is the end game.

To me, marriage is what my wife and I make of it.

I know one guy that cheats on his wife. Is his marriage, in my eyes, as sacred as mine? No. Does it affect mine? No.

You want to be against gay marriage because it is your religious belief that gay sex is a sin and therefore gay marriage will promote a sin...I get it. I am fine with it. You have the right to wish to protect your religious view of homosexuality.

But to say that someone elses marriage will result in the destruction of the sacredness of marriage...in particular...your marriage....I just don't see it.

Sorry.

What if someone thinks the point of government marriage is encouraging children be born in wedlock? We only have so much tax money, why spend a bunch of it having gay marriage?

I would remind that person the government should not be promoting anything as it pertains to what we wish to do...and there is no point of government marriage.

 

[kaz]

so you are ok with multiple person marriages and filling up our courts with very very complex divorce cases?

can you imagine the divorce of a 5 person marriage where 3 want one person divorced out of the marriage and one wants him/her to stay. multiple kids from multiple couplings, 7 or 8 cars, 401K accounts.

come on, Think

I have no issue with it at all. I will not have to deal with the aggravation as you described above....why should I care if others opt to?

And as for "filling up our courts".....divorces are doing that anyway....whether it is divorcing one, or two or half or whatever, it wont make a difference.

I am a conservative. You wish to make your life more difficult, go for it. Just don't expect me to be there to bail you out. I may opt to bail you out, but don't assume it is a given.

So your solution to the plethora of divorces s to increase them? I dont get it.
The end game here is not gay marriage. It is not polygamous marriage. It is the destruction of marriage. Once marriage ceases to have a sacred aspect it has none at all. That is the end game.

To me, marriage is what my wife and I make of it.

I know one guy that cheats on his wife. Is his marriage, in my eyes, as sacred as mine? No. Does it affect mine? No.

You want to be against gay marriage because it is your religious belief that gay sex is a sin and therefore gay marriage will promote a sin...I get it. I am fine with it. You have the right to wish to protect your religious view of homosexuality.

But to say that someone elses marriage will result in the destruction of the sacredness of marriage...in particular...your marriage....I just don't see it.

Sorry.

What if someone thinks the point of government marriage is encouraging children be born in wedlock? We only have so much tax money, why spend a bunch of it having gay marriage?

I would remind that person the government should not be promoting anything as it pertains to what we wish to do...and there is no point of government marriage.

I agree, there is no purpose in government marriage. There is a better solution for everything it supposedly solves. You're just arguing against being against gay marriage specifically because someone thinks it undermines their marriage? If so, I agree with you on that

 

[Jarhead]

I have no issue with it at all. I will not have to deal with the aggravation as you described above....why should I care if others opt to?

And as for "filling up our courts".....divorces are doing that anyway....whether it is divorcing one, or two or half or whatever, it wont make a difference.

I am a conservative. You wish to make your life more difficult, go for it. Just don't expect me to be there to bail you out. I may opt to bail you out, but don't assume it is a given.

So your solution to the plethora of divorces s to increase them? I dont get it.
The end game here is not gay marriage. It is not polygamous marriage. It is the destruction of marriage. Once marriage ceases to have a sacred aspect it has none at all. That is the end game.

To me, marriage is what my wife and I make of it.

I know one guy that cheats on his wife. Is his marriage, in my eyes, as sacred as mine? No. Does it affect mine? No.

You want to be against gay marriage because it is your religious belief that gay sex is a sin and therefore gay marriage will promote a sin...I get it. I am fine with it. You have the right to wish to protect your religious view of homosexuality.

But to say that someone elses marriage will result in the destruction of the sacredness of marriage...in particular...your marriage....I just don't see it.

Sorry.

What if someone thinks the point of government marriage is encouraging children be born in wedlock? We only have so much tax money, why spend a bunch of it having gay marriage?

I would remind that person the government should not be promoting anything as it pertains to what we wish to do...and there is no point of government marriage.

I agree, there is no purpose in government marriage. There is a better solution for everything it supposedly solves. You're just arguing against being against gay marriage specifically because someone thinks it undermines their marriage? If so, I agree with you on that

Exactly how I feel. Argue that it is against your religious beliefs, I am OK with that. I may not feel the same, but I can not say your religious beliefs are wrong. Argue that it undermines your marriage, I will tell you that your marriage has more serious issues if you feel that way.

 

[rightwinger]

There is no basis. Marriage and the way one marries should be an individuals decision....I have no issue with heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage, or multiple spouse marriages.

so you are ok with multiple person marriages and filling up our courts with very very complex divorce cases?

can you imagine the divorce of a 5 person marriage where 3 want one person divorced out of the marriage and one wants him/her to stay. multiple kids from multiple couplings, 7 or 8 cars, 401K accounts.

come on, Think

I have no issue with it at all. I will not have to deal with the aggravation as you described above....why should I care if others opt to?

And as for "filling up our courts".....divorces are doing that anyway....whether it is divorcing one, or two or half or whatever, it wont make a difference.

I am a conservative. You wish to make your life more difficult, go for it. Just don't expect me to be there to bail you out. I may opt to bail you out, but don't assume it is a given.

So your solution to the plethora of divorces s to increase them? I dont get it.
The end game here is not gay marriage. It is not polygamous marriage. It is the destruction of marriage. Once marriage ceases to have a sacred aspect it has none at all. That is the end game.

To me, marriage is what my wife and I make of it.

I know one guy that cheats on his wife. Is his marriage, in my eyes, as sacred as mine? No. Does it affect mine? No.

You want to be against gay marriage because it is your religious belief that gay sex is a sin and therefore gay marriage will promote a sin...I get it. I am fine with it. You have the right to wish to protect your religious view of homosexuality.

But to say that someone elses marriage will result in the destruction of the sacredness of marriage...in particular...your marriage....I just don't see it.

Sorry.

What if someone thinks the point of government marriage is encouraging children be born in wedlock? We only have so much tax money, why spend a bunch of it having gay marriage?

How does gays being married affect your tax money?