- Moderator
- #81
They have equal protection before the law. They are entitled to marry with the same constraints and benefits as everyone else.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I didn't have to. It's had the same definition for thousands of years.
Same RELIGIOUS definition. I will of course remind you that the government isn't supposed to favor any one religion.
I hate to break this to you but it's had a legal definition for thousands of years too. otherwise iet would be impossible to do any sort of marital law.
They have equal protection before the law. They are entitled to marry with the same constraints and benefits as everyone else.
Same RELIGIOUS definition. I will of course remind you that the government isn't supposed to favor any one religion.
I hate to break this to you but it's had a legal definition for thousands of years too. otherwise iet would be impossible to do any sort of marital law.
And indeed there should be no marital law. What business is it of the governments if I just live with a woman or marry her? Or if Warrior just lives with a guy rather than marries him?
They have equal protection before the law. They are entitled to marry with the same constraints and benefits as everyone else.
Same RELIGIOUS definition. I will of course remind you that the government isn't supposed to favor any one religion.
I hate to break this to you but it's had a legal definition for thousands of years too. otherwise iet would be impossible to do any sort of marital law.
"We've always discriminated against people we don't like" is not a valid legal defense.
Same RELIGIOUS definition. I will of course remind you that the government isn't supposed to favor any one religion.
I hate to break this to you but it's had a legal definition for thousands of years too. otherwise iet would be impossible to do any sort of marital law.
And indeed there should be no marital law. What business is it of the governments if I just live with a woman or marry her? Or if Warrior just lives with a guy rather than marries him?
They have equal protection before the law. They are entitled to marry with the same constraints and benefits as everyone else.
How can you just flat out lie like that? You can't possibly have a straight face (no pun intended).
See my signature. Click on the link.
Thanks for looking out for the gays.
They need your support
don't worry, retards are next on my list.
hang in there, help is on the way.
Appreciate it.
Is there a Catholic relief post soon too? If so, sign me up for your wisdom on that topic as well.
Thanks.
I hate to break this to you but it's had a legal definition for thousands of years too. otherwise iet would be impossible to do any sort of marital law.
And indeed there should be no marital law. What business is it of the governments if I just live with a woman or marry her? Or if Warrior just lives with a guy rather than marries him?
Click on the link in my signature and see if our society could function without those cash and prizes established in law for married people.
Read and think carefully before you just blow it off.
Think about inheritance laws. Why should some "wife" or "husband" get all your stuff after you die if they have no legal claim to it?
They have equal protection before the law. They are entitled to marry with the same constraints and benefits as everyone else.
How can you just flat out lie like that? You can't possibly have a straight face (no pun intended).
See my signature. Click on the link.
Easy. I didn't lie. I've demonstrated that multiple times in this thread alone. You're unwillingness to listen to any opinion other than your own does not indicate any sort of deceitful intent in me.
How can you just flat out lie like that? You can't possibly have a straight face (no pun intended).
See my signature. Click on the link.
Easy. I didn't lie. I've demonstrated that multiple times in this thread alone. You're unwillingness to listen to any opinion other than your own does not indicate any sort of deceitful intent in me.
I have posted several times in this topic that same-sex marriages do not get the same benefits from the state and federal governments as opposite-sex marriages do, and pointed to the authoritative evidence.
To then just ignore the evidence and blithely state they do is to lie.
Easy. I didn't lie. I've demonstrated that multiple times in this thread alone. You're unwillingness to listen to any opinion other than your own does not indicate any sort of deceitful intent in me.
I have posted several times in this topic that same-sex marriages do not get the same benefits from the state and federal governments as opposite-sex marriages do, and pointed to the authoritative evidence.
To then just ignore the evidence and blithely state they do is to lie.
Come on, he isn't lying. He's simply of the opinion that gays being able to marry someone of the opposite sex just like a hetero can means they have the same right. It's a difference of opinion, not a lie.
The Judge made this a PUBLIC issue. CAMPAIGNING from the bench should be discouraged.Only in your case, miskeit.
i've been married 29 years and my youngest child turned 18 yesterday
keep swinging rebbe nebbish
Sounds like forcing her to perform these duties compromises her values, good for him for staying true to his personal belief system.
eta: changed pronoun, i too wrote he.
I'm pretty sure that was an argument many used to justify Jim Crow laws, too.I hate to break this to you but it's had a legal definition for thousands of years too. otherwise iet would be impossible to do any sort of marital law.
"We've always discriminated against people we don't like" is not a valid legal defense.
There is no discrimination because the law applies to everyone the same way.
He's paid to perform that service.
He should be reprimanded for not doing his job.
blithering on about the fine line of rights and privileges is horseshit, it's part of his job.
he's a she.
if you could read, you'd note that performing marriages are not something she is required nor paid to do.
keep swinging
He's paid to perform that service.
He should be reprimanded for not doing his job.
blithering on about the fine line of rights and privileges is horseshit, it's part of his job.
he's a she.
if you could read, you'd note that performing marriages are not something she is required nor paid to do.
keep swinging
Being a JUDGE is NOT a private business. The example of the pharmacy concerned no tax payer funded work.Sounds like forcing to him to perform these duties compromises his values, good for him for staying true to his personal belief system.