Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[Syriusly]

there really is no argument against same sex marriage except that one might find it disgusting.
I find fish to be a disgusting choice for a meal, however I am not going to try and make it illegal.

Correct, but we might want to know all the ramifications.

We can never know all the ramifications of anything that happens. You're literally citing impossibility as your standard.

Um, no thank you. You're being unreasonable.

But I gave you an example of something that could happen hundreds of times a day, you argue against them but can't come up with a single reason to deny the access?

Yet nothing you've ever predicted has happened once. There's no sibling same sex marriage. There's no polgamy as a consequence of same sex marriage. Despite same sex marriage having been legal in this country for up to 10 years.

How do you reconcile your impossible standard of 'knowing all ramifications' with your perfect record of predictive failure?

.......and twenty years ago the same argument was made about gay marriage.

And 50 years ago the same argument was made about mixed race marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Says you. Yet same sex marriage has been legal somewhere in this country for the last 10 years. Yet sibling marriage still isn't.

How do you explain this stark disconnect between what you insist must happen.....and the complete and utter lack of anything you predicted actually happening?

You realize that this issue could be pushed well before any application for marriage would be submitted, right.

I could see a simple facebook post where two sisters post an engagement announcement would start the ball rolling. Talk radio would be dominated by it.

In the announcement they make statements like:

Our marriage is being sought strictly for Tax and Insurance benefits currently afforded to married couples.

We find homosexual sex acts repulsive and since there is no sex requirements in marriage, we feel we qualify.

One of us have a child so it would provide a more stabile environment for the child with the same dignity of other children without the stigma of being a single parent child.

A kegger will be held at OUR home following the signing of our documents hosted by our boyfriends.

Go ahead Skylar, make your legal argument to deny this couple their constitutionally protected right.

You want to make a bet that if this add would appear, the states would start scrambling?

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

The JUDGE IS WRONG in regards to the couple I posted about. Unless you post ANY studies that provide the judges concern are valid in my example, he was simply either naive or covering his ass.

You seem confused. Its not a judge that has to do anything. Its you that has to prove your case.

Make your case for why you want polygamy. And provide evidence.

No, it is the Governments task to show a compelling states interest in the denial of a RIGHT to an individual.
.

Exactly- and just because you can't come up with a compelling state interest- somehow because you are pissed off that same gender marriage is legal- doesn't mean that the State can't.

 

[Pop23]

it is the compelling state interest.

From the decision overturning Wisconsin's same gender marriage ban

Finally, defendants express concern about the legal precedent that allowing same-sex
marriage will set. Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 55 (“Extending the fundamental right to marriage
to include same-sex couples could affec[t] other legal restrictions and limitations on
marriage.”). In other words, if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then how can
prohibitions on polygamy and incest be maintained?

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


This is the opinion of a judge- not just a lawyer- a just whose decision was upheld by the Appeals Court

They rely on tradional plural marriage as well as traditional incestuous relations.

I've never argued that father/daughter, mother / son relations could become legal.

Provide a link about abusive brother/brother, sister/sister sexual incest that is abusive. Public safety concerns revolve around strait sibling only.

Would be helpful if those links include straight and gay same sex couples.

Provide a link proving the same about same sex plural marriage.

Thanks in advance.

Judge Crabb covered it all- and she is an actual job- not some lawyer filing a losing argument with the Appellate Court

From the decision overturning Wisconsin's same gender marriage ban

Finally, defendants express concern about the legal precedent that allowing same-sex
marriage will set. Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 55 (“Extending the fundamental right to marriage
to include same-sex couples could affec[t] other legal restrictions and limitations on
marriage.”). In other words, if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then how can
prohibitions on polygamy and incest be maintained?

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


This is the opinion of a judge- not just a lawyer- a just whose decision was upheld by the Appeals Court.

You wanted a reason- there it is.

Using the example I posted earlier of the single mom wishing to marry her sister, explain how it fits into ANY of the judges conclusions on incestuous marriage?

What is the possible harm caused?

Or is it simply icky that they won't be having lesbian sex?

Explain how they aren't.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

These are the States concerns about the law that protects all incestuous marriages.

Just as it doesn't matter that a particular felon may not pose a risk- the law preventing felon's from owning gun still applies because the law applies to all ex-felons.

You realize your argument had been tried before.

Here is your argument in a nut shell:

Because that group over there can procreate, we can deny access to that group over there that can't.

You understand you are now arguing against same sex marriage.

Nice try, if it didn't hold legal water once, it won't hold water the next time.

 

[Syriusly]

Please forward how, the example I posted would fit into the studies that are available.

Are you saying that this single mother and her sister are any less deserving of due process than a couple of lesbian women?

I am actually shocked that you would deny the child the dignity that is afforded the children of gay same sex parents.

You are deliberately going out of your way to be a pain in the ass and derail this thread. NOBODY is arguing for or against ANYTHING else other than the right of same sex unrelated couples to get married under the same conditions that heterosexuals can. I'm not getting bogged down in this stupid horseshit.

Lol, you can't find an argument that works, so bail!

Yep, looks as though the attorneys opinion that I linked too earlier was correct.

But we knew that from the start, didn't we

This thread is about same sex marriage and religious objections to it. Take a hike and start your own thread about polygamy and incest if you think that it is so important. My guess is that you do not, and you won't. You're just using it as a red herring because you have no argument against same sex marriage that is viable.

Each and every one of Pop's argument have been recycled from the civil rights era. They were all used to condemn black and white people marrying. He's stuck in time.

I am firmly against incestuous sibling marriage as well as plural marriage, but can't find anyone who can come up with a COMPELLING argument to deny access. And that's key. If you can't, then you must.

You are firmly against incestuous sibling marriage- but you can't come up with any COMPELLING- or even CONSISTANT argument why you are against it..

 

[Pop23]

You realize that this issue could be pushed well before any application for marriage would be submitted, right.

I could see a simple facebook post where two sisters post an engagement announcement would start the ball rolling. Talk radio would be dominated by it.

In the announcement they make statements like:

Our marriage is being sought strictly for Tax and Insurance benefits currently afforded to married couples.

We find homosexual sex acts repulsive and since there is no sex requirements in marriage, we feel we qualify.

One of us have a child so it would provide a more stabile environment for the child with the same dignity of other children without the stigma of being a single parent child.

A kegger will be held at OUR home following the signing of our documents hosted by our boyfriends.

Go ahead Skylar, make your legal argument to deny this couple their constitutionally protected right.

You want to make a bet that if this add would appear, the states would start scrambling?

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

The JUDGE IS WRONG in regards to the couple I posted about. Unless you post ANY studies that provide the judges concern are valid in my example, he was simply either naive or covering his ass.

You seem confused. Its not a judge that has to do anything. Its you that has to prove your case.

Make your case for why you want polygamy. And provide evidence.

No, it is the Governments task to show a compelling states interest in the denial of a RIGHT to an individual.
.

Exactly- and just because you can't come up with a compelling state interest- somehow because you are pissed off that same gender marriage is legal- doesn't mean that the State can't.

You remain confused, the individual does not have to argue for INCLUSSION, the state has to argue against.

Do you know how this stuff actually works?

 

[Syriusly]

From the decision overturning Wisconsin's same gender marriage ban

Finally, defendants express concern about the legal precedent that allowing same-sex
marriage will set. Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 55 (“Extending the fundamental right to marriage
to include same-sex couples could affec[t] other legal restrictions and limitations on
marriage.”). In other words, if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then how can
prohibitions on polygamy and incest be maintained?

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


This is the opinion of a judge- not just a lawyer- a just whose decision was upheld by the Appeals Court

They rely on tradional plural marriage as well as traditional incestuous relations.

I've never argued that father/daughter, mother / son relations could become legal.

Provide a link about abusive brother/brother, sister/sister sexual incest that is abusive. Public safety concerns revolve around strait sibling only.

Would be helpful if those links include straight and gay same sex couples.

Provide a link proving the same about same sex plural marriage.

Thanks in advance.

Judge Crabb covered it all- and she is an actual job- not some lawyer filing a losing argument with the Appellate Court

From the decision overturning Wisconsin's same gender marriage ban

Finally, defendants express concern about the legal precedent that allowing same-sex
marriage will set. Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 55 (“Extending the fundamental right to marriage
to include same-sex couples could affec[t] other legal restrictions and limitations on
marriage.”). In other words, if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then how can
prohibitions on polygamy and incest be maintained?

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


This is the opinion of a judge- not just a lawyer- a just whose decision was upheld by the Appeals Court.

You wanted a reason- there it is.

Using the example I posted earlier of the single mom wishing to marry her sister, explain how it fits into ANY of the judges conclusions on incestuous marriage?

What is the possible harm caused?

Or is it simply icky that they won't be having lesbian sex?

Explain how they aren't.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

These are the States concerns about the law that protects all incestuous marriages.

Just as it doesn't matter that a particular felon may not pose a risk- the law preventing felon's from owning gun still applies because the law applies to all ex-felons.

You realize your argument had been tried before.

Here is your argument in a nut shell:

Because that group over there can procreate, we can deny access to that group over there that can't.

You understand you are now arguing against same sex marriage.

Nice try, if it didn't hold legal water once, it won't hold water the next time.

Here is your argument in a nutshell

Gays can marry so now can incestuous couples and polygamous groups.

It has something to do with procreation- except when it doesn't.

 

[Pop23]

You are deliberately going out of your way to be a pain in the ass and derail this thread. NOBODY is arguing for or against ANYTHING else other than the right of same sex unrelated couples to get married under the same conditions that heterosexuals can. I'm not getting bogged down in this stupid horseshit.

Lol, you can't find an argument that works, so bail!

Yep, looks as though the attorneys opinion that I linked too earlier was correct.

But we knew that from the start, didn't we

This thread is about same sex marriage and religious objections to it. Take a hike and start your own thread about polygamy and incest if you think that it is so important. My guess is that you do not, and you won't. You're just using it as a red herring because you have no argument against same sex marriage that is viable.

Each and every one of Pop's argument have been recycled from the civil rights era. They were all used to condemn black and white people marrying. He's stuck in time.

I am firmly against incestuous sibling marriage as well as plural marriage, but can't find anyone who can come up with a COMPELLING argument to deny access. And that's key. If you can't, then you must.

You are firmly against incestuous sibling marriage- but you can't come up with any COMPELLING- or even CONSISTANT argument why you are against it..

I have listed my objections, but they only apply to hetro, opposite sex. We have a whole new class that recently entered the institution, creating a paradox.

 

[Pop23]

They rely on tradional plural marriage as well as traditional incestuous relations.

I've never argued that father/daughter, mother / son relations could become legal.

Provide a link about abusive brother/brother, sister/sister sexual incest that is abusive. Public safety concerns revolve around strait sibling only.

Would be helpful if those links include straight and gay same sex couples.

Provide a link proving the same about same sex plural marriage.

Thanks in advance.

Judge Crabb covered it all- and she is an actual job- not some lawyer filing a losing argument with the Appellate Court

From the decision overturning Wisconsin's same gender marriage ban

Finally, defendants express concern about the legal precedent that allowing same-sex
marriage will set. Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 55 (“Extending the fundamental right to marriage
to include same-sex couples could affec[t] other legal restrictions and limitations on
marriage.”). In other words, if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then how can
prohibitions on polygamy and incest be maintained?

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


This is the opinion of a judge- not just a lawyer- a just whose decision was upheld by the Appeals Court.

You wanted a reason- there it is.

Using the example I posted earlier of the single mom wishing to marry her sister, explain how it fits into ANY of the judges conclusions on incestuous marriage?

What is the possible harm caused?

Or is it simply icky that they won't be having lesbian sex?

Explain how they aren't.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

These are the States concerns about the law that protects all incestuous marriages.

Just as it doesn't matter that a particular felon may not pose a risk- the law preventing felon's from owning gun still applies because the law applies to all ex-felons.

You realize your argument had been tried before.

Here is your argument in a nut shell:

Because that group over there can procreate, we can deny access to that group over there that can't.

You understand you are now arguing against same sex marriage.

Nice try, if it didn't hold legal water once, it won't hold water the next time.

Here is your argument in a nutshell

Gays can marry so now can incestuous couples and polygamous groups.

It has something to do with procreation- except when it doesn't.

I know, right, the legal paradox

 

[Syriusly]

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

The JUDGE IS WRONG in regards to the couple I posted about. Unless you post ANY studies that provide the judges concern are valid in my example, he was simply either naive or covering his ass.

You seem confused. Its not a judge that has to do anything. Its you that has to prove your case.

Make your case for why you want polygamy. And provide evidence.

No, it is the Governments task to show a compelling states interest in the denial of a RIGHT to an individual.
.

Exactly- and just because you can't come up with a compelling state interest- somehow because you are pissed off that same gender marriage is legal- doesn't mean that the State can't.

You remain confused, the individual does not have to argue for INCLUSSION, the state has to argue against.

Do you know how this stuff actually works?

The State has to provide a compelling argument why a specific population is excluded.

And the State can when it comes to the population of persons excluded from marriage based upon incest.

The State could not for the population of persons who happen to be gay.

 

[Syriusly]

Lol, you can't find an argument that works, so bail!

Yep, looks as though the attorneys opinion that I linked too earlier was correct.

But we knew that from the start, didn't we

This thread is about same sex marriage and religious objections to it. Take a hike and start your own thread about polygamy and incest if you think that it is so important. My guess is that you do not, and you won't. You're just using it as a red herring because you have no argument against same sex marriage that is viable.

Each and every one of Pop's argument have been recycled from the civil rights era. They were all used to condemn black and white people marrying. He's stuck in time.

I am firmly against incestuous sibling marriage as well as plural marriage, but can't find anyone who can come up with a COMPELLING argument to deny access. And that's key. If you can't, then you must.

You are firmly against incestuous sibling marriage- but you can't come up with any COMPELLING- or even CONSISTANT argument why you are against it..

I have listed my objections, but they only apply to hetro, opposite sex. We have a whole new class that recently entered the institution, creating a paradox.

LIke I said- you can't you can't come up with any COMPELLING- or even CONSISTENT argument why you are against it

You are against sibling marriage- even when the siblings are unable to procreate.

Why?

You can't explain.

 

[Skylar]

there really is no argument against same sex marriage except that one might find it disgusting.
I find fish to be a disgusting choice for a meal, however I am not going to try and make it illegal.

Correct, but we might want to know all the ramifications.

We can never know all the ramifications of anything that happens. You're literally citing impossibility as your standard.

Um, no thank you. You're being unreasonable.

But I gave you an example of something that could happen hundreds of times a day, you argue against them but can't come up with a single reason to deny the access?

Yet nothing you've ever predicted has happened once. There's no sibling same sex marriage. There's no polgamy as a consequence of same sex marriage. Despite same sex marriage having been legal in this country for up to 10 years.

How do you reconcile your impossible standard of 'knowing all ramifications' with your perfect record of predictive failure?

.......and twenty years ago the same argument was made about gay marriage.

There's no polygamy as a consequence of gay marriage was the same argument made about gay marriage 20 years ago?

Um, no it wasn't.

 

[Pop23]

The JUDGE IS WRONG in regards to the couple I posted about. Unless you post ANY studies that provide the judges concern are valid in my example, he was simply either naive or covering his ass.

You seem confused. Its not a judge that has to do anything. Its you that has to prove your case.

Make your case for why you want polygamy. And provide evidence.

No, it is the Governments task to show a compelling states interest in the denial of a RIGHT to an individual.
.

Exactly- and just because you can't come up with a compelling state interest- somehow because you are pissed off that same gender marriage is legal- doesn't mean that the State can't.

You remain confused, the individual does not have to argue for INCLUSSION, the state has to argue against.

Do you know how this stuff actually works?

The State has to provide a compelling argument why a specific population is excluded.

And the State can when it comes to the population of persons excluded from marriage based upon incest.

The State could not for the population of persons who happen to be gay.

correct, for now, but to do so, your reasoning is that we can exclude those that can't procreate because that group can procreate.

Do you really want that to become reality. That the above becomes a compelling state interest?

You do realize that you give the state the right to make the ability to procreate a reason to exclude those that can't from the institution of marriage.

Thanks, I appreciate your honesty

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

'Murder Of The Masses': 7 Insane Right-Wing Predictions About Gay Marriage Submitted by Brian Tashman on Wednesday, 6/24/2015 3:55 pm

“If this Supreme Court rules against marriage, all hell is going to break loose,” or so warned Tom DeLay, the former House GOP leader. DeLay has said that “if they rule against marriage,” then “we will all defy” the “ten [sic] unelected, unaccountable people” on the court, joining a host of Religious Right leaders, including presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, in signing a vow to resist a Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality. - See more at: Murder Of The Masses 7 Insane Right-Wing Predictions About Gay Marriage Right Wing Watch

 

[Syriusly]

You seem confused. Its not a judge that has to do anything. Its you that has to prove your case.

Make your case for why you want polygamy. And provide evidence.

No, it is the Governments task to show a compelling states interest in the denial of a RIGHT to an individual.
.

Exactly- and just because you can't come up with a compelling state interest- somehow because you are pissed off that same gender marriage is legal- doesn't mean that the State can't.

You remain confused, the individual does not have to argue for INCLUSSION, the state has to argue against.

Do you know how this stuff actually works?

The State has to provide a compelling argument why a specific population is excluded.

And the State can when it comes to the population of persons excluded from marriage based upon incest.

The State could not for the population of persons who happen to be gay.

correct, for now, but to do so, your reasoning is that we can exclude those that can't procreate because that group can procreate.

Correct not only now- but for the last 11 years since the first Court overturned bans on same gender marriage.

My reasoning has always been that that procreation is not the only argument against sibling marriage.

And I have supported my position.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

No, it is the Governments task to show a compelling states interest in the denial of a RIGHT to an individual.
.

Exactly- and just because you can't come up with a compelling state interest- somehow because you are pissed off that same gender marriage is legal- doesn't mean that the State can't.

You remain confused, the individual does not have to argue for INCLUSSION, the state has to argue against.

Do you know how this stuff actually works?

The State has to provide a compelling argument why a specific population is excluded.

And the State can when it comes to the population of persons excluded from marriage based upon incest.

The State could not for the population of persons who happen to be gay.

correct, for now, but to do so, your reasoning is that we can exclude those that can't procreate because that group can procreate.

Correct not only now- but for the last 11 years since the first Court overturned bans on same gender marriage.

My reasoning has always been that that procreation is not the only argument against sibling marriage.

And I have supported my position.

if after a certain amount of time, a hetero couple does not produce offspring in their marriage, should that marriage be considered null and void by all government entities?
It does happen.

 

[Syriusly]

Exactly- and just because you can't come up with a compelling state interest- somehow because you are pissed off that same gender marriage is legal- doesn't mean that the State can't.

You remain confused, the individual does not have to argue for INCLUSSION, the state has to argue against.

Do you know how this stuff actually works?

The State has to provide a compelling argument why a specific population is excluded.

And the State can when it comes to the population of persons excluded from marriage based upon incest.

The State could not for the population of persons who happen to be gay.

correct, for now, but to do so, your reasoning is that we can exclude those that can't procreate because that group can procreate.

Correct not only now- but for the last 11 years since the first Court overturned bans on same gender marriage.

My reasoning has always been that that procreation is not the only argument against sibling marriage.

And I have supported my position.

if after a certain amount of time, a hetero couple does not produce offspring in their marriage, should that marriage be considered null and void by all government entities?
It does happen.

If you are asking me- the answer is no.

It is the fallacy against same gender marriage- no one cares if hetero couples can or cannot have children- or even want to.

 

[Pop23]

No, it is the Governments task to show a compelling states interest in the denial of a RIGHT to an individual.
.

Exactly- and just because you can't come up with a compelling state interest- somehow because you are pissed off that same gender marriage is legal- doesn't mean that the State can't.

You remain confused, the individual does not have to argue for INCLUSSION, the state has to argue against.

Do you know how this stuff actually works?

The State has to provide a compelling argument why a specific population is excluded.

And the State can when it comes to the population of persons excluded from marriage based upon incest.

The State could not for the population of persons who happen to be gay.

correct, for now, but to do so, your reasoning is that we can exclude those that can't procreate because that group can procreate.

Correct not only now- but for the last 11 years since the first Court overturned bans on same gender marriage.

My reasoning has always been that that procreation is not the only argument against sibling marriage.

And I have supported my position.

So proceed, what other reason CAN there be?

You would deny one group due to the ABILITY of the other?

It is your argument.

And you don't see the legal problem with that?

 

[Syriusly]

Exactly- and just because you can't come up with a compelling state interest- somehow because you are pissed off that same gender marriage is legal- doesn't mean that the State can't.

You remain confused, the individual does not have to argue for INCLUSSION, the state has to argue against.

Do you know how this stuff actually works?

The State has to provide a compelling argument why a specific population is excluded.

And the State can when it comes to the population of persons excluded from marriage based upon incest.

The State could not for the population of persons who happen to be gay.

correct, for now, but to do so, your reasoning is that we can exclude those that can't procreate because that group can procreate.

Correct not only now- but for the last 11 years since the first Court overturned bans on same gender marriage.

My reasoning has always been that that procreation is not the only argument against sibling marriage.

And I have supported my position.

So proceed, what other reason CAN there be?

You would deny one group due to the ABILITY of the other?

It is your argument.

And you don't see the legal problem with that?

No- since my argument has been consistent- unlike yours. I have never claimed that procreation is the only reason to deny incestuous marriage or polygamy.

That would be you.

 

[Pop23]

You remain confused, the individual does not have to argue for INCLUSSION, the state has to argue against.

Do you know how this stuff actually works?

The State has to provide a compelling argument why a specific population is excluded.

And the State can when it comes to the population of persons excluded from marriage based upon incest.

The State could not for the population of persons who happen to be gay.

correct, for now, but to do so, your reasoning is that we can exclude those that can't procreate because that group can procreate.

Correct not only now- but for the last 11 years since the first Court overturned bans on same gender marriage.

My reasoning has always been that that procreation is not the only argument against sibling marriage.

And I have supported my position.

So proceed, what other reason CAN there be?

You would deny one group due to the ABILITY of the other?

It is your argument.

And you don't see the legal problem with that?

No- since my argument has been consistent- unlike yours. I have never claimed that procreation is the only reason to deny incestuous marriage or polygamy.

That would be you.

Ohhhhh, you mean that judges opinion that I ripped to shreds?

Of course you could rip me to shreds by producing a link to the study of straight same sex sibling incest abuse

You do realize that Hundred of millions of straight same sex siblings currently live together, so that study you link should be fascinating.

Waiting with baited breath IDIOT.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Would be nice if this hijacked thread could get back on track
The issue was with the judge that refused to marry a gay couple based on his personal religious views or morals. And, although I agree that he should have the right to do as he did, I also agree that there is nothing wrong or that will affect me if gays get married.