Judge Roy Moore defies feds: 'Law is very clear'

[Skylar]

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that you did- once again- here is what Justice Kennedy said


During Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy--who is widely considered the swing vote in the case--suggested that California's gay marriage ban causes "immediate legal injury" to children of same-sex parents.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

"to have full recognition and full status. "


What the fuck do that means?

Recognized by whom?

What the fuck is "full status"


.

I read it as 'having the full recognition and full status' as every other married couple- like my wife and I have.

And they don't have full recognition and full status' as every other married couple- like you and your wife and you have a manifested by ? Specifically, what right are they being deprived of?!?!?!?!?!?


.

the right of legal marriage- the right that my wife and I enjoy.

Again, why if "A" decides to live CONSENSUALLY , and have sex , with , "B" the union is "illegal"?


/

Cohabitation and sexual intercourse aren't marriage.

 

[1stRambo]

Judge Roy Moore has every right to uphold his State Constitution! The Federal judge has no right to make law, just carryout law! The U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to use the Constitution to settle disputes, not interpret law? Then the Federal Courts carry it out, period!!! The Supreme Court has not heard the full law on GAY MARRIAGE!!! Me, it should not happen, its only about benefits and nothing else, and tie up the courts if a gay asshole screws up!!! This all has to do with Obama getting the GAY VOTE, period! Just like the Latino illegals, Blacks, Muslims, now Gays!!! Its an Agenda thing, the Socialist Progressive Democrat Party could care less about Gays, Blacks, Muslims, Jews, illegals, and anyone else, they just need the VOTE!!! They are running out of options!!!

"GTP"

 

[Contumacious]

And they don't have full recognition and full status' as every other married couple- like you and your wife and you have a manifested by ? Specifically, what right are they being deprived of?!?!?!?!?!?


.

The right to marry.

Amazing.


Firstly, let me inform you that STATE recognized marriage is a dying institution:


The Marriage Crisis

How marriage has changed in the last 50 years and why it continues to decline


So it makes me wonder why homosexuals would want to partake of dying venture.

So asking the state to recognize their union will force homosexuals to avoid marriage in order to avoid massive legal entanglements.


.

.

And your claim that its a 'dying institution' has what relevance to gays and lesbians having their rights recognized? That smells like a steaming heap of red herrings to me.

I suggest you check your kitchen then.

Homosexuals have a right to form a union guaranteed by the

1- US Constitution - no authority was ever granted for preventing homosexuals from living together or having sex

2- First Amendment right of association

3- Ninth Amendment

So my comment is directed at the idea that in order for something to be good or moral is must be recognized by government officials.

As a fascist/socialist , I am certain that it does to you , but not to me.

Even by your standards of gibberish, that post is a beauty. The issue isn't a 'union'. The issue is a right to marry. With that marriage recognized and protected by the State.

As for your 'good and moral' babble, no one has made that argument. Its a strawman.

And as predicted , in in your neurotic state, the only VALID definition of marriage is the one defined by the almighty state.

Whether or not muffdiving is pleasurable depends on Scalia & Co's approval.

It is so sad to be a slave.


.

.

 

[Skylar]

The right to marry.

Amazing.


Firstly, let me inform you that STATE recognized marriage is a dying institution:


The Marriage Crisis

How marriage has changed in the last 50 years and why it continues to decline


So it makes me wonder why homosexuals would want to partake of dying venture.

So asking the state to recognize their union will force homosexuals to avoid marriage in order to avoid massive legal entanglements.


.

.

And your claim that its a 'dying institution' has what relevance to gays and lesbians having their rights recognized? That smells like a steaming heap of red herrings to me.

I suggest you check your kitchen then.

Homosexuals have a right to form a union guaranteed by the

1- US Constitution - no authority was ever granted for preventing homosexuals from living together or having sex

2- First Amendment right of association

3- Ninth Amendment

So my comment is directed at the idea that in order for something to be good or moral is must be recognized by government officials.

As a fascist/socialist , I am certain that it does to you , but not to me.

Even by your standards of gibberish, that post is a beauty. The issue isn't a 'union'. The issue is a right to marry. With that marriage recognized and protected by the State.

As for your 'good and moral' babble, no one has made that argument. Its a strawman.

And as predicted , in in your neurotic state, the only VALID definition of marriage is the one defined by the almighty state.

You're monologue, tearing down arguments no one is making. Back in reality, gays are fighting for legal recognition. For all the rights, protections and obligations that come from legally recognized marriage.

You can imagine whatever version of marriage you wish, involving whatever standards you wish. No one gives a shit. We're discussing the legally recognized version.

 

[Skylar]

Judge Roy Moore has every right to uphold his State Constitution! The Federal judge has no right to make law, just carryout law!

Protecting the constitutional guarantees of citizens of the United States is what the federal courts are supposed to do. Read the 14th amendment.

 

[Contumacious]

Amazing.


Firstly, let me inform you that STATE recognized marriage is a dying institution:


The Marriage Crisis

How marriage has changed in the last 50 years and why it continues to decline


So it makes me wonder why homosexuals would want to partake of dying venture.

So asking the state to recognize their union will force homosexuals to avoid marriage in order to avoid massive legal entanglements.


.

.

And your claim that its a 'dying institution' has what relevance to gays and lesbians having their rights recognized? That smells like a steaming heap of red herrings to me.

I suggest you check your kitchen then.

Homosexuals have a right to form a union guaranteed by the

1- US Constitution - no authority was ever granted for preventing homosexuals from living together or having sex

2- First Amendment right of association

3- Ninth Amendment

So my comment is directed at the idea that in order for something to be good or moral is must be recognized by government officials.

As a fascist/socialist , I am certain that it does to you , but not to me.

Even by your standards of gibberish, that post is a beauty. The issue isn't a 'union'. The issue is a right to marry. With that marriage recognized and protected by the State.

As for your 'good and moral' babble, no one has made that argument. Its a strawman.

And as predicted , in in your neurotic state, the only VALID definition of marriage is the one defined by the almighty state.

You're monologue, tearing down arguments no one is making. Back in reality, gays are fighting for legal recognition. For all the rights, protections and obligations that come from legally recognized marriage.

You can imagine whatever version of marriage you wish, involving whatever standards you wish. No one gives a shit. We're discussing the legally recognized version.

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken135.html
Privatize Marriage Now


Reviewed by Ryan McMaken


The state hates it when property changes hands without being taxed and regulated, so the state set its sights on marriage centuries ago. Over time civil governments inserted themselves more and more into the religious institutions of marriage. This was helped along by the Reformation and by defenders of government-controlled marriage like King Henry VIII of England. As nation-states consolidated their monopolies on all law and over all institutions in society, the state finally displaced religious institutions as the final arbiter on marriage.


Many people get "married" in courthouses in totally non-religious ceremonies. Such marriage contracts are in essence no different from run-of-the-mill legal contracts. The fact that we call such unions "marriage" doesn’t make them so. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, marriage is a religious matter. Some government judge can’t make you "married" any more than can your hair dresser. Here, we see that the so-called "traditional" marriage types who nevertheless defend government civil "marriage" (as defined by them) have already sown the seeds of their own defeat. They’ve already removed the institution of marriage from its traditional role and status.

Unfortunately, though, when Conservatives and Christian Right types bemoan the loss of so-called "traditional" marriage yet agitate for more government control of the institution, they really have only themselves to blame since they’re therefore accepting the proposition that government has the legitimate authority to regulate and control marriage. The power to regulate marriage is the power to destroy it. "

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Judge Roy Moore has every right to uphold his State Constitution! The Federal judge has no right to make law, just carryout law! The U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to use the Constitution to settle disputes, not interpret law? Then the Federal Courts carry it out, period!!! The Supreme Court has not heard the full law on GAY MARRIAGE!!! Me, it should not happen, its only about benefits and nothing else, and tie up the courts if a gay asshole screws up!!! This all has to do with Obama getting the GAY VOTE, period! Just like the Latino illegals, Blacks, Muslims, now Gays!!! Its an Agenda thing, the Socialist Progressive Democrat Party could care less about Gays, Blacks, Muslims, Jews, illegals, and anyone else, they just need the VOTE!!! They are running out of options!!!

"GTP"

Nonsense.

Moore has no right whatsoever to war against the Constitution in violation of the Supremacy Clause.

 

[Syriusly]

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that you did- once again- here is what Justice Kennedy said


During Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy--who is widely considered the swing vote in the case--suggested that California's gay marriage ban causes "immediate legal injury" to children of same-sex parents.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

"to have full recognition and full status. "


What the fuck do that means?

Recognized by whom?

What the fuck is "full status"


.

I read it as 'having the full recognition and full status' as every other married couple- like my wife and I have.

And they don't have full recognition and full status' as every other married couple- like you and your wife and you have a manifested by ? Specifically, what right are they being deprived of?!?!?!?!?!?


.

the right of legal marriage- the right that my wife and I enjoy.

Again, why if "A" decides to live CONSENSUALLY , and have sex , with , "B" the union is "illegal"?


/

Why do you think such a situation is 'illegal'?

 

[Syriusly]

And your claim that its a 'dying institution' has what relevance to gays and lesbians having their rights recognized? That smells like a steaming heap of red herrings to me.

I suggest you check your kitchen then.

Homosexuals have a right to form a union guaranteed by the

1- US Constitution - no authority was ever granted for preventing homosexuals from living together or having sex

2- First Amendment right of association

3- Ninth Amendment

So my comment is directed at the idea that in order for something to be good or moral is must be recognized by government officials.

As a fascist/socialist , I am certain that it does to you , but not to me.

Even by your standards of gibberish, that post is a beauty. The issue isn't a 'union'. The issue is a right to marry. With that marriage recognized and protected by the State.

As for your 'good and moral' babble, no one has made that argument. Its a strawman.

And as predicted , in in your neurotic state, the only VALID definition of marriage is the one defined by the almighty state.

You're monologue, tearing down arguments no one is making. Back in reality, gays are fighting for legal recognition. For all the rights, protections and obligations that come from legally recognized marriage.

You can imagine whatever version of marriage you wish, involving whatever standards you wish. No one gives a shit. We're discussing the legally recognized version.

Privatize Marriage Now


.

Interesting topic.

Has nothing to do with giving same gender couples the same access to the current legal state of marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

But feel free to pursue 'privatizing' marriage if that floats your boat.

 

[Syriusly]

The right to marry.

Amazing.


Firstly, let me inform you that STATE recognized marriage is a dying institution:


The Marriage Crisis

How marriage has changed in the last 50 years and why it continues to decline


So it makes me wonder why homosexuals would want to partake of dying venture.

So asking the state to recognize their union will force homosexuals to avoid marriage in order to avoid massive legal entanglements.


.

.

And your claim that its a 'dying institution' has what relevance to gays and lesbians having their rights recognized? That smells like a steaming heap of red herrings to me.

I suggest you check your kitchen then.

Homosexuals have a right to form a union guaranteed by the

1- US Constitution - no authority was ever granted for preventing homosexuals from living together or having sex

2- First Amendment right of association

3- Ninth Amendment

So my comment is directed at the idea that in order for something to be good or moral is must be recognized by government officials.

As a fascist/socialist , I am certain that it does to you , but not to me.

Even by your standards of gibberish, that post is a beauty. The issue isn't a 'union'. The issue is a right to marry. With that marriage recognized and protected by the State.

As for your 'good and moral' babble, no one has made that argument. Its a strawman.

And as predicted , in in your neurotic state, the only VALID definition of marriage is the one defined by the almighty state.

Whether or not muffdiving is pleasurable depends on Scalia & Co's approval.

It is so sad to be a slave.


.

.

And in your neurotic state, you define marriage as sex.

What pathetic ignorance.

 

[Syriusly]

Judge Roy Moore has every right to uphold his State Constitution! The Federal judge has no right to make law, just carryout law! "

No judge is making law.

U.S. Constitutional rights override State Constitutions.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe the Judicature of the Union should insist the several citizens in the several States on the right, should try to limit their practice of Communism, to Cuba where is is more socially acceptable.

How are some on the left going to goad the more communist right even in Cuba, to be moral enough through social morals for free, to bear True witness to their own supreme law of the land:

Cuba is a socialist State of workers, independent and sovereign, organized with all and for the good of all, as a united, democratic republic, for
the enjoyment of political freedom, socialjustice, individual and collective welfare, and human solidarity.

If, we cannot convince to the Judicatures of the several States to enjoin their citizenry to bear True witness their own supreme law of the land:

That all men are equally free and independent; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Contumacious]

"to have full recognition and full status. "


What the fuck do that means?

Recognized by whom?

What the fuck is "full status"


.

I read it as 'having the full recognition and full status' as every other married couple- like my wife and I have.

And they don't have full recognition and full status' as every other married couple- like you and your wife and you have a manifested by ? Specifically, what right are they being deprived of?!?!?!?!?!?


.

the right of legal marriage- the right that my wife and I enjoy.

Again, why if "A" decides to live CONSENSUALLY , and have sex , with , "B" the union is "illegal"?


/

Why do you think such a situation is 'illegal'?

I don't - ask the fascists.

.

 

[Contumacious]

Amazing.


Firstly, let me inform you that STATE recognized marriage is a dying institution:


The Marriage Crisis

How marriage has changed in the last 50 years and why it continues to decline


So it makes me wonder why homosexuals would want to partake of dying venture.

So asking the state to recognize their union will force homosexuals to avoid marriage in order to avoid massive legal entanglements.


.

.

And your claim that its a 'dying institution' has what relevance to gays and lesbians having their rights recognized? That smells like a steaming heap of red herrings to me.

I suggest you check your kitchen then.

Homosexuals have a right to form a union guaranteed by the

1- US Constitution - no authority was ever granted for preventing homosexuals from living together or having sex

2- First Amendment right of association

3- Ninth Amendment

So my comment is directed at the idea that in order for something to be good or moral is must be recognized by government officials.

As a fascist/socialist , I am certain that it does to you , but not to me.

Even by your standards of gibberish, that post is a beauty. The issue isn't a 'union'. The issue is a right to marry. With that marriage recognized and protected by the State.

As for your 'good and moral' babble, no one has made that argument. Its a strawman.

And as predicted , in in your neurotic state, the only VALID definition of marriage is the one defined by the almighty state.

Whether or not muffdiving is pleasurable depends on Scalia & Co's approval.

It is so sad to be a slave.


.

.

And in your neurotic state, you define marriage as sex.

What pathetic ignorance.

The fucktards never cease to amaze me

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage
marriage




noun
(broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities"


.

 

[bodecea]

And your claim that its a 'dying institution' has what relevance to gays and lesbians having their rights recognized? That smells like a steaming heap of red herrings to me.

I suggest you check your kitchen then.

Homosexuals have a right to form a union guaranteed by the

1- US Constitution - no authority was ever granted for preventing homosexuals from living together or having sex

2- First Amendment right of association

3- Ninth Amendment

So my comment is directed at the idea that in order for something to be good or moral is must be recognized by government officials.

As a fascist/socialist , I am certain that it does to you , but not to me.

Even by your standards of gibberish, that post is a beauty. The issue isn't a 'union'. The issue is a right to marry. With that marriage recognized and protected by the State.

As for your 'good and moral' babble, no one has made that argument. Its a strawman.

And as predicted , in in your neurotic state, the only VALID definition of marriage is the one defined by the almighty state.

You're monologue, tearing down arguments no one is making. Back in reality, gays are fighting for legal recognition. For all the rights, protections and obligations that come from legally recognized marriage.

You can imagine whatever version of marriage you wish, involving whatever standards you wish. No one gives a shit. We're discussing the legally recognized version.

Privatize Marriage Now


Reviewed by Ryan McMaken


The state hates it when property changes hands without being taxed and regulated, so the state set its sights on marriage centuries ago. Over time civil governments inserted themselves more and more into the religious institutions of marriage. This was helped along by the Reformation and by defenders of government-controlled marriage like King Henry VIII of England. As nation-states consolidated their monopolies on all law and over all institutions in society, the state finally displaced religious institutions as the final arbiter on marriage.


Many people get "married" in courthouses in totally non-religious ceremonies. Such marriage contracts are in essence no different from run-of-the-mill legal contracts. The fact that we call such unions "marriage" doesn’t make them so. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, marriage is a religious matter. Some government judge can’t make you "married" any more than can your hair dresser. Here, we see that the so-called "traditional" marriage types who nevertheless defend government civil "marriage" (as defined by them) have already sown the seeds of their own defeat. They’ve already removed the institution of marriage from its traditional role and status.

Unfortunately, though, when Conservatives and Christian Right types bemoan the loss of so-called "traditional" marriage yet agitate for more government control of the institution, they really have only themselves to blame since they’re therefore accepting the proposition that government has the legitimate authority to regulate and control marriage. The power to regulate marriage is the power to destroy it. "

.

Isn't it odd how this only comes up because gay couples want to legally marry. Where were these people all along?

 

[Skylar]

And your claim that its a 'dying institution' has what relevance to gays and lesbians having their rights recognized? That smells like a steaming heap of red herrings to me.

I suggest you check your kitchen then.

Homosexuals have a right to form a union guaranteed by the

1- US Constitution - no authority was ever granted for preventing homosexuals from living together or having sex

2- First Amendment right of association

3- Ninth Amendment

So my comment is directed at the idea that in order for something to be good or moral is must be recognized by government officials.

As a fascist/socialist , I am certain that it does to you , but not to me.

Even by your standards of gibberish, that post is a beauty. The issue isn't a 'union'. The issue is a right to marry. With that marriage recognized and protected by the State.

As for your 'good and moral' babble, no one has made that argument. Its a strawman.

And as predicted , in in your neurotic state, the only VALID definition of marriage is the one defined by the almighty state.

You're monologue, tearing down arguments no one is making. Back in reality, gays are fighting for legal recognition. For all the rights, protections and obligations that come from legally recognized marriage.

You can imagine whatever version of marriage you wish, involving whatever standards you wish. No one gives a shit. We're discussing the legally recognized version.

Privatize Marriage Now


Reviewed by Ryan McMaken


The state hates it when property changes hands without being taxed and regulated, so the state set its sights on marriage centuries ago. Over time civil governments inserted themselves more and more into the religious institutions of marriage. This was helped along by the Reformation and by defenders of government-controlled marriage like King Henry VIII of England. As nation-states consolidated their monopolies on all law and over all institutions in society, the state finally displaced religious institutions as the final arbiter on marriage.


Many people get "married" in courthouses in totally non-religious ceremonies. Such marriage contracts are in essence no different from run-of-the-mill legal contracts. The fact that we call such unions "marriage" doesn’t make them so. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, marriage is a religious matter. Some government judge can’t make you "married" any more than can your hair dresser. Here, we see that the so-called "traditional" marriage types who nevertheless defend government civil "marriage" (as defined by them) have already sown the seeds of their own defeat. They’ve already removed the institution of marriage from its traditional role and status.

Unfortunately, though, when Conservatives and Christian Right types bemoan the loss of so-called "traditional" marriage yet agitate for more government control of the institution, they really have only themselves to blame since they’re therefore accepting the proposition that government has the legitimate authority to regulate and control marriage. The power to regulate marriage is the power to destroy it. "

.

All that already exists. If you want a private marriage without any government recognition, you can have it. Just have your ceremony and don't involve the government.

What we're discussing is legally recognized marriage and all the rights and obligations it brings.

 

[Skylar]

I read it as 'having the full recognition and full status' as every other married couple- like my wife and I have.

And they don't have full recognition and full status' as every other married couple- like you and your wife and you have a manifested by ? Specifically, what right are they being deprived of?!?!?!?!?!?


.

the right of legal marriage- the right that my wife and I enjoy.

Again, why if "A" decides to live CONSENSUALLY , and have sex , with , "B" the union is "illegal"?


/

Why do you think such a situation is 'illegal'?

I don't - ask the fascists.

.

So you're calling for something that's perfectly legal right now.

Well that was easy.

 

[Contumacious]

I suggest you check your kitchen then.

Homosexuals have a right to form a union guaranteed by the

1- US Constitution - no authority was ever granted for preventing homosexuals from living together or having sex

2- First Amendment right of association

3- Ninth Amendment

So my comment is directed at the idea that in order for something to be good or moral is must be recognized by government officials.

As a fascist/socialist , I am certain that it does to you , but not to me.

Even by your standards of gibberish, that post is a beauty. The issue isn't a 'union'. The issue is a right to marry. With that marriage recognized and protected by the State.

As for your 'good and moral' babble, no one has made that argument. Its a strawman.

And as predicted , in in your neurotic state, the only VALID definition of marriage is the one defined by the almighty state.

You're monologue, tearing down arguments no one is making. Back in reality, gays are fighting for legal recognition. For all the rights, protections and obligations that come from legally recognized marriage.

You can imagine whatever version of marriage you wish, involving whatever standards you wish. No one gives a shit. We're discussing the legally recognized version.

Privatize Marriage Now


Reviewed by Ryan McMaken


The state hates it when property changes hands without being taxed and regulated, so the state set its sights on marriage centuries ago. Over time civil governments inserted themselves more and more into the religious institutions of marriage. This was helped along by the Reformation and by defenders of government-controlled marriage like King Henry VIII of England. As nation-states consolidated their monopolies on all law and over all institutions in society, the state finally displaced religious institutions as the final arbiter on marriage.


Many people get "married" in courthouses in totally non-religious ceremonies. Such marriage contracts are in essence no different from run-of-the-mill legal contracts. The fact that we call such unions "marriage" doesn’t make them so. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, marriage is a religious matter. Some government judge can’t make you "married" any more than can your hair dresser. Here, we see that the so-called "traditional" marriage types who nevertheless defend government civil "marriage" (as defined by them) have already sown the seeds of their own defeat. They’ve already removed the institution of marriage from its traditional role and status.

Unfortunately, though, when Conservatives and Christian Right types bemoan the loss of so-called "traditional" marriage yet agitate for more government control of the institution, they really have only themselves to blame since they’re therefore accepting the proposition that government has the legitimate authority to regulate and control marriage. The power to regulate marriage is the power to destroy it. "

.

Isn't it odd how this only comes up because gay couples want to legally marry. Where were these people all along?

Bullshit.


Justin Raimondo , a homosexual, has opposed state defined marriage for a long time.


The Libertarian Case Against Gay Marriage


.

 

[Contumacious]

I suggest you check your kitchen then.

Homosexuals have a right to form a union guaranteed by the

1- US Constitution - no authority was ever granted for preventing homosexuals from living together or having sex

2- First Amendment right of association

3- Ninth Amendment

So my comment is directed at the idea that in order for something to be good or moral is must be recognized by government officials.

As a fascist/socialist , I am certain that it does to you , but not to me.

Even by your standards of gibberish, that post is a beauty. The issue isn't a 'union'. The issue is a right to marry. With that marriage recognized and protected by the State.

As for your 'good and moral' babble, no one has made that argument. Its a strawman.

And as predicted , in in your neurotic state, the only VALID definition of marriage is the one defined by the almighty state.

You're monologue, tearing down arguments no one is making. Back in reality, gays are fighting for legal recognition. For all the rights, protections and obligations that come from legally recognized marriage.

You can imagine whatever version of marriage you wish, involving whatever standards you wish. No one gives a shit. We're discussing the legally recognized version.

Privatize Marriage Now


Reviewed by Ryan McMaken


The state hates it when property changes hands without being taxed and regulated, so the state set its sights on marriage centuries ago. Over time civil governments inserted themselves more and more into the religious institutions of marriage. This was helped along by the Reformation and by defenders of government-controlled marriage like King Henry VIII of England. As nation-states consolidated their monopolies on all law and over all institutions in society, the state finally displaced religious institutions as the final arbiter on marriage.


Many people get "married" in courthouses in totally non-religious ceremonies. Such marriage contracts are in essence no different from run-of-the-mill legal contracts. The fact that we call such unions "marriage" doesn’t make them so. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, marriage is a religious matter. Some government judge can’t make you "married" any more than can your hair dresser. Here, we see that the so-called "traditional" marriage types who nevertheless defend government civil "marriage" (as defined by them) have already sown the seeds of their own defeat. They’ve already removed the institution of marriage from its traditional role and status.

Unfortunately, though, when Conservatives and Christian Right types bemoan the loss of so-called "traditional" marriage yet agitate for more government control of the institution, they really have only themselves to blame since they’re therefore accepting the proposition that government has the legitimate authority to regulate and control marriage. The power to regulate marriage is the power to destroy it. "

.

All that already exists. If you want a private marriage without any government recognition, you can have it. Just have your ceremony and don't involve the government.

What we're discussing is legally recognized marriage and all the rights and obligations it brings.

I see.

Since legally recognized marriage is already CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized, you are merely making a fashion statement.

.

.

 

[Syriusly]

And your claim that its a 'dying institution' has what relevance to gays and lesbians having their rights recognized? That smells like a steaming heap of red herrings to me.

I suggest you check your kitchen then.

Homosexuals have a right to form a union guaranteed by the

1- US Constitution - no authority was ever granted for preventing homosexuals from living together or having sex

2- First Amendment right of association

3- Ninth Amendment

So my comment is directed at the idea that in order for something to be good or moral is must be recognized by government officials.

As a fascist/socialist , I am certain that it does to you , but not to me.

Even by your standards of gibberish, that post is a beauty. The issue isn't a 'union'. The issue is a right to marry. With that marriage recognized and protected by the State.

As for your 'good and moral' babble, no one has made that argument. Its a strawman.

And as predicted , in in your neurotic state, the only VALID definition of marriage is the one defined by the almighty state.

Whether or not muffdiving is pleasurable depends on Scalia & Co's approval.

It is so sad to be a slave.


.

.

And in your neurotic state, you define marriage as sex.

What pathetic ignorance.

The fucktards never cease to amaze me

marriage




noun
(broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities"


.

Like I said- the pathetic thing is- you define marriage as sex.

Your words
Whether or not muffdiving is pleasurable depends on Scalia & Co's approval.