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.
Good thing I'm no longer commenting on your posts, Ff
For the general public, and for those who consider marriage equality a civil rights issue, I would point out that only through marriage do same sex couples have access to a partner's insurance benefits, Social Security, Medicare, or property inheritance. As well, without a legally recognized marriage, gay partners can not be acknowledged as next of kin in the case of a medical emergency or incapacitation. Furthermore, to supporters of same sex marriage, denying the right to a full and equal marriage is a serious form of minority discrimination. There are over 1000 federal and state legal benefits to be civilly married in America. Among them are:
"Rights and benefits while married:
employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)
sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits
Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
veteran's disability
Supplemental Security Income
disability payments for federal employees
medicaid
property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
wages of an employee working for one's spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax[3]
Joint and family-related rights:
joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
domestic violence intervention
access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
Court notice of probate proceedings
Domestic violence protection orders
Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
Funeral and bereavement leave
Joint adoption and foster care
Joint tax filing
Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
Legal status with stepchildren
Making spousal medical decisions
Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
Right of survivorship of custodial trust
Right to change surname upon marriage
Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
Right to inheritance of property
Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
For those divorced or widowed, the right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:
Social Security pension
veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
survivor benefits for federal employees
survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
$100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse
continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts
[edit] Responsibilities
Spousal income and assets are counted in determining need in many forms of government assistance, including:
veteran's medical and home care benefits
housing assistance
housing loans for veterans
child's education loans
educational loan repayment schedule
agricultural price supports and loans
eligibility for federal matching campaign funds
Ineligible for National Affordable Housing program if spouse ever purchased a home:
Subject to conflict-of-interest rules for many government and government-related jobs
Ineligible to receive various survivor benefits upon remarriage
Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have to live with the choices you make. For better or for worse.
Homosexual marriage isn't about love and companionship, it's more about how can it benefit them financially.
My marrige is about love and companionship. My wife and I have been together over 25 years. Because I love my wife I want to provide her with all the legal benefits that any other married couple has, financial and every other way. Particularly, as we age and get sick and die.
I'm sorry that you can't see that. If all I was concerned about was financial matters I could marry a man I don't love and get those rights and benefits. No thanks.
Sometimes...but not to make it look different than it was intended. I think it is a valid question and your statement is ridiculous.Why should she want to marry a guy and/or why would a guy want to marry her? Are you willing to give her your husband?Well then marry a guy Sky and you get all that.
Is it your custom to pluck a line out of its full context so that you can make it look different than what was intended?
You have to live with the choices you make. For better or for worse.
Homosexual marriage isn't about love and companionship, it's more about how can it benefit them financially.
My marrige is about love and companionship. My wife and I have been together over 25 years. Because I love my wife I want to provide her with all the legal benefits that any other married couple has, financial and every other way. Particularly, as we age and get sick and die.
I'm sorry that you can't see that. If all I was concerned about was financial matters I could marry a man I don't love and get those rights and benefits. No thanks.
What state do you live in?
Your entire argument is based on monetary beneifits and so it is all about money. Why else are you favoring homosexual marriage? It's not for the love and companionship, you admit you already have that. So the only thing left is financial benefts along with validiation of, in my opinion, an abhorent lifestyle.
My marrige is about love and companionship. My wife and I have been together over 25 years. Because I love my wife I want to provide her with all the legal benefits that any other married couple has, financial and every other way. Particularly, as we age and get sick and die.
I'm sorry that you can't see that. If all I was concerned about was financial matters I could marry a man I don't love and get those rights and benefits. No thanks.
What state do you live in?
Your entire argument is based on monetary beneifits and so it is all about money. Why else are you favoring homosexual marriage? It's not for the love and companionship, you admit you already have that. So the only thing left is financial benefts along with validiation of, in my opinion, an abhorent lifestyle.
I don't need validation of my relationship from you or anyone else. If you were to know me and my wife you would find nothing abhorrent about our marriage. We are good and decent people working, paying taxes, volunteering in our faith and larger community, helping our neighbors, etc etc.
We are of an age now where what happens when we get sick, or infirm or one of us dies is a stage of life concern.
Marriage equality is something we will fight for the rest of our lives. So many other countries already have this civil right, the US is way behind.
Sometimes...but not to make it look different than it was intended. I think it is a valid question and your statement is ridiculous.Why should she want to marry a guy and/or why would a guy want to marry her? Are you willing to give her your husband?
Is it your custom to pluck a line out of its full context so that you can make it look different than what was intended?
What state do you live in?
Your entire argument is based on monetary beneifits and so it is all about money. Why else are you favoring homosexual marriage? It's not for the love and companionship, you admit you already have that. So the only thing left is financial benefts along with validiation of, in my opinion, an abhorent lifestyle.
I don't need validation of my relationship from you or anyone else. If you were to know me and my wife you would find nothing abhorrent about our marriage. We are good and decent people working, paying taxes, volunteering in our faith and larger community, helping our neighbors, etc etc.
We are of an age now where what happens when we get sick, or infirm or one of us dies is a stage of life concern.
Marriage equality is something we will fight for the rest of our lives. So many other countries already have this civil right, the US is way behind.
You keep calling it a civil right, and it's not. Every adult already has a right to marry, without exception. But everyone also has restrictions on whom they may marry and again, there is no exception. No one is permitted to marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. These restrictions apply equally to everyone so there is no discrimination involved and no violations of civil rights.
I'll ask again, what state do you live in?
Sometimes...but not to make it look different than it was intended. I think it is a valid question and your statement is ridiculous.Is it your custom to pluck a line out of its full context so that you can make it look different than what was intended?
No it isn't. There is nothing in the marriage laws that requires those entering into marriage to love each other or even like each other. There is nothing whatsoever to prevent anybody, straight, gay, or anything in between from getting married. But the rule is it has to be a man and woman not closely related and not below a certain age limit, and not already married to somebody else. There are no other restrictions re who can get married.
So those who don't WANT to marry somebody of the opposite sex need some way to accommodate their needs too. I fully acknowledge that.
It is blatantly dishonest to pick one line out of the whole thought and hold that up as all that I said and ignore the rest.
I don't need validation of my relationship from you or anyone else. If you were to know me and my wife you would find nothing abhorrent about our marriage. We are good and decent people working, paying taxes, volunteering in our faith and larger community, helping our neighbors, etc etc.
We are of an age now where what happens when we get sick, or infirm or one of us dies is a stage of life concern.
Marriage equality is something we will fight for the rest of our lives. So many other countries already have this civil right, the US is way behind.
You keep calling it a civil right, and it's not. Every adult already has a right to marry, without exception. But everyone also has restrictions on whom they may marry and again, there is no exception. No one is permitted to marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. These restrictions apply equally to everyone so there is no discrimination involved and no violations of civil rights.
I'll ask again, what state do you live in?
I don't consider the right to marry someone I don't love and not marry the woman I do love to be an equal right.
I live in California.
You keep calling it a civil right, and it's not. Every adult already has a right to marry, without exception. But everyone also has restrictions on whom they may marry and again, there is no exception. No one is permitted to marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. These restrictions apply equally to everyone so there is no discrimination involved and no violations of civil rights.
I'll ask again, what state do you live in?
I don't consider the right to marry someone I don't love and not marry the woman I do love to be an equal right.
I live in California.
Regardless of what you consider is an equal right, we all have the same amount of rights and live under the same set of rules.
In California you already have most of the benefits that you say you don't have. Look up "domestic partnership" and you'll see for yourself.
I don't consider the right to marry someone I don't love and not marry the woman I do love to be an equal right.
I live in California.
Regardless of what you consider is an equal right, we all have the same amount of rights and live under the same set of rules.
In California you already have most of the benefits that you say you don't have. Look up "domestic partnership" and you'll see for yourself.
I have researched domestic partnership and marriage and they are not equal.
Besides domestic partnership sounds like roommates. We are much more than roommates to each other.
I'm sorry you can't take responsibility for what you post. Saying a lesbian should just marry a guy is idiotic. No different than saying a black person should just marry a black person...pursuit of happiness? Phooey.Sometimes...but not to make it look different than it was intended. I think it is a valid question and your statement is ridiculous.Is it your custom to pluck a line out of its full context so that you can make it look different than what was intended?
No it isn't. There is nothing in the marriage laws that requires those entering into marriage to love each other or even like each other. There is nothing whatsoever to prevent anybody, straight, gay, or anything in between from getting married. But the rule is it has to be a man and woman not closely related and not below a certain age limit, and not already married to somebody else. There are no other restrictions re who can get married.
So those who don't WANT to marry somebody of the opposite sex need some way to accommodate their needs too. I fully acknowledge that.
It is blatantly dishonest to pick one line out of the whole thought and hold that up as all that I said and ignore the rest.
Sometimes...but not to make it look different than it was intended. I think it is a valid question and your statement is ridiculous.
No it isn't. There is nothing in the marriage laws that requires those entering into marriage to love each other or even like each other. There is nothing whatsoever to prevent anybody, straight, gay, or anything in between from getting married. But the rule is it has to be a man and woman not closely related and not below a certain age limit, and not already married to somebody else. There are no other restrictions re who can get married.
So those who don't WANT to marry somebody of the opposite sex need some way to accommodate their needs too. I fully acknowledge that.
It is blatantly dishonest to pick one line out of the whole thought and hold that up as all that I said and ignore the rest.
That's why the marriage law needs to be changed. What would make sense is to call what happens in city hall for gay or straight couples to be called a civil union and keep the marriage term for the churches.
I would end up having both a civil union and a marriage because we had a marriage ceremony with our Buddhist community.
I'm sorry you can't take responsibility for what you post. Saying a lesbian should just marry a guy is idiotic. No different than saying a black person should just marry a black person...pursuit of happiness? Phooey.Sometimes...but not to make it look different than it was intended. I think it is a valid question and your statement is ridiculous.
No it isn't. There is nothing in the marriage laws that requires those entering into marriage to love each other or even like each other. There is nothing whatsoever to prevent anybody, straight, gay, or anything in between from getting married. But the rule is it has to be a man and woman not closely related and not below a certain age limit, and not already married to somebody else. There are no other restrictions re who can get married.
So those who don't WANT to marry somebody of the opposite sex need some way to accommodate their needs too. I fully acknowledge that.
It is blatantly dishonest to pick one line out of the whole thought and hold that up as all that I said and ignore the rest.
I'm sorry you can't take responsibility for what you post. Saying a lesbian should just marry a guy is idiotic. No different than saying a black person should just marry a black person...pursuit of happiness? Phooey.No it isn't. There is nothing in the marriage laws that requires those entering into marriage to love each other or even like each other. There is nothing whatsoever to prevent anybody, straight, gay, or anything in between from getting married. But the rule is it has to be a man and woman not closely related and not below a certain age limit, and not already married to somebody else. There are no other restrictions re who can get married.
So those who don't WANT to marry somebody of the opposite sex need some way to accommodate their needs too. I fully acknowledge that.
It is blatantly dishonest to pick one line out of the whole thought and hold that up as all that I said and ignore the rest.
Whatever Ravi, since that is not what I said. When somebody is whining that they can't have sometning because they don't want to marry a man, but they could have it all if they did what others do who marry, then it just seems logical that the person is making the choice to forego certain advantages because she doesn't want to marry a man.
What you and Sky are both ignoring is that I fully understand WHY she doesn't want to marry a man and I have in no way criticized her for that.
And you and she are both blowing off a suggestion of how she might be able to have what she wants if she would just shift the goal to something other than forcing others to give up something important to them; i.e.traditional marriage that we see as an important stabilizing force in society and necessary to provide the best possible environment for rearing children. That tradition is under assualt as it is, mostly due to those who don't care about it or value it and/or who have disparaged it and diminished it for years. And we believe it would be further weakened if the definition is changed. You cannot change the definition of something without making it something different than what it is.
I don't require you to agree with me on that. But don't give me a lot of shi*t that I'm being dishonest about it unless YOU are willing to put my arguments into their full context and use my full argument and show how it is in any way disingenuous.
Until you are willing to do that, it is YOU who is being disingenuous.
Well then marry a guy Sky and you get all that. You have complete freedom to do that. And if you don't want to marry a guy, which is perfectly understandable, then help us put together Option #2 which can provide a whole bunch of protections and benefits that you and your loved one want and need and would help out a whole lot of folks, straight and gay, who could take advantage of that.
IMO, we'd all be better off if the government quit using the tax code for social engineering and income / wealth distribution.
One flat or fair tax for all. Let people decide what lifestyle they wish to support with their own money.
Period. End of Story.
I can't argue with the logic. But having spent a good deal of my adult life dealing with children who didn't have advantage of a two parent traditional family, and seeing how much that often made a significant difference, I have to support and defend the traditional family. In my opinion, a tax structure that promotes and encourages a traditional family but making that 100% available to anybody who wants to take advantage of it rather than targeting special groups---that meets the Constitutional intent of promoting the general welfare.
I don't see it as social engineering.
And yes, some people will get married and benefit from the tax policy even though they don't have children. But again, it is non discriminatory and that option is available for every single citizen, and even the childless couples tend to promote those four advantages I listed in my initial post.
I agree on the importance of a child being raised by a mother and a father. But what we have now is an overall tax structure that since the 1950s, has doubled the total tax burden as a percent of income on the median family. All of the special deductions, childcare tax credits, brackets etc. are so highly politicized that the people they were ostensibly designed to benefit have actually been harmed. A fair or low flat tax would be better for families, imo, than the current tangle and AMT crap we have now.
None of us know the burdens and responsibilities of another. A single person with no children may be responsible for caring for elderly parents or a sick sibling. Do we really need the government to manage such relationships via the tax code - or is it better to let people decide how to spend their own money vis a vis their own responsibilities?
I'm sorry you can't take responsibility for what you post. Saying a lesbian should just marry a guy is idiotic. No different than saying a black person should just marry a black person...pursuit of happiness? Phooey.
Whatever Ravi, since that is not what I said. When somebody is whining that they can't have sometning because they don't want to marry a man, but they could have it all if they did what others do who marry, then it just seems logical that the person is making the choice to forego certain advantages because she doesn't want to marry a man.
What you and Sky are both ignoring is that I fully understand WHY she doesn't want to marry a man and I have in no way criticized her for that.
And you and she are both blowing off a suggestion of how she might be able to have what she wants if she would just shift the goal to something other than forcing others to give up something important to them; i.e.traditional marriage that we see as an important stabilizing force in society and necessary to provide the best possible environment for rearing children. That tradition is under assualt as it is, mostly due to those who don't care about it or value it and/or who have disparaged it and diminished it for years. And we believe it would be further weakened if the definition is changed. You cannot change the definition of something without making it something different than what it is.
I don't require you to agree with me on that. But don't give me a lot of shi*t that I'm being dishonest about it unless YOU are willing to put my arguments into their full context and use my full argument and show how it is in any way disingenuous.
Until you are willing to do that, it is YOU who is being disingenuous.
So you're saying gay people are free to marry someone of the opposite sex that they do not even want as their life partner, if the want to get the equal legal benefits of marriage THIS is their fair way to get equality under the law...?
You fully understand WHY she wants to marry the person she loves but since she was free to marry a man then her relationship with her partner is somehow harming your marriage, forcing others to give up something important to them, if the state recognizes their relationship equally under the law?
Can't you see what Ravi and Sky are saying here is that it is YOU who is asking gay people to give up something important to them in order to accommodate your opinion.
Well then marry a guy Sky and you get all that. You have complete freedom to do that. And if you don't want to marry a guy, which is perfectly understandable, then help us put together Option #2 which can provide a whole bunch of protections and benefits that you and your loved one want and need and would help out a whole lot of folks, straight and gay, who could take advantage of that.
Whatever Ravi, since that is not what I said. When somebody is whining that they can't have sometning because they don't want to marry a man, but they could have it all if they did what others do who marry, then it just seems logical that the person is making the choice to forego certain advantages because she doesn't want to marry a man.
What you and Sky are both ignoring is that I fully understand WHY she doesn't want to marry a man and I have in no way criticized her for that.
And you and she are both blowing off a suggestion of how she might be able to have what she wants if she would just shift the goal to something other than forcing others to give up something important to them; i.e.traditional marriage that we see as an important stabilizing force in society and necessary to provide the best possible environment for rearing children. That tradition is under assualt as it is, mostly due to those who don't care about it or value it and/or who have disparaged it and diminished it for years. And we believe it would be further weakened if the definition is changed. You cannot change the definition of something without making it something different than what it is.
I don't require you to agree with me on that. But don't give me a lot of shi*t that I'm being dishonest about it unless YOU are willing to put my arguments into their full context and use my full argument and show how it is in any way disingenuous.
Until you are willing to do that, it is YOU who is being disingenuous.
So you're saying gay people are free to marry someone of the opposite sex that they do not even want as their life partner, if the want to get the equal legal benefits of marriage THIS is their fair way to get equality under the law...?
You fully understand WHY she wants to marry the person she loves but since she was free to marry a man then her relationship with her partner is somehow harming your marriage, forcing others to give up something important to them, if the state recognizes their relationship equally under the law?
Can't you see what Ravi and Sky are saying here is that it is YOU who is asking gay people to give up something important to them in order to accommodate your opinion.
Well then marry a guy Sky and you get all that. You have complete freedom to do that. And if you don't want to marry a guy, which is perfectly understandable, then help us put together Option #2 which can provide a whole bunch of protections and benefits that you and your loved one want and need and would help out a whole lot of folks, straight and gay, who could take advantage of that.
No Valerie. I'm not asking anybody to give up anything. You can't give up something that has never existed.
As I am requesting that Ravi and Sky, do, please look at the full context of my argument on this, and it is developed over several posts. I have strong reasons, based on personal life experience, for wanting to preserve traditional marriage.
I have no problem of any kind with same sex relationships and full sympathy for those who currently don't have important benefits and protections that I think they should have. But I am not willing to dismantle yet another valuable American institution to accommodate that and result in losing important benefits for everybody, gay and straight alike.
The obvious answer is to preserve and protect traditional marriage for the kids and the proven benefits to society as a whole, and cooperate on developing a system by which those who don't want to marrry can form themselves into legally recognized family groups including the benefits and protections that they now lack. That can be as equitable and impartial as are marriage laws and be available for every citizen just as marriage laws are.
It won't be a separate but equal system but rather an either/or system. Anybody can choose one or the other.
And until somebody is willing to seriously discuss that instead of self righteously demanding that the majority of Americans change the definition of a tradition that spans millenia and that they do not want to change, we are going to have these arguments forever I guess. And rather than solving the problem each side will continue to see the other as unreasonable or worse.
So you're saying gay people are free to marry someone of the opposite sex that they do not even want as their life partner, if the want to get the equal legal benefits of marriage THIS is their fair way to get equality under the law...?
You fully understand WHY she wants to marry the person she loves but since she was free to marry a man then her relationship with her partner is somehow harming your marriage, forcing others to give up something important to them, if the state recognizes their relationship equally under the law?
Can't you see what Ravi and Sky are saying here is that it is YOU who is asking gay people to give up something important to them in order to accommodate your opinion.
No Valerie. I'm not asking anybody to give up anything. You can't give up something that has never existed.
As I am requesting that Ravi and Sky, do, please look at the full context of my argument on this, and it is developed over several posts. I have strong reasons, based on personal life experience, for wanting to preserve traditional marriage.
I have no problem of any kind with same sex relationships and full sympathy for those who currently don't have important benefits and protections that I think they should have. But I am not willing to dismantle yet another valuable American institution to accommodate that and result in losing important benefits for everybody, gay and straight alike.
The obvious answer is to preserve and protect traditional marriage for the kids and the proven benefits to society as a whole, and cooperate on developing a system by which those who don't want to marrry can form themselves into legally recognized family groups including the benefits and protections that they now lack. That can be as equitable and impartial as are marriage laws and be available for every citizen just as marriage laws are.
It won't be a separate but equal system but rather an either/or system. Anybody can choose one or the other.
And until somebody is willing to seriously discuss that instead of self righteously demanding that the majority of Americans change the definition of a tradition that spans millenia and that they do not want to change, we are going to have these arguments forever I guess. And rather than solving the problem each side will continue to see the other as unreasonable or worse.
I understand but I just disagree that anyone's marriage stands to be harmed by a legal definition.
Homosexual couples have always existed and the tradition has been to shove them into closets and shame them into accepting that they are less equal as a couple...That they should just be glad we allow them to live and associate with us and they should just STFU and stop asking for anything special for their perverted lifestyle choice.
The constitution says that no state shall make a law or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States....yes even if they are gay! Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Your appeal is an emotional one based on your sentiments toward the religious tradition of marriage, which I respect, but state marriage laws do not exist for the purposes of religious institutions, nor do they exist as a social engineering device.
The reality is that no heterosexual marriages actually stand to be affected AT ALL by marriage statutes with a legal definition providing equality for all consenting couples who already exist despite anyone's approval or opinion.
No Valerie. I'm not asking anybody to give up anything. You can't give up something that has never existed.
As I am requesting that Ravi and Sky, do, please look at the full context of my argument on this, and it is developed over several posts. I have strong reasons, based on personal life experience, for wanting to preserve traditional marriage.
I have no problem of any kind with same sex relationships and full sympathy for those who currently don't have important benefits and protections that I think they should have. But I am not willing to dismantle yet another valuable American institution to accommodate that and result in losing important benefits for everybody, gay and straight alike.
The obvious answer is to preserve and protect traditional marriage for the kids and the proven benefits to society as a whole, and cooperate on developing a system by which those who don't want to marrry can form themselves into legally recognized family groups including the benefits and protections that they now lack. That can be as equitable and impartial as are marriage laws and be available for every citizen just as marriage laws are.
It won't be a separate but equal system but rather an either/or system. Anybody can choose one or the other.
And until somebody is willing to seriously discuss that instead of self righteously demanding that the majority of Americans change the definition of a tradition that spans millenia and that they do not want to change, we are going to have these arguments forever I guess. And rather than solving the problem each side will continue to see the other as unreasonable or worse.
I understand but I just disagree that anyone's marriage stands to be harmed by a legal definition.
Homosexual couples have always existed and the tradition has been to shove them into closets and shame them into accepting that they are less equal as a couple...That they should just be glad we allow them to live and associate with us and they should just STFU and stop asking for anything special for their perverted lifestyle choice.
The constitution says that no state shall make a law or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States....yes even if they are gay! Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Your appeal is an emotional one based on your sentiments toward the religious tradition of marriage, which I respect, but state marriage laws do not exist for the purposes of religious institutions, nor do they exist as a social engineering device.
The reality is that no heterosexual marriages actually stand to be affected AT ALL by marriage statutes with a legal definition providing equality for all consenting couples who already exist despite anyone's approval or opinion.
So are you're basically saying that any and all marriages should be recognized? And there should be no definitive meaning behind the word "marriage"?
