Marriage Equality; does the end game begin?

[Dana7360]

Redfish is guilty of both in this description of him: "Either you're a liar or you just aren't aware of the world around you."

Only the far right apparently wants to marry their pet ponies. No one else cares.

You're right. I should have included "or both."

 

[Silhouette]

Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases
Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases KSL.com

The time has arrived to end the whining.

If SCOTUS takes it up, I predict marriage equality nationally by the end of the term.

Yes, Brown vs Utah has been waiting to change marraige from a state-defined privelege it is now to a federally-forced mandate (right) for far too long now. Their children are in "immediate legal harm" as are all those of single parent (monosexual) homes. The time has come for change. The homosexual lifestylists will also enjoy this fundamental shift in power on the nature of who can be incentivized to form childrens' formative environment.

Anything goes! It's about time... The kids will "catch up" psychologically eventually..

I mean, I know how much popularity alternative-lifestyle marriages are getting these days. Right? "Majorities everywhere now support them". Which is why once branch of them, LGBT has got to force states to mandate them....."because they are so popular with the People!".

 

[Nosmo King]

Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases
Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases KSL.com

The time has arrived to end the whining.

If SCOTUS takes it up, I predict marriage equality nationally by the end of the term.

then get ready for brother/sister, mother/daughter, sister/sister, 3 men/4 women, et al. Because such a SCOTUS ruling would open the door for all forms of "marriage" using gay marriage as a valid legal precedent.

thats the real danger, the abnormality of homosexuality is just the foot in the door.

I disagree. Marriage equality still provides the same legal protections and benefits afforded by the existing marriage contract. Marriage equality does not seek to expand the provisions of the marriage contract beyond the current two adults with no pre-existing blood relationship.

There is no reason to worry about incestuous marriages because, by definition, an incestuous relationship already provides the next of kin relationship a marriage creates. Polygamist marriage is not something marriage equality will bring about because, again by definition, a polygamist marriage includes more than the two individuals joined in a marriage contract.

No one has ever provided any real, tangible evidence that marriage equality would adversely effect their own marriage. Instead, clumsy, ham handed stabs at hypothetical strawman,are offered up. I wonder why that is?

You stated:

Polygamist marriage is not something marriage equality will bring about because, again by definition, a polygamist marriage includes more than the two individuals joined in a marriage contract.

And? By "definition" marriage was between one man and one woman. It was defined by gender, now its not. How can you logically conclude that marriage is now defined by number?

You cannot.

Mark

The marriage contract is one in which two parties engage. There are contractual provisions for the establishment of a protected corporation including more than two parties or individuals. But those contracts are beyond the breech of the marriage contract.

Two adult, consenting, tax paying citizens should be able to avail themselves of the benefits and protections of a marriage contract.

Everything else is bedroom politics. Politics that react out of unwarranted fear and suspicion. Hardly a virtue counted among American virtues.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The cowardly far right pack continues to snarl at the winners.

 

[Silhouette]

The marriage contract is one in which two parties engage. There are contractual provisions for the establishment of a protected corporation including more than two parties or individuals. But those contracts are beyond the breech of the marriage contract...

You mean, traditionally, right?

Like man/woman... You guys had better get busy polishing up the gaping holes in your legal arguments...and fast. You might want to give Judge Sutton's Opinion at the 6th circuit level a good thorough read on the matter before you jump into the boxing ring without headgear and a teeth-guard..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil continues to grasp at straws.

 

[Freewill]

Obviously the whole thing begins where it has to begin, with the definition of marriage changing.

 

[Freewill]

I can't wait till cats can marry dogs.

jake wants to marry his dog

Is that why it ran away?

 

[Donald Polish]

There will never be an end game. Next will be incest and transgender marriage.

Nothing traditional will survive if the left has its way.

We can also marry man and animal. It is not the end at all. Having such perverts in administration I am not surprised of our laws.
http://www.wnd.com/2...age-sex-slaves/
We have a wide field for acting...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Obviously the whole thing begins where it has to begin, with the definition of marriage changing.

Incorrect.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, the same contracts as opposite-sex couples – marriage unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

 

[bodecea]

There will never be an end game. Next will be incest and transgender marriage.

Nothing traditional will survive if the left has its way.

We can also marry man and animal. It is not the end at all. Having such perverts in administration I am not surprised of our laws.
http://www.wnd.com/2...age-sex-slaves/
We have a wide field for acting...

Tell us how animals can give consent legally.

 

[Carla_Danger]

There will never be an end game. Next will be incest and transgender marriage.

Nothing traditional will survive if the left has its way.

We can also marry man and animal. It is not the end at all. Having such perverts in administration I am not surprised of our laws.
http://www.wnd.com/2...age-sex-slaves/
We have a wide field for acting...

Tell us how animals can give consent legally.

I think they should at least have a college degree!

 

[Freewill]

Obviously the whole thing begins where it has to begin, with the definition of marriage changing.

Incorrect.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, the same contracts as opposite-sex couples – marriage unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

Then anyone can marry anything or anyone, is that what you are saying? Some things do not require definition in the law. No one until recently ever would have defined marriage as between anything other then between a man and woman. The judicial system proclaiming they can marry IS changing the definition.

 

[Skylar]

Obviously the whole thing begins where it has to begin, with the definition of marriage changing.

Incorrect.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, the same contracts as opposite-sex couples – marriage unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

Then anyone can marry anything or anyone, is that what you are saying? Some things do not require definition in the law. No one until recently ever would have defined marriage as between anything other then between a man and woman. The judicial system proclaiming they can marry IS changing the definition.

Same sex couples aren't 'things'. They're people. They have a constitutional right to marry. If you're going to deny them that right, you're going to need a compelling state interest and a very good reason.

Opponents of same sex marriage have neither. Which is why they have so often failed.

 

[Skylar]

Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases
Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases KSL.com

The time has arrived to end the whining.

If SCOTUS takes it up, I predict marriage equality nationally by the end of the term.

Yes, Brown vs Utah has been waiting to change marraige from a state-defined privelege it is now to a federally-forced mandate (right) for far too long now.

Again, Silo.....the USSC ruled on marriage being a right generations ago. You're simply ignoring the USSC, making up whatever you like, and then insisting that because you ignored the courts, they have to re-rule on the issue.

Um, no. They don't. Their previous rulings on marriage as a right still stand. Your willful ignorance has zero relevance to the outcome of any case or the definition of any right.

 

[Seawytch]

Wrong. Government has a vested interest in the continuation of the family unit.

Only to the big government loving statist fucks.

They don't? It was recently reported that about half of all kids are now brought up in single parent households. 80% of juveniles that go thru the court systems are from single family homes.
Society PAYS FOR these families thru welfare and increased incarceration

Logic isn't statist.

Mark

So you support marriage equality for gays and giving our children two legal parents, right?

 

[Seawytch]

Obviously the whole thing begins where it has to begin, with the definition of marriage changing.

Incorrect.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, the same contracts as opposite-sex couples – marriage unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

Then anyone can marry anything or anyone, is that what you are saying? Some things do not require definition in the law. No one until recently ever would have defined marriage as between anything other then between a man and woman. The judicial system proclaiming they can marry IS changing the definition.

No, one consenting adult individual can still marry one consenting adult individual regardless of race or gender. The definition of marriage remains the same. Did the definition of voting change when women could do it? No.

 

[Freewill]

Obviously the whole thing begins where it has to begin, with the definition of marriage changing.

Incorrect.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, the same contracts as opposite-sex couples – marriage unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

Then anyone can marry anything or anyone, is that what you are saying? Some things do not require definition in the law. No one until recently ever would have defined marriage as between anything other then between a man and woman. The judicial system proclaiming they can marry IS changing the definition.

Same sex couples aren't 'things'. They're people. They have a constitutional right to marry. If you're going to deny them that right, you're going to need a compelling state interest and a very good reason.

Opponents of same sex marriage have neither. Which is why they have so often failed.

Sigh, once again, and AGAIN and AGAIN where does the constitution give anyone the right to marry? It seems to me you gay blades certainly have a hard time understanding. Did the blacks get a guaranteed right to vote without a constitutional amendment? I can argue that all men are created equal and blacks are men thus they are indeed covered under the constitution. But I can not argue that two men marrying is the same in any way as a man an a woman, which is the traditional definition of marriage.

Nothing is a right just because you want it to be.

Be law abiding citizens and get the laws changed, that is all I am saying. This end run through the courts and just making stuff up is BS.

 

[Freewill]

Obviously the whole thing begins where it has to begin, with the definition of marriage changing.

Incorrect.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, the same contracts as opposite-sex couples – marriage unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

Then anyone can marry anything or anyone, is that what you are saying? Some things do not require definition in the law. No one until recently ever would have defined marriage as between anything other then between a man and woman. The judicial system proclaiming they can marry IS changing the definition.

No, one consenting adult individual can still marry one consenting adult individual regardless of race or gender. The definition of marriage remains the same. Did the definition of voting change when women could do it? No.

The definition of the ACT of voting did not change, but the definition of whom could vote certainly did change. That is the point, women said the same things that gays are saying and people got the laws changed and the Constitution changed to make it a civil right. That is all I am saying that the gays should do, not this end run BS. Unless of course their real intent is to invoke their will on everyone, which I think really is the situation.

 

[Freewill]

Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases
Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases KSL.com

The time has arrived to end the whining.

If SCOTUS takes it up, I predict marriage equality nationally by the end of the term.

Yes, Brown vs Utah has been waiting to change marraige from a state-defined privelege it is now to a federally-forced mandate (right) for far too long now.

Again, Silo.....the USSC ruled on marriage being a right generations ago. You're simply ignoring the USSC, making up whatever you like, and then insisting that because you ignored the courts, they have to re-rule on the issue.

Um, no. They don't. Their previous rulings on marriage as a right still stand. Your willful ignorance has zero relevance to the outcome of any case or the definition of any right.

the USSC did not rule on gay marriage they ruled on MARRIAGE no one at the time even considered that to be anything but between a man and a woman, try again. The ruling had nothing to do with sodomy.