Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Not true in many states. Merely living together, sometimes for a specific period, makes a couple married.
Places where there is polygamy have a 2000 year history of polygamy. We have no such history.When marriage can mean anything, it means nothing. Three people will get married. Ten people will get married. College roomates will get married. People who have never met each other will get married. All because marriage confers specific benefits, which is the entire issue here, not civil rights.OK, your idea would lead essentially to abolishing marriage as a meaningful instittuion in society. Which is probably the intent of the gay lobby and their knee pad brigades.No citizen is denied the right to marry. I dont know where you get that. I can't marry a man if I wanted to. I cant marry a woman because Im already married. I can't marry a woman who is already married. I cant marry my sister. I can't marry a 13yr old girl.
There are many situations where marriage cannot take place. This is one of them and it applies to everyone.
As you have pointed out, citizen's are denied the right to marry.
You can't marry a man in some states- but you can in others.
You can't marry another woman because of laws which prevent you from marrying twice.
You can't marry your sister because of laws which prevent you from marrying your sister.
But those are all legal constraints on your legal right to marry- and if challenged, a state must establish a valid state concern that is advanced by restricting your rights.
That is what the right keep claiming.
I just guess your marriages must be far more fragile than mine.
Just as marriage was not abolished when Loving v. Virginia was decided, marriage is not abolished when two men can marry.
At least not my marriage- maybe yours.
Well that is what the homophobes keep saying.
Yet in places in the world where there is polygamy, marriage is very tightly restricted.
And in places in the world where same gender couples marry, there is no polygamy.
I am sorry you think same gender marriage will ruin your marriage- but my marriage is more solid than that.
Yeah, fine. But my point is valid: it does not take the state issuing a license to make two people married.Not true in many states. Merely living together, sometimes for a specific period, makes a couple married.
Not true in any state and hasn't been for a long time.
Just "living together" doesn't make someone "common law married", they actually have to project themselves as married to the public through certain actions.
The idea that you can "accidentally" get common law married is a modern myth.
Common Law Marriage - FindLaw
>>>>
If a 2000 year history is required for defining what the institution of marriage should be, then the U.S. has a problem because we don't have a 2000 year history.Places where there is polygamy have a 2000 year history of polygamy. We have no such history.When marriage can mean anything, it means nothing. Three people will get married. Ten people will get married. College roomates will get married. People who have never met each other will get married. All because marriage confers specific benefits, which is the entire issue here, not civil rights.OK, your idea would lead essentially to abolishing marriage as a meaningful instittuion in society. Which is probably the intent of the gay lobby and their knee pad brigades.As you have pointed out, citizen's are denied the right to marry.
You can't marry a man in some states- but you can in others.
You can't marry another woman because of laws which prevent you from marrying twice.
You can't marry your sister because of laws which prevent you from marrying your sister.
But those are all legal constraints on your legal right to marry- and if challenged, a state must establish a valid state concern that is advanced by restricting your rights.
That is what the right keep claiming.
I just guess your marriages must be far more fragile than mine.
Just as marriage was not abolished when Loving v. Virginia was decided, marriage is not abolished when two men can marry.
At least not my marriage- maybe yours.
Well that is what the homophobes keep saying.
Yet in places in the world where there is polygamy, marriage is very tightly restricted.
And in places in the world where same gender couples marry, there is no polygamy.
I am sorry you think same gender marriage will ruin your marriage- but my marriage is more solid than that.
There are no places in the world with a significant history of gay marriage. Those that have it are failing societies anyway.
I am sorry you have no regard for marriage. Maybe yours is miserable that way.
And the people who recognize such a thing, and declare it legal? Oh right, the State. Carry on.Yeah, fine. But my point is valid: it does not take the state issuing a license to make two people married.Not true in many states. Merely living together, sometimes for a specific period, makes a couple married.
Not true in any state and hasn't been for a long time.
Just "living together" doesn't make someone "common law married", they actually have to project themselves as married to the public through certain actions.
The idea that you can "accidentally" get common law married is a modern myth.
Common Law Marriage - FindLaw
>>>>
Places where there is polygamy have a 2000 year history of polygamy. We have no such history.When marriage can mean anything, it means nothing. Three people will get married. Ten people will get married. College roomates will get married. People who have never met each other will get married. All because marriage confers specific benefits, which is the entire issue here, not civil rights.OK, your idea would lead essentially to abolishing marriage as a meaningful instittuion in society. Which is probably the intent of the gay lobby and their knee pad brigades.As you have pointed out, citizen's are denied the right to marry.
You can't marry a man in some states- but you can in others.
You can't marry another woman because of laws which prevent you from marrying twice.
You can't marry your sister because of laws which prevent you from marrying your sister.
But those are all legal constraints on your legal right to marry- and if challenged, a state must establish a valid state concern that is advanced by restricting your rights.
That is what the right keep claiming.
I just guess your marriages must be far more fragile than mine.
Just as marriage was not abolished when Loving v. Virginia was decided, marriage is not abolished when two men can marry.
At least not my marriage- maybe yours.
Well that is what the homophobes keep saying.
Yet in places in the world where there is polygamy, marriage is very tightly restricted.
And in places in the world where same gender couples marry, there is no polygamy.
I am sorry you think same gender marriage will ruin your marriage- but my marriage is more solid than that.
There are no places in the world with a significant history of gay marriage. Those that have it are failing societies anyway.
I am sorry you have no regard for marriage. Maybe yours is miserable that way.
I really dont give a shit what kind of marriage you have. It's not all about you.Places where there is polygamy have a 2000 year history of polygamy. We have no such history.When marriage can mean anything, it means nothing. Three people will get married. Ten people will get married. College roomates will get married. People who have never met each other will get married. All because marriage confers specific benefits, which is the entire issue here, not civil rights.OK, your idea would lead essentially to abolishing marriage as a meaningful instittuion in society. Which is probably the intent of the gay lobby and their knee pad brigades.
That is what the right keep claiming.
I just guess your marriages must be far more fragile than mine.
Just as marriage was not abolished when Loving v. Virginia was decided, marriage is not abolished when two men can marry.
At least not my marriage- maybe yours.
Well that is what the homophobes keep saying.
Yet in places in the world where there is polygamy, marriage is very tightly restricted.
And in places in the world where same gender couples marry, there is no polygamy.
I am sorry you think same gender marriage will ruin your marriage- but my marriage is more solid than that.
There are no places in the world with a significant history of gay marriage. Those that have it are failing societies anyway.
I am sorry you have no regard for marriage. Maybe yours is miserable that way.
LOL.....I have a fantastic marriage- which is why the Conservatives going all 'chicken little' does make me chuckle.
Really- how could anyone who had a good marriage be threatened if someone else gets married?
'failed societies'....lol....yeah...like the UK, New Zealand, Denmark- and the Netherlands- legal since 2001.....
And the sky hasn't fallen.
I really dont give a shit what kind of marriage you have. It's not all about you.Places where there is polygamy have a 2000 year history of polygamy. We have no such history.When marriage can mean anything, it means nothing. Three people will get married. Ten people will get married. College roomates will get married. People who have never met each other will get married. All because marriage confers specific benefits, which is the entire issue here, not civil rights.That is what the right keep claiming.
I just guess your marriages must be far more fragile than mine.
Just as marriage was not abolished when Loving v. Virginia was decided, marriage is not abolished when two men can marry.
At least not my marriage- maybe yours.
Well that is what the homophobes keep saying.
Yet in places in the world where there is polygamy, marriage is very tightly restricted.
And in places in the world where same gender couples marry, there is no polygamy.
I am sorry you think same gender marriage will ruin your marriage- but my marriage is more solid than that.
There are no places in the world with a significant history of gay marriage. Those that have it are failing societies anyway.
I am sorry you have no regard for marriage. Maybe yours is miserable that way.
LOL.....I have a fantastic marriage- which is why the Conservatives going all 'chicken little' does make me chuckle.
Really- how could anyone who had a good marriage be threatened if someone else gets married?
'failed societies'....lol....yeah...like the UK, New Zealand, Denmark- and the Netherlands- legal since 2001.....
And the sky hasn't fallen.
Denmark, the Netherlands, UK. Yeah. Failed societies. Low birthrates. Muslim immigration. Loss of cultural identiity. I will probably live to see the last Dutchman interred. If not me, my children.
When marriage can mean anything, it means nothing. Three people will get married. Ten people will get married. College roomates will get married. People who have never met each other will get married. All because marriage confers specific benefits, which is the entire issue here, not civil rights.OK, your idea would lead essentially to abolishing marriage as a meaningful instittuion in society. Which is probably the intent of the gay lobby and their knee pad brigades.No citizen is denied the right to marry. I dont know where you get that. I can't marry a man if I wanted to. I cant marry a woman because Im already married. I can't marry a woman who is already married. I cant marry my sister. I can't marry a 13yr old girl.Absolutely- and that is why the majority have rule in favor of citizens rights when ruling that it is unconstitutional to deny some citizens the right to marry.
There are many situations where marriage cannot take place. This is one of them and it applies to everyone.
As you have pointed out, citizen's are denied the right to marry.
You can't marry a man in some states- but you can in others.
You can't marry another woman because of laws which prevent you from marrying twice.
You can't marry your sister because of laws which prevent you from marrying your sister.
But those are all legal constraints on your legal right to marry- and if challenged, a state must establish a valid state concern that is advanced by restricting your rights.
That is what the right keep claiming.
I just guess your marriages must be far more fragile than mine.
Just as marriage was not abolished when Loving v. Virginia was decided, marriage is not abolished when two men can marry.
At least not my marriage- maybe yours.
Yes, they are. Check it out. Go read a book sometime.I really dont give a shit what kind of marriage you have. It's not all about you.Places where there is polygamy have a 2000 year history of polygamy. We have no such history.When marriage can mean anything, it means nothing. Three people will get married. Ten people will get married. College roomates will get married. People who have never met each other will get married. All because marriage confers specific benefits, which is the entire issue here, not civil rights.
Well that is what the homophobes keep saying.
Yet in places in the world where there is polygamy, marriage is very tightly restricted.
And in places in the world where same gender couples marry, there is no polygamy.
I am sorry you think same gender marriage will ruin your marriage- but my marriage is more solid than that.
There are no places in the world with a significant history of gay marriage. Those that have it are failing societies anyway.
I am sorry you have no regard for marriage. Maybe yours is miserable that way.
LOL.....I have a fantastic marriage- which is why the Conservatives going all 'chicken little' does make me chuckle.
Really- how could anyone who had a good marriage be threatened if someone else gets married?
'failed societies'....lol....yeah...like the UK, New Zealand, Denmark- and the Netherlands- legal since 2001.....
And the sky hasn't fallen.
Denmark, the Netherlands, UK. Yeah. Failed societies. Low birthrates. Muslim immigration. Loss of cultural identiity. I will probably live to see the last Dutchman interred. If not me, my children.
LOL.....yeah....because those are clearly the elements of a 'failed society'......
The exact same arguments being made for gay marriage will also be made for polygamy and incest. In fact they are already. There is no difference.When marriage can mean anything, it means nothing. Three people will get married. Ten people will get married. College roomates will get married. People who have never met each other will get married. All because marriage confers specific benefits, which is the entire issue here, not civil rights.OK, your idea would lead essentially to abolishing marriage as a meaningful instittuion in society. Which is probably the intent of the gay lobby and their knee pad brigades.No citizen is denied the right to marry. I dont know where you get that. I can't marry a man if I wanted to. I cant marry a woman because Im already married. I can't marry a woman who is already married. I cant marry my sister. I can't marry a 13yr old girl.
There are many situations where marriage cannot take place. This is one of them and it applies to everyone.
As you have pointed out, citizen's are denied the right to marry.
You can't marry a man in some states- but you can in others.
You can't marry another woman because of laws which prevent you from marrying twice.
You can't marry your sister because of laws which prevent you from marrying your sister.
But those are all legal constraints on your legal right to marry- and if challenged, a state must establish a valid state concern that is advanced by restricting your rights.
That is what the right keep claiming.
I just guess your marriages must be far more fragile than mine.
Just as marriage was not abolished when Loving v. Virginia was decided, marriage is not abolished when two men can marry.
At least not my marriage- maybe yours.
Classic Slippery Slope Logical Fallacy.
You just defined fascism. A fascist would say "Certainly you have choice. You have the choice to say "yes" and "yes" only....or else... "The "definition" of gay marriage should not be left to the states.
Allowing it should be.
What kind of Jonah Golberg-esque nonsense is that?You just defined fascism. A fascist would say "Certainly you have choice. You have the choice to say "yes" and "yes" only....or else... "The "definition" of gay marriage should not be left to the states.
Allowing it should be.
The exact same arguments being made for gay marriage will also be made for polygamy and incest. In fact they are already. There is no difference.When marriage can mean anything, it means nothing. Three people will get married. Ten people will get married. College roomates will get married. People who have never met each other will get married. All because marriage confers specific benefits, which is the entire issue here, not civil rights.OK, your idea would lead essentially to abolishing marriage as a meaningful instittuion in society. Which is probably the intent of the gay lobby and their knee pad brigades.As you have pointed out, citizen's are denied the right to marry.
You can't marry a man in some states- but you can in others.
You can't marry another woman because of laws which prevent you from marrying twice.
You can't marry your sister because of laws which prevent you from marrying your sister.
But those are all legal constraints on your legal right to marry- and if challenged, a state must establish a valid state concern that is advanced by restricting your rights.
That is what the right keep claiming.
I just guess your marriages must be far more fragile than mine.
Just as marriage was not abolished when Loving v. Virginia was decided, marriage is not abolished when two men can marry.
At least not my marriage- maybe yours.
Classic Slippery Slope Logical Fallacy.
Yes, they are. Check it out. Go read a book sometime.I really dont give a shit what kind of marriage you have. It's not all about you.Places where there is polygamy have a 2000 year history of polygamy. We have no such history.Well that is what the homophobes keep saying.
Yet in places in the world where there is polygamy, marriage is very tightly restricted.
And in places in the world where same gender couples marry, there is no polygamy.
I am sorry you think same gender marriage will ruin your marriage- but my marriage is more solid than that.
There are no places in the world with a significant history of gay marriage. Those that have it are failing societies anyway.
I am sorry you have no regard for marriage. Maybe yours is miserable that way.
LOL.....I have a fantastic marriage- which is why the Conservatives going all 'chicken little' does make me chuckle.
Really- how could anyone who had a good marriage be threatened if someone else gets married?
'failed societies'....lol....yeah...like the UK, New Zealand, Denmark- and the Netherlands- legal since 2001.....
And the sky hasn't fallen.
Denmark, the Netherlands, UK. Yeah. Failed societies. Low birthrates. Muslim immigration. Loss of cultural identiity. I will probably live to see the last Dutchman interred. If not me, my children.
LOL.....yeah....because those are clearly the elements of a 'failed society'......
You just said that defining gay marriage shouldn't be up to the states. Only approving gay marriage should be. That's saying "states only have the right to say yes to gay marriage". That is fascism "toxic".
Yep and in defining marriage as between a man and a woman only, they are perfectly within their constitutional rights. You will be finding that out very soon in a very big way. Don't pin your hopes on a mirage. Read Sutton's Opinion and know this other side of the argument will be heard when SCOTUS takes this up in the next 12 months.You just said that defining gay marriage shouldn't be up to the states. Only approving gay marriage should be. That's saying "states only have the right to say yes to gay marriage". That is fascism "toxic".
States define and regulate marriage, so long as the states regulations are not contrary to the U.S. Constitution.
Not that complicated.
Yep and in defining marriage as between a man and a woman only, they are perfectly within their constitutional rights. You will be finding that out very soon in a very big way. Don't pin your hopes on a mirage. Read Sutton's Opinion and know this other side of the argument will be heard when SCOTUS takes this up in the next 12 months.You just said that defining gay marriage shouldn't be up to the states. Only approving gay marriage should be. That's saying "states only have the right to say yes to gay marriage". That is fascism "toxic".
States define and regulate marriage, so long as the states regulations are not contrary to the U.S. Constitution.
Not that complicated.
oops......................missed the race card.................part of your question.............
man and a woman is a different issue................not the same...............and not what we are arguing about.
