BREAKING: Supreme Court will take up Gay Marriage Case

[Iceweasel]

nitwit, and in a legal contract between two persons

Why two?

because it is a for the purposes of joining two people. We can make multiple marriages legal if we want, but not by arguing over the laws as they stand today. The Courts have ruled marriage is a right. Marriage in the legal sense is a contract between two people.

It can be changed to accommodate three or more people, you haven't given any reason why it can't.

 

[Dante]

nitwit, and in a legal contract between two persons

Why two?

because it is a for the purposes of joining two people. We can make multiple marriages legal if we want, but not by arguing over the laws as they stand today. The Courts have ruled marriage is a right. Marriage in the legal sense is a contract between two people.

It can be changed to accommodate three or more people, you haven't given any reason why it can't.

It could, by an amendment to the Constitution.

So, what is your point? There is support for an amendment?

 

[Iceweasel]

nitwit, and in a legal contract between two persons

Why two?

because it is a for the purposes of joining two people. We can make multiple marriages legal if we want, but not by arguing over the laws as they stand today. The Courts have ruled marriage is a right. Marriage in the legal sense is a contract between two people.

It can be changed to accommodate three or more people, you haven't given any reason why it can't.

It could, by an amendment to the Constitution.

So, what is your point? There is support for an amendment?

What are you talking about? We need a Constitutional amendment for states to allow for polygamy? Where does it say anything about marriage?

 

[mdk]

Simple answer to your question. Gays to not want exceptional treatment, they want their relationships to have the same legal status as any other relationship

And the normal people don't want marriage defined as two dudes or two chicks. Marriage honors the special relationship between opposite genders for reasons obvious to said normal people.

Are you claiming to be "normal"?

Because judging from your posts you are abnormal when it comes to what it means to be an American. Genuine normal Americans uphold the rights of everyone to be treated equally under the law. You don't so that makes you abnormal rather than gays.

Wrong. Most of the states with gay marriage was against the will of the people. If someone needs to define what's normal for you, you don't fit the definition.

The will of the people is irrelevant if their will violates the Constitution. It was the will of the people; via their elected officials, in DC to pass idiotic restrictions on guns in the city limits. The will was meaningless b/c it violated the Constitution.

 

[Dante]

nitwit, and in a legal contract between two persons

Why two?

because it is a for the purposes of joining two people. We can make multiple marriages legal if we want, but not by arguing over the laws as they stand today. The Courts have ruled marriage is a right. Marriage in the legal sense is a contract between two people.

It can be changed to accommodate three or more people, you haven't given any reason why it can't.

It could, by an amendment to the Constitution.

So, what is your point? There is support for an amendment?

What are you talking about? We need a Constitutional amendment for states to allow for polygamy? Where does it say anything about marriage?

Yes. Polygamy is illegal because it violates a marriage contract. The Supreme Court has said in decisions that Marriage is a right.

and Marriage is a legal contract between two people. If the people want, they can amend the Constitution to allow Polygamy

 

[bodecea]

nitwit, and in a legal contract between two persons

Why two?

because it is a for the purposes of joining two people. We can make multiple marriages legal if we want, but not by arguing over the laws as they stand today. The Courts have ruled marriage is a right. Marriage in the legal sense is a contract between two people.

It can be changed to accommodate three or more people, you haven't given any reason why it can't.

Much more complicated to do that. With only two..inheritance and child custody simply has a default feature....if one dies, the other inherits. If you add more, it gets more complicated......a simple marriage license would not do.

 

[Dante]

nitwit, and in a legal contract between two persons

Why two?

because it is a for the purposes of joining two people. We can make multiple marriages legal if we want, but not by arguing over the laws as they stand today. The Courts have ruled marriage is a right. Marriage in the legal sense is a contract between two people.

It can be changed to accommodate three or more people, you haven't given any reason why it can't.

Much more complicated to do that. With only two..inheritance and child custody simply has a default feature....if one dies, the other inherits. If you add more, it gets more complicated......a simple marriage license would not do.

fine, but this is not a credible legal argument against Polygamy

 

[Silhouette]

Much more complicated to do that. With only two..inheritance and child custody simply has a default feature....if one dies, the other inherits. If you add more, it gets more complicated......a simple marriage license would not do.

Know what else is complicated? A grown-child's life after s/he leaves home missing his/her gender as a parental role model:

The link to the Prince Trust study is here: http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

With no father to look to as he grew up, Arfan Naseer fell into a life of drugs and gangs...He even spent time in prison after becoming involved with the wrong crowd, impressed by their expensive cars and gangster lifestyle...He believes that if he had had a father or male role model to look up to, he would have seen the error of his ways at a much earlier age.

 

[Syriusly]

Let's hope they rule that marriage is only between a man and woman. It's the way marriage was meant to be.

And if they don't?

Then the nation is morally lost due to political correctness.

Says the man who still mourns the end of slavery.....

 

[Syriusly]

They either cave like Roe v Wade or declare it's a state matter to decide. If they say relationships are protected or homosexuals are race or that they are practising a form of religion then that opens the flood gate for every other atypical legalized union(s).

Why would they said "homosexuals are race"? That's not in the presented arguments.

Because that would be a Constitutional matter. For example, the government cannot deny a black man the right to marry a woman a white man could marry if he too was eligible. To say the government must be gender neutral won't work because then we cannot have men and women's rest rooms on government property. So the best hope would be for the Supremes to classify homosexuals as a race. Government cannot discriminate against race.

Why not?

Please tell me why not?

 

[Syriusly]

Much more complicated to do that. With only two..inheritance and child custody simply has a default feature....if one dies, the other inherits. If you add more, it gets more complicated......a simple marriage license would not do.

Know what else is complicated? A grown-child's life after s/he leaves home missing his/her gender as a parental role model:
e]

Then you best get busy getting all of those single parents together with responsible role model opposite gender partners.....why are you wasting time here when that is were the majority of those children are?

 

[Silhouette]

Much more complicated to do that. With only two..inheritance and child custody simply has a default feature....if one dies, the other inherits. If you add more, it gets more complicated......a simple marriage license would not do.

Know what else is complicated? A grown-child's life after s/he leaves home missing his/her gender as a parental role model

Then you best get busy getting all of those single parents together with responsible role model opposite gender partners.....why are you wasting time here when that is were the majority of those children are?

What I will get busy doing is making damn sure that the only formative environments we incentivize are ones where BOTH genders are present. Single parents and gays will continue to raise kids in inferior environments. But that doesn't mandate that states have to abide by that with incentives to those situations.

You understand that marriage is a state's incentive program, right? Not a police state. States entice with marriage, they do not punish.