Gay marriage is still banned in the Navajo nation

[HeyNorm]

Nope, you don't. No one gives a shit what definitions you make up. You can call an apple a "banana," it still won't matter anymore than your definition of marriage.

You are right that society does. And our society, empowered by the Constitution, defines legal marriage as the union between two consenting people who are at least the age of consent according to their respective state's laws.

You left out “not too closely related” did you do that on purpose?

 

[Faun]

It is called immigration from the north, you ignorant fool

either way, the KKK leader did not change parties, if even a bit of what you claim is true, why did biden and the leader of the KKK stay in the democrat party, why did the segregationists stay in the democrat party.

The KKK leader and Biden are not from the south, you certainly have no understanding of history.

LOL

How much migration you think was happening 150 years ago?? Nope, the Bible Belt was primarily rightwing religious Christians.

And if your position had merit, you wouldn't have to prop it up with lies. The truth is, Biden never voted for a KKK leader. Byrd had given up that title many years earlier.

 

[Faun]

That would be correct if the Constitution were worded that way. Marriage is not mentioned neither is abortion so they are not federal issues.

Legal marriage is based on laws. Laws must conform to the Constitution. All laws must be enforced equally.

Now ya know.

 

[Faun]

Now any two roommates can be a “married couple”. Wonder why the world is going to ?

Because gay people can legally marry each other?

 

[Faun]

You left out “not too closely related” did you do that on purpose?

No, hadn't thought about that. So who's discriminated against by such laws?

 

[HeyNorm]

Because gay people can legally marry each other?

You know a same sex couple does not need to be gay to marry, right?

 

[HeyNorm]

No, hadn't thought about that. So who's discriminated against by such laws?

Do you see an equal justification to prohibit an opposite sex couple from a governmental approved cohabitation, closely related, and two heterosexual same sex individuals, closely related?

Gee wiz

 

[Faun]

You know a same sex couple does not need to be gay to marry, right?

I know. So?

 

[Faun]

Do you see an equal justification to prohibit an opposite sex couple from a governmental approved cohabitation, closely related, and two heterosexual same sex individuals, closely related?

Gee wiz

Sure I do. Banning closely related family members from marrying is the same for all people in America. It's not discriminating against any protected class, so that law doesn't violate the equal protection clause.

Whereas telling Joe he can marry Jane if he loves her and wants to marry her but he can't marry John, if that's who he's in love with, is discrimination based on sex, which is a protected class and is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Did you not read the ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges?

 

[HeyNorm]

I know. So?

You don’t think that redefines the institution? Throw religion out of it. IT is meaningless. You’ve made roommates the equals to mating pairs.

 

[HeyNorm]

Sure I do. Banning closely related family members from marrying is the same for all people in America. It's not discriminating against any protected class, so that law doesn't violate the equal protection clause.

Whereas telling Joe he can marry Jane if he loves her and wants to marry her but he can't John, if that's who he's in love with, is discrimination based on sex, which is a protected class.

Did you not read the ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges?

What is the principle reason closely related individuals are prohibited from marriage?

 

[elektra]

Now any two roommates can be a “married couple”. Wonder why the world is going to ?

only complete morons would demand that the government legislate their relationship

 

[Kruska]

A "holy union" is a religious connotation; and as such, can be banned by religions. But in the U.S., which is not a theology, nor claims an official religion, but does sanction and license marriage, has no choice, as bound by the U.S. Constitution, to treat same sex marriage exactly the same as it treats traditional marriage.

On Indian land, not bound by the U.S. Constitution, they are free to do whatever they want.

Congress has ultimate authority over the Tribal Governments. As such IMO, it is only a matter of Congress "wanting" to introduce existing US constitutional rights onto the Indian council.

 

[Faun]

You don’t think that redefines the institution? Throw religion out of it. IT is meaningless. You’ve made roommates the equals to mating pairs.

What difference does it make if those who want to enter into a legally binding commitment are of the opposite sex or the same sex?

 

[Faun]

What is the principle reason closely related individuals are prohibited from marriage?

If I'm not mistaken, it's because it greatly increases the chance of passing on congenital diseases.

 

[Faun]

only complete morons would demand that the government legislate their relationship

LOL

Way off again. Their relationship is not being legislated any different from a straight person's marriage. What was legislated was their fundamental right to marry.

 

[HeyNorm]

What difference does it make if those who want to enter into a legally binding commitment are of the opposite sex or the same sex?

Because one set mates. Nothing ever has been more important

 

[HeyNorm]

If I'm not mistaken, it's because it greatly increases the chance of passing on congenital diseases.

BINGO! But only if opposite sex!

 

[Faun]

Because one set mates. Nothing ever has been more important

So? Applies to gay people too.

 

[elektra]

LOL

Way off again. Their relationship is not being legislated any different from a straight person's marriage. What was legislated was their fundamental right to marry.

Bullshit, the government gives them permission, issues the paperwork, and when it end the government manages the relationship in divorce court

Stop with you pitiful stammering