bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,358
- 2,180
Wrong.I believe there can legitimately be more than one interpretation.
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.
Wrong.I believe there can legitimately be more than one interpretation.
What makes his opinion the final word?
Of course there can. However, abortion and marriage laws aren't mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, according to the Constitution they are state issues. Now you may not agree with that, but you're wrong, and that's why RvW was overturned and why same-sex marriage will be overturned.I believe there can legitimately be more than one interpretation.
There is one right interpretation, and the others are all wrong.Of course there can. However, abortion and marriage laws aren't mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, according to the Constitution they are state issues. Now you may not agree with that, but you're wrong.
Of course there can. However, abortion and marriage laws aren't mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, according to the Constitution they are state issues. Now you may not agree with that, but you're wrong, and that's why RvW was overturned and why same-sex marriage will be overturned.
The Federal Govt doesn't give out marriage licences....they don't have the authority too.Again, as long as the Federal government is handing out benefits based upon one's marriage status, it's a federal issue. The government can not discriminate. Get rid of the benefits and I'll agree.
It's really irrelevant if same-sex marriage gets overturned now.
Marriage benefits exist for the purpose of raising children, which is why homosexual marriage is a joke.Again, as long as the Federal government is handing out benefits based upon one's marriage status, it's a federal issue. The government can not discriminate. Get rid of the benefits and I'll agree.
It's really irrelevant if same-sex marriage gets overturned now.
Then why give SS benefits to spouses?The Federal Govt doesn't give out marriage licences....they don't have the authority too.
why not? any retirement plan will allow you to give surivor benefits to the spouse....why should SS be any different? Retirement plans don't give out marriage licenses eitherThen why give SS benefits to spouses?
The Federal Govt doesn't give out marriage licences....they don't have the authority too.
SS isn't a retirement program. It's welfare. The spouses didn't put a dime into it.why not? any retirement plan will allow you to give surivor benefits to the spouse....why should SS be any different? Retirement plans don't give out marriage licenses either
Marriage benefits exist for the purpose of raising children, which is why homosexual marriage is a joke.
SS isn't a retirement program. It's welfare. The spouses didn't put a dime into it.
Of course they did. Marriage is a partnership. For many one side of the equation does not work without the other.
Yes, it is a retirement plan....well was suppose to be.....and certainly spouses put money in if they work, if they don't work, some of the money was put in from spouse, taking money that would of been used in the homeSS isn't a retirement program. It's welfare. The spouses didn't put a dime into it.
i'll take that as a surrenderThree cats make a trio.
what makes you think gay people can't raise children together?Gay marriage is just two fuck buddies living together. What work do they share? Women originally got spousal benefits because they spent their who lives raising children. What does a gay fuck buddy spend his live doing?
Not their own.what makes you think gay people can't raise children together?
Queers should never be allowed near children.what makes you think gay people can't raise children together?
what are you talking about? of course they canNot their own.