Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So now what if John whats to join Ben and Jerry in their "marriage". Not allowing him to marry them as well would be infringing on his "civil rights" I take it, according to all the pro gray marriage people?
Absolutely.
There's nothing wrong with the scenario you presented, otuside of possible tax liabilities.
Gays could already enter in to legal contracts before this. It just wasnt called Marriage. They arent gaining any rights, rather they are only trampling on the definition and sanctity of marriage.
Then why aren't heterosexuals allowed to have civil unions? Shouldn't heterosexuals be allowed to have civil unions also?
Or for that matter, why not make ALL marriages civil unions, and those who want religious ceremonies can always have them in addition to civil marriage?
you do realize that there are Gay churches and gay friendly churches that will marry same sex partners, don't you? Same sex unions are fine as long as they are applied to everybody the same way. Bottom line, gays would still get "married" EVEN IF the States issued only civil unions. It would have to be uniform throughout all of the States however for it to work (a brand new construct in other words)
This is the pitiful level of argumentation made by people who oppose gay marriage. If a man can marry a man, eventually, a man will be able to marry a horse. Nevermind that animals can't consent.
Gays could already enter in to legal contracts before this. It just wasnt called Marriage. They arent gaining any rights, rather they are only trampling on the definition and sanctity of marriage.
A: Definitions change. Language isn't a static thing.
B: The sanctity of marriage was trampled upon rather long ago. To start complaining about it now is rather foolhardy.
C: Marriage isn't limited to just one religion.
D: Not everyone who gets married IS part of a religion.
So now what if John whats to join Ben and Jerry in their "marriage". Not allowing him to marry them as well would be infringing on his "civil rights" I take it, according to all the pro gray marriage people?
That's poly marriage. Wait until the bisexuals want to marry a male and a female.
Gays could already enter in to legal contracts before this. It just wasnt called Marriage. They arent gaining any rights, rather they are only trampling on the definition and sanctity of marriage.
This is a lie. Civil unions do not provide all the benefits that marriage does.
Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.
Gays could already enter in to legal contracts before this. It just wasnt called Marriage. They arent gaining any rights, rather they are only trampling on the definition and sanctity of marriage.
This is wrong.
"Legal marriage" has several tangible financial privileges. To systematically deny these privileges to gay people because you don't like them is unconstitutional.
If you don't like that, then work to change the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
