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.
Plenty of companies, big and small, have "domestic partner" benefits regardless of the state. Yet the USG won't recognize even that.
They would have to if its a state issue. No different than state A would have to recognize a marriage license from state B, even if state A doesnt support it.
Well Texas does not recognize or allow gay marriages yet companies doing business in Texas have Domestic Partner benefits for their Texas employees.
The Fed could easily do that with their benefits as well.
No where in the constitution does it state how any state government must define marriage, or if they need to define it at all, in fact it leaves things like that completely up to the states to decide for themselves.
Where does the US Constitution say that a state government must even be in the business of endorsing any marriages, much less declare how they must do it?
This decision isn't about how states define marriage, it is about federal recognition of state-sanctioned marriages.
Lulzing over the thought that the poster that said that thought there was any kind of equality, you know?
Well the suit was brought forward due to the denial of Federal benefits.
There was nothing in the article about "marriage license". And MA does recognize gay marriages.
With Domestic partner rules one doesn't need a marriage license to get benefits.
Well the suit was brought forward due to the denial of Federal benefits.
There was nothing in the article about "marriage license". And MA does recognize gay marriages.
With Domestic partner rules one doesn't need a marriage license to get benefits.
Didn't say which benefits though.
The suit was about the Defense Of Marriage Act, which deals entirely with legal marriage. It doesn't say a word about benefits given by private companies.
Well the suit was brought forward due to the denial of Federal benefits.
There was nothing in the article about "marriage license". And MA does recognize gay marriages.
With Domestic partner rules one doesn't need a marriage license to get benefits.
Didn't say which benefits though.
I normally agree with a great deal of what you have to say, and respect what I dont agree with.
You seem to really be off your game tonight.
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.
