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.
Marriage has always been a state issue, it was the gay marriage movement who have been trying to turn it in a federal issue, to get the federal courts to redefine marriage for the entire nation, just like was done with abortion.
Taxes aren't a state issue. Immigration isn't a state issue. How can marriage be a state issue when both taxes and immigration are hugely impacted by marital status?
Marriage has always been a state issue, it was the gay marriage movement who have been trying to turn it in a federal issue, to get the federal courts to redefine marriage for the entire nation, just like was done with abortion.
So that being said, I assume your ok with gay couples married in the states were it is legal to receive the Federal benefits that the hetero couples in those same states get?
It's also about the intense desire to have their lifestyle choices accepted by, and endorsed by society.
It is not a lifestyle choice. Did you choose a straight lifestyle and if so, what is it? My partner and I live no differently than anyone else. Saying it is a choice makes it okay for people to discriminate against us.
As long as we destroy the definition and function of marriage and replace it with a blank slate, then it becomes whatever anyone wants it to be. Which is exactly what gay marriage is doing.
No it is not, it is you straight people destroying marriage with all of your frivolous divorces in excess of 55%. Keep spreading more lies.
Marriage has always been a state issue, it was the gay marriage movement who have been trying to turn it in a federal issue, to get the federal courts to redefine marriage for the entire nation, just like was done with abortion.
You can actually thank Congress and the passing of DOMA for making it a federal issue. Without DOMA there would be no federal case. You kinda have to love the irony here. Politicians and their infinite wisdom sought to ban gay marriage and only extend the benefits to hetero marriage, but by doing so they made gay marriage a federal issue and not a state issue.
The SCOTUS recognized that marriage is and always has been a state issue and they even stated they want to stay away from any ruling that would legalize marriage in all states. However, when the federal gov treats a gay married couple living in NY differently than a hetero married couple living in NY you have a problem.
Marriage has always been a state issue, it was the gay marriage movement who have been trying to turn it in a federal issue, to get the federal courts to redefine marriage for the entire nation, just like was done with abortion.
Wrong analogy, the Federal government has the right to enforce its laws on marriage, the states have limited control of marriage, that is why the federal government had to force all states to accept interracial marriage in the US when more than 70% opposed it. Marriage was redefined to include couples of different races. It is a federal issue because the 1049 plus/minus marriage rights are granted by the federal government.. Do not like gay marriage, do not get one, simple.
The Feds involved themselves in marriage by providing over 1000 benefits, protections, and considerations for a legal civil marriage. They further involved themselves with the passing of DOMA.
AND
Loving V Virginia was decided by the Feds.
The feds were not involving themselves in defining marriage.
As long as we destroy the definition and function of marriage and replace it with a blank slate, then it becomes whatever anyone wants it to be. Which is exactly what gay marriage is doing.
How does gays getting married destroy the heterosexual function of marriage? Are heterosexuals now forbidden from marrying?
Fine.
Would you say that it is JUST FINE if two close friends (of the same sex, or different - but with no sexual relationship) sexes get married, so that one can pass their pension on to the other one?
This already happens.
Quote:
And if two can marry for this reason, then why not three, four, or more ?
A very complicated legal issue relating to taxes, privileges, and issues with polygamous relationships.
Quote:
In other words, when you drift away from Traditional Marriage of one man with one woman, then where do you draw the line?
You draw the line at arrangements that have no valid legal argument supporting them. The government must have a compelling state interest in stopping something for them to do so. They don't have one for same-sex marriage.
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.
