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.
Harrier has answered this question multiple times and if you had simply asked him without the editorializing and lies about him supposedly not having done so he would answer it again for the umpteenth time.
The fact that you couldn't ask a straightforward question and had to frame the question clearly shows your bias, and that you are not being open-minded.
The truth is that you don't like Harrier's answer, and so you pretend that it hasn't been given.
When you take the fingers out of your ears and prove to Harrier that you are ready to listen and have an adult discussion then he will oblige you.
Until then start using the search function - you will find the answer to your question all over any thread concerning this topic in which Harrier has participated.
Go chew on your own bait.
That's what I thought.
So awful you can't even type it out because you know I'll mercilessly ridicule it for how stupid it is.
Government's going to be involved with marriage regardless, because people are going to end their relationships and have to divide their stuff and their kids. People who work for the government (including the members of our armed forces) have spouses that get to use their benefits. A man who dies and isn't legally married and has no will, his "wife" doesn't get the estate if they're not "married" all because you don't want to see the gays get married. How about private businesses and spousal benefits? I guess those all just disappear too.
upheaval.
All of these issues can be settled through private contracts and wills.
There is no reason for marriage to be endorsed by government.
That is what Harrier is looking for - a rationale for government endorsement of marriage that cannot be facilitated in any other manner.
Out of curiosity--do you support interpreting the U.S. Constitution based on original intent?
I'm not an originalist, but when it comes to the basics of how the three branches of the federal government should function and what their roles would be, I think they provided a good blueprint. If anything, the supremacy clause would necessitate the federal judiciary's role of review of state laws in my opinion, it's much less cumbersome and efficient (and makes more sense) than having the national legislature (which isn't in-session year round and at the time of adoption, was in session less than today) specifically address any conflict arising between state and federal law or the constitutionality of state law.
So awful you can't even type it out because you know I'll mercilessly ridicule it for how stupid it is.
No, Harrier doesn't feel like repeating himself.
If you claim to have been familiar with my posts in the gay marriage threads then you have seen it.
To post it now after your maliciously false framing of the question would give credence to your lie that Harrier has not answered that question.
If you wanted a straight answer then ask a straight question(no pun intended).
Its too late now - you have proved yourself to be non-objective and not the slightest bit interested in what Harrier has to say - so you can search for the answer.
it won't be hard to find.
When you do, post it here so that Harrier knows that you are generally interested and then we can have an honest debate.
All of these issues can be settled through private contracts and wills.
There is no reason for marriage to be endorsed by government.
That is what Harrier is looking for - a rationale for government endorsement of marriage that cannot be facilitated in any other manner.
The rationale is fairly simple. Millions of Americans are married. I would even boldly suggest that many of them are happy being married. Millions more want to get married someday. They shouldn't be denied being married because YOU want to deny a small segment of the population the chance to get married. If people don't want to get married, they don't have to, it's called "dating."
But if you want to do away with all that, the onus is on you to say why that upheaval is worth it just to deny gay people marriage.
If you claim to have been familiar with my posts in the gay marriage threads then you have seen it.
To post it now after your maliciously false framing of the question would give credence to your lie that Harrier has not answered that question.
If you wanted a straight answer then ask a straight question(no pun intended).
Its too late now - you have proved yourself to be non-objective and not the slightest bit interested in what Harrier has to say - so you can search for the answer.
it won't be hard to find.
When you do, post it here so that Harrier knows that you are generally interested and then we can have an honest debate.
As opposed to what? Your completely objective opposition to gay marriage (sarcasm intended)?
I trust the guys that wrote it to interpret its meaning more than I trust you.
How's that?
If you think you understand the document better than the guys that wrote it, by all means, lets see your credentials.
lol
That was weak.
Never have been able to understand the liberal insistence on outsourcing their own thought process.
The Constitution is written in plain English with no need for interpretation.
If the Founders wanted the Constitution to be "interpreted", they would have delegated the task to a specific government body and they would have written their intentions into the Constitution itself.
The reason they didn't go that route should be obvious, but I'll wait while you have someone with credentials explain to you what I really meant.
The rationale is fairly simple. Millions of Americans are married. I would even boldly suggest that many of them are happy being married. Millions more want to get married someday. They shouldn't be denied being married because YOU want to deny a small segment of the population the chance to get married. If people don't want to get married, they don't have to, it's called "dating."
But if you want to do away with all that, the onus is on you to say why that upheaval is worth it just to deny gay people marriage.
Ending government endorsement of marriage does not equate getting rid of marriage.
All Harrier's plan would do would make marriage have no legal meaning.
If people wanted to call themselves married they could do so.
Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
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.
