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.
Thanks for recognizing your privilege I guess? So sheltered you think two men in a relationship would never be challenged?
And yeah a marriage license is just the name of a bundled contract that does all those things.
I'd rather not need a marriage license at all since it's not the government's business except they want to control what I can and can't do in order to extract the maximum amount of taxes. Too bad you think you need the government to decide things for you.
FWIW I don't give a crap about two men in a relationship. Any more than any other people in a relationship. Do what makes you happy because it's none of my business.
I'd rather not need a marriage license at all since it's not the government's business except they want to control what I can and can't do in order to extract the maximum amount of taxes. Too bad you think you need the government to decide things for you.
FWIW I don't give a crap about two men in a relationship. Any more than any other people in a relationship. Do what makes you happy.
You just said you wanted the federal government out of it though and that it was a state issue. If any form of government would be involved it should be federal as it is an issue that spans state lines and affects interstate commerce.
Hiring a lawyer to draw up a marriage like contract is something that still ultimately involves the government. So what’s the difference?
You just said you wanted the federal government out of it though and that it was a state issue. If any form of government would be involved it should be federal as it is an issue that spans state lines and affects interstate commerce.
Hiring a lawyer to draw up a marriage like contract is something that still ultimately involves the government. So what’s the difference?
The Constitution and specifically the 10th Amendment. But why should the government be involved at all? You seem to insist that it does.
Some states voted no on same sex marriage but activists decided to go around the will of those voters.
The Constitution and specifically the 10th Amendment.
Again it affects interstate commerce, heck international commerce.
But again even in the private contract scenario the government gets involved should the contract be broken and property/custody/etc must be decided. So again that contract is the same damn thing as a marriage license.
Making people’s sexuality legal was not a big deal? Do you not hear yourself? That provides 2 examples from 2018. What does it being on CNN have to do with anything? You think they made up the cited court cases? That’s a serious case of delusion.
Fundamentally I'm on your side but I think you overreact.
Did any of this, those stupid laws, ever stop anyone gay from having sex? No.
Not like being unable to marry would drastically affect one's quality of life. There are 1100+ federal benefits to marriage.
Again it affects interstate commerce, heck international commerce.
But again even in the private contract scenario the government gets involved should the contract be broken and property/custody/etc must be decided. So again that contract is the same damn thing as a marriage license.
And I am questioning why are you arguing for the government to give you permission to do something that should be none of their business? People are the frogs in the slow boil pot for the last hundred years allowing the government so much intrusion into every facet of their lives. It's second nature to ask the government's permission for everything. No one questions it.
Some people say this gay marriage should be left up to the states.
That being the case, some states would not recognize it.
Would that same stance also include straight marriage?
What's good for one, should be good for all.
If gay marriage is not recognized in a particular state, then straight marriage shouldn't be either.
I believe the 14th amendment spells that out pretty clearly.
Okay, but did cops break into peoples' homes and hide and wait for them to have gay sex to arrest them?
Read the article. It’s about a lot more than just that.
Not sure when the last arrest for gay behavior was but the Stonewall riot era over it was not really that long ago...
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.
