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.
Because of the nature and the history of the "contract" is a sexual and heterosexual union. To be truly sex discrimination you would have to allow woman/woman but not man/man. There was no sex discrimination.
But that's just semantics. A traditional marriage is a heterosexual arrangement. If two heterosexual men married it would be a sham. There's no good or proper purpose for it.
Essentially, you are claiming it is not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because same sex marriage is denied to both men & women, & to both opposite sex couples, & to same sex couples.
But many states had moved toward same-sex civil unions, which save the same purpose.
And the Lefties don't mind at all when the Court of Public Opinion rules in the other direction; they only get upset when their issues and their pet causes are set back by precedent and the rule of law.
No, not a single states civil unions are federally recognized for tax purposes. Civil unions are not recognized across state lines.
The federal government does not recognize civil unions at all.
Because of the nature and the history of the "contract" is a sexual and heterosexual union. To be truly sex discrimination you would have to allow woman/woman but not man/man. There was no sex discrimination.
But that's just semantics. A traditional marriage is a heterosexual arrangement. If two heterosexual men married it would be a sham. There's no good or proper purpose for it.
There is nothing in a marriage license or marriage certificate that mentions sexual relations. So not the marriage contract that is a legal marriage has absolutely nothing to do with sexual relations at all.
There are LOTS of good and proper purposes for people to marry regardless of their sexual orientation. Love, commitment, establishing a home, raising a family. Basically every reason a heterosexual couple wants to marry pertains equally to a homosexual couple. And if two heterosexual men fall in love and want to marry, who are you to determine that’s not good or proper? Fortunately the answer to that question is: no one.
You shouldn't marry your friend just to gain government benefits. It's a sham. Those benefits were originally intended for mothers, housewives and their children really, and to benefit the nuclear family.
Because of the nature and the history of the "contract" is a sexual and heterosexual union. To be truly sex discrimination you would have to allow woman/woman but not man/man. There was no sex discrimination.
But that's just semantics. A traditional marriage is a heterosexual arrangement. If two heterosexual men married it would be a sham. There's no good or proper purpose for it.
Got those tap-dancing shoes laced up today, eh?
It was 100% legal 10 years ago for me to marry a woman, even if we were not in love and never had sex - true or false?
You shouldn't marry your friend just to gain government benefits. It's a sham. Those benefits were originally intended for mothers, housewives and their children really, and to benefit the nuclear family.
Who said anything about government benefits?? In fact, it’s advantageous to NOT marry if certain benefits are what you’re after.
BTW - The definition of Nuclear Family is: A married couple and their children. Funny, but the sexual orientation of said couple isn’t part of the definition......
You shouldn't marry your friend just to gain government benefits. It's a sham. Those benefits were originally intended for mothers, housewives and their children really, and to benefit the nuclear family.
I am a mother and a house wife. Why should I not be allowed to access those benefits when an elderly couple past reproduction age, or couples that are are sterile can?
Essentially, you are claiming it is not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because same sex marriage is denied to both men & women, & to both opposite sex couples, & to same sex couples.
Yes I been claiming all along the 14th amendment had a very narrow original intent and meaning mostly regarding the recently freed black citizens and criminal law. And in more recent years judicial activism and abusing judicial review have been at play, and I oppose it. The 14th didn't even give woman the right to vote. The Constitution had to have an amendment added. It didn't require everyone to be eligible to be naturalized etc.
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.
