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.
Well right now that doesn’t make a difference because it’s legal federally. That will become a problem if the Supreme Court overturns it. It’s very important that it remain legal federally, to allow same-sex partners to have the same tax breaks, Social Security survivorship rights, etc.
Right. I was speaking in the event it was overturned.
LOL, if you believe women have been property, they are a curious form of property, where the OWNER (husband) has the legal duty to support and defend, and the "property" has no obligation to support in return.
NON-SUPPORT. The failure or neglect unreasonably to support those to whom an obligation of support is due ; e.g. duty of parents to support children; duty to support spouse. Such failure to support is a criminal offense in most states. See e.g. Model Penal Code Sec. 230.5.
... Nonsupport of a spouse is an individual’s failure to without just cause to provide for the support of his spouse in necessitous circumstances.
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1058
“ The right of a father to the fruits of his child’s labor has its foundation in his obligation to protect, nurture, and educate the child.”
- - -The Etna , Fed. Cas. No. 4,542 [1 Ware (462) 474] (1838)
“ The common law rule exists in this state that the father has a paramount right to superintend and nurture of his children.”
- - - People v. Olmstead, 27 Barb. 9 (NY 1857)
“ A mother, during the lifetime of the father, is not bound to support her minor children.”
- - - Gladding v. Follett , 2 Dem. Sur. 58 (NY 1883)
“ A mother, after the death of the father, is not entitled to the earnings of a minor child.”
- - - Pray v. Gorham, 31 Me. 240 (Me.1850)
The common law pronounced the equitable rights to the earnings of a child are found, not in the mother, but in the father’s obligation to support the child. Whereas, only the man had the duty to support his wife and children.
In old movies and books, one often comes across a man complaining that he doesn't make enough to "support a wife." (Not "own a wife") Once a woman married, the husband had the sole duty of support. If she worked "outside the home" it was a tacit acknowledgement that the man was derelict and could possibly be prosecuted. That all changed with national socialism (1930s).
But to presume women were property is absurd. You don't go to jail for failing to care for your "property."
Frankly, women (and wives) had a superior right to life, because men were expected to die in their defense ("women and children first into the lifeboats!").
If that's what you consider being property, we'll have to agree to disagree.
In all your provided links, one was missing. The one that stipulates a wife has a duty to submit to the husband wanting sex.
Legalize ALL marriage.
Fair is fair. Equality and NO discrimination.
I would like to marry my goat. And my sister.
Love knows no boundaries or borders. Or common sense apparently.
It's called "legally consenting adults". That's why a 32-year-old can't marry a 12-year-old in the US, whether they're the same sex or not.
Are you aware that the Catholic Church, (as recently as the 1970s/80s) believed that interracial relationships/marriages, were 'immoral and wrong'?
I always find it curious how the church has done a total 180 on that particular issue today! (they have no problems with interracial couples marrying today!!)...
Not to mention, that is a pretty good sign that they will also do a 180 on other issues eventually, imo anyway. How can they retain credibility at this point? when they have flip flopped in the recent past?
The argument against interracial marriage in Loving was RELIGIOUS. God created separate races. It was a affront to God for the races to mix and have children together. Sounds like something out of the 17th Century, or Nazi Pure Aryan Race.
The argument against interracial marriage in Loving was RELIGIOUS. God created separate races. It was a affront to God for the races to mix and have children together. Sounds like something out of the 17th Century, or Nazi Pure Aryan Race.
God didn’t create separate races. He only created Adam and Eve
Get back with me in 5-10 years and we’ll see what the lefty social justice extremists are saying then.
Most likely, they’ll allow all of it and chalk it up to some sort of confusion that should be embraced rather than getting true help.
They'll get to be the adults, and those of us who won't comply with these thought police will be judged as bigots, haters, etc.
Do you realise most gay adults don't like those lefty social justice extremists either?
Do you realise most gay adults don't like those lefty social justice extremists either?
Neither do most Democrats which most here don’t seem to get. The reason Biden was picked is precisely because Dems didn’t want a progressive and thought he’d be moderate.
But gays do feel under attack from the right due to new laws being passed on the state level and I can definitely understand why they feel that way. My niece is married to a woman and quite concerned with the direction things seem to be going.
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.
