Gore sexual assualt Follow

Well, as long as there's a reason.

I assume you agree with this since you just included gay marriage into the category of "discrimination".

Apparently not since you're okay with homosexuals being discriminated against by the government.

Tulip,

The scrotus also says it's ok to murder babies while they're still in the womb. That doesn't make it right.

You're not Roman Catholic are you?

Jophed,



It does in Democrat states. They don't mind ignoring the federal govt's rules for marriage because they don't think it's right.

I'll just leave this here.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/135764/americans-acceptance-gay-relations-crosses-threshold.aspx

They don't have to. They have the right to define marriage for themselves.

And we have our former President getting inappropriate with the German chancellor.

We do not approve of such fratboy douchebag shenanigans. and neither did Merkel, for that matter.

Irrelevant. I asked what the "right to marry" entailed, and Bard said it was the right to enter into a contract with your partner (presumably a marriage contract). He did not mention receiving benefits from the state with regard to military pension transfers.

And regardless of the size of a contract, the "right" to enter into it isn't infringed as long as it's legal to enter into said contract. The size is the same btw, it's just that you don't normally print out the whole state default marriage contract when you apply for a marriage license. Signing it is the same as signing said contract though, regardless of whether it's printed out for you or not. Similary, it takes no more time to sign the last page of a hundred page contract than a one page contract. If those are all the conditions and legal bindings you want, then that's what you're getting. I'm not sure what the complaint is here. You're free to sign a less complete marriage contract if you want...

Yup. Which is why that whole line of reasoning is bogus. No one is denying a "right to marry". I'm saying that the right to marry does not automatically mean that your marriage must qualify you for the same state issued benefits. The "right" is to enter into the contract, not to receive the benefits.

What's funny is that Bard, probably without thinking about it, got it right the first time. He knew immediately that it's the legally recognized contract which you have a right to enter into. But that's not what this issue is about, is it?



I'm saying that the rulings meaning is misused. A lot of people (even justices) fail to correctly identify what the right to marriage is actually about. They sling the phrase around to show how important something is, but don't define it, leaving future rulings to make bad assumptions.

I'm also not asking what the court said. I'm asking you guys to tell me what you think a right to marry is. Absent any assumptions about who is or should have it. If it's a right, then everyone should have it, right? That's what you're saying. So what is the "right" to which no person can be denied? It's not a hard question. Bard got it right. You've all just failed to grasp the meaning of what he said.

Yes, I know. You're much more comfortable trying to out-word someone on an internet forum who has a limited understanding of the law than trying to debate against established court rulings. So let's say that the court rulings don't matter and try to make the argument all about what someone posted in =4. That makes perfect sense for a debate that revolves entirely around our legal system from the founding documents of the 18th century to modern judicial review.

Can I get a rolly-eyes here?!