Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Still feel it should be a state issue. More federal government intervention.
Why stop there?? Who does the government think they are telling me I can love & marry only one person?? What if I want 5 wives and moving to Utah isn't in the cards?
Why stop there?? Who does the government think they are telling me I can love & marry only one person?? What if I want 5 wives and moving to Utah isn't in the cards?
I'm fine with pluralistic marriage if you want it. I on the other hand couldn't imagine wanting more than one wife that's more than enough for me. As long as it's two or more consenting adults with the ability to consent, then have whatever freaky dreaky sex and resulting contractual obligations you want to engage in.
You're correct having two or three wives may be a bit much to handle after you got the honeymoon stage out of the way. Who wants to split things 3 or 4 ways when things head south?
Serious question: why can't a single guy or girl get the same benefits as a married couple? Why force someone into marriage by incentivizing it?
So I have a question? If a church offers marriage ceremonies, can they still refuse to do it to same sex couples, or can they be charged with violating the civil rights for refusing to do so?
Thanks. I hadn't heard one way or the other.A church can refuse to perform the service. It's in the opinion (or at least I have been told that it is in the opinion, I haven't had time to read it or the many dissents)
Yes, much like churches have been able to refuse to marry mixed couples since the courts ruled they were allowed to marry just the same as same race couples, about 55ish years ago.So I have a question? If a church offers marriage ceremonies, can they still refuse to do it to same sex couples, or can they be charged with violating the civil rights for refusing to do so?
Anti-consanguinity laws were passed because of the genetic mutations in offspring--generally these laws are limited to the second cousin.
I seem to recall reading that first cousins can legally marry in like 20something states.? Relations more distant than 2nd cousin can marry, but this close or closer can't legally marry?
I recall some first cousin marriages in Europe, like I think Einstein's.......not sure if that's still legal over there.
Ask a hippie.So I have a question? If a church offers marriage ceremonies, can they still refuse to do it to same sex couples, or can they be charged with violating the civil rights for refusing to do so?
? Relations more distant than 2nd cousin can marry, but this close or closer can't legally marry?
I recall some first cousin marriages in Europe, like I think Einstein's.......not sure if that's still legal over there.
Still feel that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at any level.Still feel it should be a state issue. More federal government intervention.
No one should be involved if two people love each other and want go get married. How does it effect you? (you meaning people who are against it because it doesn't).
Yes, much like churches have been able to refuse to marry mixed couples since the courts ruled they were allowed to marry just the same as same race couples, about 55ish years ago.
So now, if they employ someone at their church, say a private school of the church, do they have to recognize the marriage as it relates to providing health care benefits to the spouse of the employee, even though that church itself does not recognize the person as a spouse? Or are they free to discriminate against employing someone engaged in a same-sex marriage or fire them should they become part of a same sex marriage?
I am by no means a legal expert. But I'm not sure the HL decision has an effect on the question.I believe that, under the Hobby Lobby decision, the church would not have to provide insurance coverage to a same sex partner or seek out an insurer who's policy includes coverages for a same-sex partner. Although, Hobby Lobby is not directly on point, there is enough there to indicate as such. This decision is really and intentional restrictive to state discrimination against same-sex couples that want to marry.
I am by no means a legal expert. But I'm not sure the HL decision has an effect on the question.
HL was asking for the same religious exemption that churches were already allowed when it came to paying for certain types of birth control.
The answer to WDN's question probably will get answered over the coming weeks, as I'm not sure if that has been addressed by ACA yet. Now that these marriages are legal, do churches get the same exemption, if they do, then so does HL.
Spare a thought for the same sexers. When guys have troubles with their wives they go play golf with other dudes. When ladies have troubles with their man, they hang out with other women and shop and drink wine and stuff. When both partners are from the same sex, wtf are you supposed to do?
I thought gay marriage is perfect? I mean according to all the news, it appears that it is the greatest thing ever.
We're done as a country. Dudes marrying dudes. Dudes becoming chicks. Yeah, this is what the framers intended. Sure. Everyone gets a ribbon. Everything is fine. Nothing is off limits. Yeah. This will work.
We're done as a country. Dudes marrying dudes. Dudes becoming chicks. Yeah, this is what the framers intended. Sure. Everyone gets a ribbon. Everything is fine. Nothing is off limits. Yeah. This will work.
So, if a same sex couple gets married in a state that permits it then has their job transferred to a state that doesn't, should the couple be denied the spousal benefits enjoyed in their previous location?Still feel it should be a state issue. More federal government intervention.
Somewhere, Abraham Lincoln is smiling in his log cabin
Agree. Make it a contract enforceable by government.Still feel that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at any level.
Yeah the good old days that the slavers err...I mean framers envisioned. That original Constitution was a perfect god given document as it allowed us the benefits of slavery; women are mere chattel without rights; the government could imprison you for debts, speaking your mind, gathering with likeminded friends; you couldn't petition/sue the government to address anything the government did to you; you were not allowed weapons to defend yourself; law enforcement could search you and seize assets for no reason; you could be tried multiple times for the same crime; you could be punished before being tried if you looked...funny or something, no reason necessary; you could be tortured into a confession; the court wasn't required to tell you what your were being tried for if they actually bothered with a trial; torture was deemed a perfectly acceptable punishment; they could murder you by putting you in a diseases ridden prison without food or ordinary sanitation; only white males not Asians, Hispanics, native Americans and CERTAINLY not those black slaves were allowed to vote; but even if you're a white male, you can't be a poor white male because you could only vote if you had enough land or could afford to pay tax imposed to vote; and there were no limits on how many years your king...I mean president could serve.
Yep those original slaveowning founders could do no wrong and created a perfect document in the original constitution. We should never change.