Supreme Court going to look at DOMA, prop 8

[Kane]

Well, then it's semantics. You're arguing that the government shouldn't be involved with the institution of marriage in religious terms which is something I can agree with but at the same time you must've known the context in which we were debating. Remove the religious connotation and describe them all as a civil union. Imbue the relationship as the government sees it as simply a civil union in all contexts and remove the issue for most, which was/is the government utilizing a religious term to describe something that nets couples government benefits.

To just go "guys, I meant that its cool if gays get civil unions recognized by the state I just don't like the use of the term marriage" is a bit lame at this point in the game. And if we're going to recognize this as the argument at hand let's qualify whether we think heterosexual and homosexual couples are guaranteed, under the US constitution and the equal protection clause, the same benefits any civil union enjoys.

End it here John.

[The Comrade]

hey galt how many kids did your marriage produce?


none?


perhaps you aren't the best voice for the argument you've been giving for the better pat of....10 pages?

[Ameriman]

[Spider]

[Ameriman]

Marriage doesn't have anything to do with kids...true...heterosexual sex on the other hand...

[cool_chick]

Government recognizion of marriage has nothing to do with kids. That's just someone making up crap in an effort to try to justify a failed position.

[Ameriman]

[wormwood]

[Dylan]

[Dylan]