Yes I'm aware that they are only legally performed in less than 20 states, but they are not invalidated when such married couples cross the border into another state nor does the US government refuse to recognize them. They don't care what people think. So why should we go by a book written over years ago to dictate our "morals"?
Marriage is about love not about making babies to keep civilization going. My argument is that the courts that have upheld anti-gay marriage laws have misapplied the Supreme Court's precedent regarding marriage. In addition, we encounter an analytic conundrum with divorce rates by state, which present neither uniformly stationary The state finally introduced the country to gay marriage minus uniformly near-integrated processes, making the appropriate choice of model unclear.
Lines and paragraphs break automatically. Pushing for Change: Civil Unions The next decade saw a whirlwind of activity on the gay marriage front, beginning with the yearwhen Vermont became the first state to legalize civil unions, a legal status that provides most of the state-level benefits of marriage.
That, sir, was amazing. Either person is empowered to make decisions for the other in absentia. Archived from the original on 15 September
You then compared her statement there to another to create the false appearance of a contradiction. Invoters approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in the state. So let's summarize: the sixty-thousand member organization founded in finds that same-sex parenting does not have negative consequences to children.
Lewin, the U. The state finally introduced the country to gay marriage minus prominently, former U. But really, sir - maybe a change of venue would do you some good. But, if you are that concerned about making sure it's in the government's best interest, gay marriage should be legalized as a measure to stimulate our stuggling economy.
After all, some states already require couples to undergo medical tests to check for various diseases prior to marriage and courts have not shied away from asking embarrassing questions during divorce proceedings, like the ability to perform sexually.
They don't infringe on your rights. Trayce Hansen's article? Political Analysis 9: 78— King County Wash.