Can infertile heterosexual couples marry? If so, then your assertion is down the tubes.You're putting the cart before the horse. The whole issues has been systematically attacked, starting with the removal of children as the primary impetus of marriage. Having removed this inconvenient validation for coupling, you are having a happy time stating that my assertion is "down the tubes".
No it is not. The state doesnít take children born out of wedlock, and it allows divorce in cases where children are in the picture. Only a moron would imply that there is a state interest in children being raised by two biological parents. How does it feel to be utterly out of touch with reality?Stating that "that the state does not have an interest in a child being raised by two biological parents" is another step towards the new and draconian measure of taking our children away, and letting the state take control of them.
Actually, you are the one advocating that the state not provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws counter to the US Constitution. Itís ironic that you then accuse someone else of fascism. One wonders if you actually have any understanding of what you have implied?The Nazi ideal realized.
No, if one can count, they can see that the protections sought is greater.Again, you assert that the rights sought by the polygamists are greater than others are asking for, but this is a lie.
Do you see how you just employed the word greater? Yeah, that is how you just disproved your own argument. Congratulations, you arenít to terribly bright.The actual number of rights are identical, the number of claimants is greater.
This is why you have disproven your own argument. I think your ignorance is hysterical.This is because 3 is greater than 2. Simple mathematics.
The difference is outlawing bigamy can be justified because it seeks greater protection, which you yourself have admitted in your inept attempt to justify polygamy, while outlawing same sex marriage serves no compelling state interest.On the books, as were laws preventing SSM, created by the same people.
WTF are you talking about?You have chosen to take the side that these laws were not fair (when your pets were denied rights),
Earth to moron, there is a compelling state interest served by denying siblings the right to marry.but yet valid as hell (when your ignored brothers and sisters were denied), which makes you seem Quixotic.