Thatís lovely, but your opinion does not rise to the level of a compelling state interest to deny fellow citizens equal protection of the laws.That's a good point. I happen to think there's a good reason marriage is between man and woman.
Brian, for each of the partices you cite where that are disallowed there is a legitimate state interest served by disallowing them. Bigamy seeks inherently greater protection of the law, incest results in a medically known higher rate of birth defects and mental illness, in pedophilia the minor cannot legally consent, and similarly forced marriage implies a lack of consent.I happen to like all the standards around marriage, anti-bigamist, anti-incest, anti-pedophile, anti-forced marriage and male/female gender ratio; I like marriage as is;
Do you possess the grey matter to indicate a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry? Because I donít think you do.
Arguing for fellow citizens to be held as second class citizens wwith less than equal protection of the law isnít moderate, it is infantile.I'm a moderate.
Of course, you seem to lack the capacity to indicate even so much as a rational basis to deny constitutionally guaranteed equal protection of the laws.I don't want same sex marriage because I don't want to change ANY marriage standard, not just the male/female part.
No, it makes you an idiot to argue against the rights of fellow countrymen.That makes me a conservative; to keep the definition of marriage.
Funny, a growing majority support marriage equality, while support dwindles. Heck, even Mittens once supported gay marriage, having been the governor of the first state to legally allow the practice.That's why I like Romney and think Obama is making a mistake, on the wrong side of history with this issue.
Of course, you would like a candidate with no backbone who has been on both sides of just about every issue out there.
Pity.You know M.L. will never shut me up?
This is nothing more than BS. You cannot say you respect someoneís dignity while arguing against their constitutional rights.I like her posts, because of the clarity. We respect the dignity of our LGBT neighbors,
Fundamental rights are not subject to Democracy.ďOne's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.Ē West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)want to join against common enemy; those opposing democratic intercourse, and consider this a minor political dispute.
No, youíre not. You havenít even been able to offer a rational basis for your position, which is risible.I hope to see more of Mona's posts because it shows we're wearing them down, we're winning!