What could be the next front in this SSM war?

[_collegeterrace]

Nehor, do you have any experience with marriage?

Oh yeah, I forgot, you have never been married.

What next? Your great knowledge of raising children will be shared with us?

Stick to things you know, which should be easy since that list is pretty short.

in my opinion I don't think The Nehor needs to be married to discuss legal issues regarding marriage.

I do. He does not understand the dynamics involved in long term relationships and therefore cannot begin to understand why the gay community is asking for rights as a couple.

[_The Nehor]

I disagree here. It's not so much a tradition as what the word marriage has always meant. To expand that definition is a change, not a logical consequence. If a man happens to want to have sex with a fish, a child, a corpse, or his imaginary friend does that mean that logically marriage rights should be offered.

The tradition I was referring to is the defintion of the word.

I already addressed why those other marriages could not be recognized by the government.

And I agree with that assessment in legal terms but not in terms of tradition. We give words meaning. To say a word has a new meaning and then force that meaning into preexisting law is ludicrous. While these would never happen imagine trying to expand the definition of murder to mean kids trespassing or expanding the concept of right to property to mean a right to have a certain amount of property. You can do these things but I don't think this change should be decided in the courts arguing what marriage is. Legislation and/or amendments to legislation to redefine what marriage is is the correct course.

Outside of my personal objection to homosexual marriage, I consider following this course in redefining terms to fit political agendas a dangerous slippery slope.

[_Brackite]

I personally hope the Federal government honors the 10th amendment and leaves it as a state issue. The only proviso I think they should consider is how the 'full faith and credit' clause apply to this as civil unions and different marriage laws pop up nationwide.

I do agree here.
Here is the Tenth Amendment, to the United States Constitution:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

(http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... amendmentx)



For Example, There are some States that legally allow first Cousins to get Marry to each other. And, There are some of the other States that do Not legally allow first Cousins to get marry to each other.
Please Check Out and See:

State Laws Regarding Marriages Between First Cousins:

Cousin-couples:

Cousin Marriages:

[_harmony]

Yeah, marriage is a fundamental right but marriage in the United States and the Western world has always meant a man and a woman joining in a legal relationship.

Where were you in 1843 in Nauvoo? Or Utah in 1852? Marriage is whatever the majority in power says it is.

I don't think the federal government can or should attempt to redefine it's meaning.

So you'd prefer it to be left to the states. Had that been the case in the 1890's, you'd be living polygamy. My only thought to that is: thank God for the US government.

Either that or a huge battle for a federal constitutional amendment (which I personally do not want).

I can conjure up memories of the ERA battles. Oh please, let us not do that again.

[_moksha]

Either that or a huge battle for a federal constitutional amendment (which I personally do not want).

I can conjure up memories of the ERA battles. Oh please, let us not do that again.

I think it would be more like the Scopes Trial or even Inherit the Wind, with the forces for allowing gay marriage playing Henry Drummond and the Church playing Mathew Harrison Brady.