Posted on 01/10/2017 7:19:55 PM PST by Olog-hai
North Dakota’s Republican-led Senate rejected a measure Tuesday that would have changed state law to reflect the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that same-sex couples have the right to marry.
The bill failed 15-31. It would have changed dozens of references, such as “husband and wife,” to gender-neutral terms. North Dakota law lists “one man, one woman” or “husband and wife” for everything from marriages and divorces to fishing licenses.
The measure got a hearing last week in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which voted 4-2 to recommend against passage. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
How have you come to the conclusion that the legal basis for marriage has been eliminated in some way?
I did not state nor have I come to that conclusion. I question the existence of a legal basis for marriage in states that have not established a definition of marriage consistent with the SCOTUS decision and have left in place a definition inconsistent with that decision.
Nobody is obliged to rewrite laws consistent with an aberrant Supreme Court decision. What is that supposed to mean?
You still are being deliberately opaque. And you continue, AFAICS, to disregard the freedoms recognized by the First Amendment that Obergefell v. Hodges have attacked.
So there have been 150 same-sex marriages in North Dakota since the Supreme Court ruling, and in none of those cases did anyone see the need to feel outraged or file a suit over the language on the documents. But now that this has hit the news watch out-of-staters come crawling out of the woodwork to begin litigation.
Good for North Dakota. Let one of the homo’s be called “wife” in the relationship.
“Nobody is obliged to rewrite laws consistent with an aberrant Supreme Court decision. What is that supposed to mean?”
I didn’t say they were and your question is unclear.
“You still are being deliberately opaque.”
False, at least in regard to “deliberately”.
“And you continue, AFAICS...”
Either you’re looking in the wrong direction or you can’t see very far.
“...to disregard the freedoms recognized by the First Amendment that Obergefell v. Hodges have attacked.”
That’s not what I’ve tried to discuss in this thread. That doesn’t mean I have disregard.
I think we’re done here. Take the last word if you must, and have a nice day(no sarcasm intended).
Well I’m sorry, but I still can’t understand what your point is. Maybe if you articulated one more time I’ll get it, but the way you present it is so convoluted with answering questions with questions that it is not clear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.