[Deep_6]

Re:
"..You dismiss the notion that polygamy and incest are just as
 legitimate as same sex marriages. On what basis?...."

You're kidding, right?

The topic is the inability of two people to obtain a legal marriage
certificate because they are not of opposite sex. The topic is not
about three or more individuals wishing to group-grope legally, or
close family members wishing to cavort among themselves with
legal benefits for doing so. Nor is it about man and sheep, woman
and donkeys or you and the FR religious right.

[sorry for that outburst]

It's ridiculous to compare a one-on-one loving relationship between
two individuals that wish to commit themselves to each other for life,
to anything otherwise. Those that make such a bond for life deserve
the same respect and benefits for making such a commitment both
legally and morally, as anyone else. There should be no sexual qualifier
any more than there should be a requirement to have a child.

If the State licenses it, it can not discriminate prejudicially.

Argue it all you desire, the courts have said exactly what I have
and they will continue to do so, right up to our Supreme Court.

What's right; is right.

If you or the FR far right are so afraid that a couple of gays getting
married is going to undermine your own marriage, then you have
a lot more to worry about than exterior forces causing your marital
dismay.

UGH.

 

[hocndoc]

No, you're artificially limiting the topic and/or missing the point - on what basis do you deny the benefits to the institution of marriage and the legal protection and name of marriage to "group gropes"?

Or, for that matter, why limit the legal protections that marriage provides to sexual unions, only? "Family" doesn't necessarily mean some members are having sex with each other, for pity's sake.

One of my patients always comes to mind when this subject comes up: A 20-something unmarried college graduate professional woman who was supporting her 60 year old grandmother. Why shouldn't this young woman and her designated family-by-choice (not really - the older woman had diabetes, no skills, and no other family members would step up) receive the same "family" insurance benefits, tax breaks, and whatever legal protections there might be in marriage?

[garv]

Your refusal to answer my own and other poster's demonstrably legitimate "slippery slope" questions leaves only one logical conclusion. You don't want to limit the definition of marriage to anything other than what you want. A typical postion of the self-annointed, after all, how could you and a handful like-minded agenda driven jurists be wrong when all we bigoted rabble have to stand on is the entirety of the political, social and cultural history of western civilization?