To: maro
The guy isn't suing for the right to sleep with multiple women in private, but rather the right to have his relationships contractualized by the state. I think I'll wait until at least one court interprets Lawrence v Texas as requiring gay marriage before I worry about any court finding in Lawrence a right to multiple, simultaneous marriages.
31 posted on
12/01/2003 5:23:19 PM PST by
AntiGuv
(When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
To: AntiGuv
I think I'll wait until at least one court interprets Lawrence v Texas as requiring gay marriage before I worry about any court finding in Lawrence a right to multiple, simultaneous marriages.Short wait, the Mass SJC did just that.
37 posted on
12/01/2003 5:30:59 PM PST by
jwalsh07
To: AntiGuv
I think I'll wait until at least one court interprets Lawrence v Texas as requiring gay marriage before I worry about any court finding in Lawrence a right to multiple, simultaneous marriages. What do you think the Massachusetts Supreme Court did?
Shalom.
131 posted on
12/02/2003 5:49:21 AM PST by
ArGee
(Scientific reasoning makes it easier to support gross immorality.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson