Marriage “is an engagement, by which a single man and a single woman, of sufficient discretion, take each other for husband and wife”. This definition of marriage, as both the department and the Superior Court judge point out, derives from the common law.
When the activist court chooses to disregard the most obvious and central fact of this definition, namely that it's one man and one woman, why not disregard the limitation of two parties ? Why require those parties to be humman ?
As the activist judges had to be willing blind to thousands of years of definition, there is no logical reason, other than that they know it would enrage many, for these restrictions.
You don''t want me to marry my couch. What right have you to restrict my freedom, and my happiness, that such an arrangement would bring ? After all, marriage to one's choice (according to these activist clowns) is a "basic civil right" ! How dare you try to restrict it only to humans !
The only arguments you've given why homosexuals should be "married" is that a) they're human, b) have feelings, and c) can enter into contracts.
Why can't I marry my mother ? She fits all those criteria ?
Activist judges and their ridiculous twisting of everyday words will ruin us. That was the jist of sartorius' comment, and my statement was a particular example of it.
You have taken the argument to an absurd conclusion. You ignore what I've said about consent and legal contracting. You just can't acknowlege the ignorance of your conclusion. I have nothing new to say on this issue.
As for other adults. Let me first say, that I don't believe government should give out marriage licenses. BUT since it does...............
The governement should justify why certain licenses should not be granted. It is not up to taxpayers to justify their way in.
Your concern about incest is veru touching. My reading says that adult-adult incest is rare. In fact, it's hard to find research because of the lack of significant survey populations. Ig you don't want to allow this type of marriage make your case and go for it. I have no particular interest in this issue and I don't think it's much of a problem.
Everyone here rails about polygamy. Not a big fan, I've had my hands full with one womnan at a time. Unless we run out of mates for one side or the other, I don't see the problem with polygamy. Other than the fact that you don't like it or think it's immoral, make a stronger case and I'll consider it. Again, the government should have a solid reason for not allowing it other than the majority thinks it's bad or icky.
As for homosexuals, who cares. It doesn't affect my marriage and it may be healthy if it decreases promuoscuity. All this ranting is overblown for my money.