Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Steel Wolf
Broad rules that protect the institution of marriage may fail the consitancy check in some cases.

That's completely unacceptable and immoral, as it is discrimination against taxpaying gay citizens.

91 posted on 07/13/2004 1:28:26 PM PDT by The Green Goblin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]


To: The Green Goblin
Broad rules that protect the institution of marriage may fail the consitancy check in some cases.

That's completely unacceptable and immoral, as it is discrimination against taxpaying gay citizens.

No it's not. They are free to get married to a member of the opposite sex and enjoy all the benefits of marriage they want.

The 'discrimination' angle is a sham. Society shouldn't have to fund sexual hobbyists who are incapable of upholding their end of the marriage bargain.

We also discriminate against 10 year olds getting married, even with the consent of their taxpaying parents. It's discrimination based on age, and it may be a slippery slope, but I don't lose any sleep over it.

If this is the basis for the liberal / libertarian arguement, then we need an Amendment to settle this.

95 posted on 07/13/2004 1:40:42 PM PDT by Steel Wolf (What? Bread AND circuses, ... for free?!?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson