Wow. You're really that concerned about who can marry and who can't? Who the hell cares?!? Men cheat on their wives, their wives cheat on them. It's all the same. Marriage is a joke, anyways, in this country.
Wow. You're really that concerned about who can marry and who can't? Who the hell cares?!? Men cheat on their wives, their wives cheat on them. It's all the same. Marriage is a joke, anyways, in this country.
Welcome to FR. There are several things wrong with this story: (1) A Massachussetts judge making a ruling that in essence creates a new "right" to homosexual marriage in Rhode Island; (2) Judges deciding that they can legislate from the bench; (3) the tendency of liberals to try to force things on the public thru judicial fiat that they know they cannot win at the ballot box; (4) judiciary redefining the institution of marriage.
"Wow. You're really that concerned about who can marry and who can't? Who the hell cares?!? Men cheat on their wives, their wives cheat on them. It's all the same. Marriage is a joke, anyways, in this country."
Lost your way, DUmmie? I see this topic and the comments irritated you so much that you signed up today to post this drivel.
Part of the 1913 law was a residency requirement too.
Should it not be on the part of the homosexuals to show that homoseuxal based marriage was legal in RI not the other way around?
If a state has no explicit law against animal/human marriage that too is now legal in Mass.