[Huck]

IIRC, in 1878, Utah was not yet a state. It was a federal territory, so the question of whether or not marriage is a reserved state power or not was not argued before the court. The question of whether the national government has the power to regulate marriage in the states was not argued. The only question related to marriage specifically that was argued was a 1st amendment argument. Therefore, Reynolds v. United States did NOT confirm the statutory regulation of marriage practices in the STATES.

It did argue that federal law trumps religion, despite the 1st amendment, which, when you think about it, tends to weaken the traditional marriage argument. The fed court may indeed use Reynolds to solidify gay marriage, if the only argument against it is based on religion.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Reynolds v. United States did NOT confirm the statutory regulation of marriage practices in the STATES.

Therefore the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (signed by Slick Willie) is null and void...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The fed court may indeed use Reynolds to solidify gay marriage, if the only argument against it is based on religion.

Religion is the only argument FOR faggot marriages...

Evolution is only possible with HETEROSEXUAL relationships.

The facts of biology trump religion.