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

To: Pyro7480
this ruling advances of the agenda of the left.

Disagree; vigorously.

This ruling is constitutional and retards the agenda of the left (federalization).

If Massachusetts wants to dignify homosexual behavior, let them. All politics are local. If you disagree, move out of Massachusetts or stay and work to correct the tragedy.

63 posted on 07/08/2010 5:18:43 PM PDT by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Amerigomag

“This ruling is constitutional and retards the agenda of the left (federalization).

If Massachusetts wants to dignify homosexual behavior, let them. All politics are local. If you disagree, move out of Massachusetts or stay and work to correct the tragedy”

I do tend to agree that this is a question for the states to decide individually. One sticking point however is this: Most states recognize the marriages in another state.

If someone moves from a state that recognizes homosexual “marriage” to one that doesn’t, then what happens?

Does the state have to recognize that marriage? If they do not, is that a violation of the equal protection clause?


65 posted on 07/08/2010 5:31:24 PM PDT by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | 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