To: gridlock
Why are you prohibiting Govt to get involved in the contract of marriage when Govt arbitrates all other kinds of legal contracts? Why would you wierdly change 500 years of legal history just to get around the awkwardness of "gay marriage"?
Anyway what is this "us" stuff? Do you really care about marriage, or are you just trying to peddle anarchy? Keep debating and pretty soon you'll come to conclude with the traditional 'marriage as contract' stance our legal system held until the feminists up and destroyed it.
51 posted on
11/18/2003 9:14:42 AM PST by
WOSG
(The only thing that will defeat us is defeatism itself)
To: WOSG
Why would you wierdly change 500 years of legal history just to get around the awkwardness of "gay marriage"? It is not just a little awkwardness. Our government is not able, for one reason or another, to grant special rights and responsibilities to one group of people and deny them to others. It will default to the position of inclusiveness. Therefore any government definition of marriage will inevitably include gay marriage.
It is simply none of the government's business.
86 posted on
11/18/2003 10:23:41 AM PST by
gridlock
(Countdown to Hillary!: ONE day... Hillary! will announce for President TOMORROW, Weds. Nov 19, 2003)
To: WOSG
As I do not care for feminists, I do not care for homos, and also do not care for marriage as a way to regulate sex between men and women.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson