To: babyface00
Why does it matter how marriage is defined from the standpoint of the government and/or Constitution? I was addressing the second, mostly because now that the benefits are in place making marriage a legal definition and a key to benefits, the historical reasons for the first are rendered largely moot. In other words, even marriage were relegated to religious institutions, or left up to the individual, the fact that federal, state, local and government-regulated private benefits all exist based on that status means that (one of the) the core objection(s) remains. Understood. I do agree that marriage is now dead. How can one now legally restrict marriage to only two people? How can one prevent marriage within families to take advantage of inheritence laws and avoid taxes? I know, just get a judge somewhere to agree. Ah welcome to the era of trial lawyers.
138 posted on
07/14/2004 10:43:38 AM PDT by
rhombus
To: rhombus
Liberalism is about lawsuits and coerced virtue. In a funny sort of way, I have this warm glow inside relishing the fact the Senate's two no-shows happen to be wealthy lawyers. Mind you, a class that happens to be looked upon by most of the American people with disdain.
159 posted on
07/14/2004 10:50:39 AM PDT by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson