To: kingattax
Fine with me. Live and let live. Besides, it’s a contract. When State A decides it doesn’t need to recognize contracts made in State B, that’s a recipe for chaos.
To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
A marriage is not a contract, it’s a covenant.
6 posted on
10/15/2009 9:11:32 PM PDT by
Boogieman
To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
"Fine with me. Live and let live. Besides, it’s a contract. When State A decides it doesn’t need to recognize contracts made in State B, that’s a recipe for chaos."Not really. It's not like a Tennessee court is going to enforce a contract for prostitution made in Nevada. That's why most legal contracts specify the state that will have jurisdiction over it.
This is why we needed the Federal Defense of Marriage Act and why we need a federal amendment.
8 posted on
10/15/2009 9:12:03 PM PDT by
DannyTN
To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
When State A decides it doesn’t need to recognize contracts made in State B, that’s a recipe for chaos.
Ha! Baloney.
10 posted on
10/15/2009 9:15:10 PM PDT by
LearsFool
("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
Yeah, let’s recognize perverion by force even thought tradition, all religions, and the people don’t want it. Just let a disgusting RINO governor force it down everyone’s throat.
That is the exact opposite of live and let live. It’s tyranny against the will of the people.
18 posted on
10/15/2009 11:08:10 PM PDT by
little jeremiah
(Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson