Posted on 05/30/2013 9:29:11 AM PDT by Kaslin
.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
You are getting weird.
A good point. In fact, entire organizations of like-minded persons could conceivably get married, for, say, tax (and other, perhaps more sinister) advantages.
bttt
Then "gun ownership" = semi-auto, full auto, hi/low-capacity, nation-wide.
I like how you think, DTogo.
Heather has two mommies.
And two daddies.
And a kangaroo.
No one can deny that this is a a slippery slope.
“Equality” like “Liberty” can be a double-edged sword, that should be allowed to cut both ways.
And Heather is probably a guy.
At least part time.
Along with the unavoidable push to allow “marriage” for any group of “consenting adults,” regardless of number, sex, or species, we also have the drive to define “adult” as “anyone old enough to say ‘Yes’.”
There will be no limits to the legally-sanctioned depravity.
It dawned on me that some states recognizes “common law” marriage where a man and woman who have lived together for a certain length of time are considered legally married without going through with the actual ceremony, perhaps even against their expressed desire.
So, if gay marriage becomes popular, will common law marriage apply to them and will thousands of cohabitating gays become legally married without the actual rite of ceremony? And will gays protest that different laws should apply to them than for heterosexual couples?
Common-law marriage statutes usually don’t kick in until the couple separates and one wants a litigated divorce. “Oh, yes, we were married! My attorney will be in touch!”
It would be interesting to see that happening with homosexual couples.
I am not a family-law expert, but, based on what I remember from law school, common-law marriage requires that the parties not only live together, but that they tell other people that they are married. So it can never happen "against their expressed desire."
I have found that people who are the most open minded about homosexual marriage are the most close minded about plural marriage.
I don’t know why the Supreme Court is examining marriage equality except that it is PC for activist justices to be able to do so. After all, if parents were making sure that their children were being taught the Constitution as the Founding States had intended for it to be understood, particularly the division of federal and state government powers, then schoolchildren would be able to tell us that Founding States made the 10th Amendment to clarify that Constitution’s silence about issues like marriage, abortion and healthcare make such issues state power issues.
I agree from my memories of ConLaw class in grad school; they have to “hold themselves out” as married in order to have a common-law marriage recognized.
Ditto that.
You mean, like Catherine de Medici?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.