Washington — The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overturn California's ban on same-sex marriage and turn a skeptical eye on similar prohibitions across the country.
The administration says unequivocally in a legal brief filed late Thursday that gay marriage should be allowed to resume in California, where it has been barred since the passage of Proposition 8 in 2008.
Idiots. Slick Willie during his impeachment set the stage for this argument. He established definitely that we are a land of laws. These laws are all written and the words are defined. For 10 thousand plus years the word marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman. Therefore, you can not have a marriage as defined by the laws for 2 same sex individuals. Period.
I am not saying you cannot have a union of 2 same sex individuals, but at this time it does not meet the definition as has been defined for eons, 1 man and 1 woman. To simplify this situation the homosexual community needs to simply coin a new word to define their union. They captured the great word 'gay' and destroyed it by redefining it to describe their sexuality. Since a reasonable percentage of the human population is homosexual or bi-sexual a legal union must be established.
The coining of a new word can describe any and all areas of marriage and be eligible for the same benefit, support, healt, divorce, etc. but they will not qualify as being married. Their union will be of the new coined word. Simply, from the acceptable, universal definition of human marriage, same sex union does not qualify as marriage. .
Long, I agree. And as soon as we've thrown out the marriage-based, two-parent, Judeo-Christian family model which has been the traditional building block of our society, there is no longer a defensible legal standard that I can see.
If we allow two 'guys' like persy and his BFF to tie the knot, what do we do when they say they need THREE guys? Why not 1 guy, 4 girls and 2 sheep? How about 3 girls, a mid-sized hot tub, and a heated waterbed? Soon they will insist that children must be open prey for predatory adults?
How dare any court say no, once the traditional standard is gone?