K
No... it naturally follows that government should NOT regulate or INTERFERE with marriage.
Abortion terminates life. Two same-sex couples getting married doesn't. If you don't see the difference I can't help you.How??
Also I think it comes across as arrogant to think that someone else needs you "condone"what they're doing. What consenting adults are doing is none of my business
That's like saying you put too much salt on your mashed potatoes and I don't condone that. Who cares right?
Who defines what marriage is now? It's obviously not the government, because they think two dudes can get married.Who will define what is marriage then?
Abortion terminates life. Two same-sex couples getting married doesn't. If you don't see the difference I can't help you.
Who defines what marriage is now? It's obviously not the government, because they think two dudes can get married.
The state decides. That's the law. You can have a church waiting with all the bills and whistles but you're still not married until you sign that contract with the stateWho defines what marriage is now? It's obviously not the government, because they think two dudes can get married.
Religious institutions already have their own definitions and guidelines surrounding marriage. Non-religious people define their relationships however they want already... and like i said they really don't need a civil "marriage" when our government's idea of marriage is a mockery.So then who?
What the state has to say about marriage is an uninformed commentary.The state decides. That's the law. You can have a church waiting with all the bills and whistles but you're still not married until you sign that contract with the state
No. It's notWhat the state has to say about marriage is an uninformed commentary.
It's how marriage works according to the state. We've been talking about changing how it works according to the state. We don't need marriage according to the state at all.No. It's not
That's literally how marriage works. You're not married until you purchase the marriage license and sign it
Religious institutions already have their own definitions and guidelines surrounding marriage. Non-religious people define their relationships however they want already... and like i said they really don't need a civil "marriage" when our government's idea of marriage is a mockery.
It does, because if the SCOTUS had decided that government should stay out of marriage, like it stays out of religion- and if we didn't give married people special privileges then Gay people would not have an incentive to persue "marriage" in the first place. It should have never even come to this.The problem does not stem from the governments role in marriage
Yes we do. Same reason the government had to tell States they can't stop interracial couples from getting marriedIt's how marriage works according to the state. We've been talking about changing how it works according to the state. We don't need marriage according to the state at all.
No, we don't. All the SCOTUS had to do was say that the state had to stay out of marriage. Problem solved.Yes we do. Same reason the government had to tell States they can't stop interracial couples from getting married
They let it happen because America is a constitutional republic and not a theocracy.I do understand what you are arguing, and agree to a point.
The problem does not stem from the governments role in marriage but from people with an agenda who wielded tremendous influence and power, who won while people of various religions who hold to traditional marriage let it happen.