[BenLurkin]

Suppose two sisters get married. Would the learned justices consider that the law requires the local authority to issue a marriage certificate.

[Leep]

A lefty once told me a grandson should be able to marry his grandmother.

[kabar]

Exactly. Society sets all kinds of rules on marriage besides gender. You have to be certain age, incest is prohibited, polygamy is against the law; etc. If marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, how is this alone unequal treatment? What about all these other societal restrictions?

[Yardstick]

No, see, that’s different, or something.

[mkjessup]

Suppose two sisters get married. Would the learned justices consider that the law requires the local authority to issue a marriage certificate.

What if you married the two sisters?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPOiaAU_vJg /

[kingu]

How about a father marrying a minor son? If the state decides to allow it, does that then compel the feds to recognize it as a legal marriage?

The whole house of cards falls down under the twisted logic of permitting homosexuals to shack up and pretend that the word marriage means something different. So under this ruling, California’s ‘medical marijuana law’ requires medicare to provide payment for prescriptions issued, right?

There is no way of escaping this; the more the courts twist to make it sound reasonable, the more holes they drive through the entire legal system in an urgent hurry to bring political correctness and legitimacy to homosexuality.

I ask the same question over and over: How does one argue against polygamy using the logic that marriage can mean whatever someone decides it mean at the spur of the moment? ‘One person marrying one person’ - seems a far less leap to ‘multiple persons’ once you’ve blasted ‘one man and one woman’...