Posted on 05/31/2012 1:49:02 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
“Well, that just became a major campaign issue, if it wasn’t before this.”
If the “federal” government cannot deny state recognized homosexual marriage, then what is to stop Utah from reverting back to making polygamy legal and forcing the “federal” government from recognizing it? I’m not trying to be a smart alec here. I can see how this can quickly spin out of control.
What I see as being the eventual end state, will be that the federal taxation system (and other married perks) will end because it will hamper taxation. So, they will just not give anyone “preferential” treatment. The ability to insure your spouse will disappear....I don’t know what it will do to children. There will be no distinction between married and unmarried people.
American families will suffer as a result.
so using that kind of perverted logic then all sorts of marriage can be done and the feds should recognise it.
two men and 5 women, cousins, dogs, what ever right, mariage equality after all means equality for all,
what’s that the homo’s don’t want that , they only want their kind of perverted sham marriage, what bigots.
Bingo.
The two candidates for the presidency both belong to religions that lean towards polygamy. Curious, huh?
Thanks for the link. Sometimes people turn a really apt phrase like you did, and it just gets me.
Ping!!
To really do love big needs a Mormon (duck’n & runn’n).
Good point. Though it may be best to assume that "the law" is not about equality, justice, or uniformity; but it is rather about arbitrarily enforced rules that are themselves arbitrary, this allows the state the maximum power with the minimal justification. (I posit that this model is already in effect: consider both murdergate and the Obama eligibility cases.)
Given the above, it does bring to mind the question of "pedophilia." For maximum state-power, and "uniformity of the law", they could declare that the same definition of "child" applies as that for parent's insurance: 26 years old. Then, applying this definition retrospectively -- it can't be retroactive, that'd be too close to ex post facto -- we get lots of people who must now be registered sex offenders (everyone who's married, or had sexual intercourse with, someone under 27)! That in turn requires them to be registered and allows them to be disarmed as they are obviously prohibited persons.
That is, I think, the way that things'll end up: where everything that could be considered a 'right' is instead contingent upon government approval... and government approval can be withdrawn at any time, for any reason, to include past formerly-approved actions.
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.