Replies

Good points all!

There is a lot of evidence of societal harm from this, and future proposed steps. Also, I thought much of the gay rights movement was "live and let live" - now the demand is for the social and financial benefits of a very specific state-sponsored relationship. Non-discrimination and support are not the same thing. Heck, single people can't be discriminated against in housing and employment, yet marriage BY ITS VERY DEFINITION denies single people its benefits, which has never been held illegal. But that's the point of marriage - to support a set of parents having children! Biology dictates a lot here. Duh!

The other issue is the increasing power of the courts. Even a constitutional amendment would be ignored somehow, absolutely. (Remember "campaign finance reform?") I believe our system is self-correcting - maybe term limits for judges or more frequent constitutional amendments will become the norm - but IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THAT WAY! Are we going backwards to the days of "indirect democracy," like when state legislatures picked senators? The people only get to pick the executive and legislature, not the important people - the judges! Why is the burden on those keeping the status quo to get the amendment? This is a dangerous, dangerous trend no matter what you think of this one issue.

But I'll take it all back if I can find a federal judge who will let me pay the IRS in Monopoly money. I'm sure there's no statute expressly saying "you can't pay your taxes in Monopoly money." Maybe we need a constitutional amendment on that too! LOL!

:)

But I'll take it all back if I can find a federal judge who will let me pay the IRS in Monopoly money. I'm sure there's no statute expressly saying "you can't pay your taxes in Monopoly money." Maybe we need a constitutional amendment on that too! LOL!

LOL! I love that.