Yes I'm aware that they are only legally performed in less than 20 states, but they are not invalidated when such married couples cross the border into another state nor does the US government refuse to recognize them. There was nothing there in the way of an argument for me to reply to.
Anyhow, post 27 is spot-on. Are you speaking specifically of marriage at a federal level and the 1, benefits -not- granted to legally married same-sex couples? Second, legislators pass hundreds of bills every year. To DN et al and Ryan - It's difficult for me to see how any of my comments can be construed as any sort of ad hominem.
I think taking passages out of context from writing in the s to prove a weak argument speaks for itself. You are contradicting yourself: if you can legally have sex without being married then, by definition, the legal right to have sex is NOT conferred by marriage.
However, I have no doubt that the government could easily come up with very compelling reasons as to why these marriages should remain prohibited.
I think courts would look at the absence of a law prohibiting same-sex couples against same sex marriage debate articles in by Victor Harbor using stem cell derived modified gametes and interpret that absence as a green light to attempt it, and then apply that Zablocki same reasoning that it makes no sense to prohibit a couple from marrying if they are not prohibited from procreating.
My guess is that NOM screened out his comment because it was about him personally and lacked a structured argument. Re 27 - Gay marriage has indeed been the law of the land in MA for several years, and I disagree with it.
The Supreme Court had to step in and put an end to bans on interracial marriage, and they will do the same for gay marriage.
I agree that the fundamental right to marry would not protect polygamy, but that does not mean it applies only to marriages that were legal at the time. Even if marriage were only about stable environments for children, hundreds of thousands of gay couples have children, and millions of straight couples don't.
Since I said "pro gay commenters regularly post there" it means pro gay comments get regularly posted. When the state has a monopoly over the right in question, the Supreme Court has been more protective of the rights of individuals to exercise that right.
A better grasp on marital laws would be ideal when writing an article about it. The state should absolutely encourage as many people having as many babies as possible.