Mar 22, - The other case challenges the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Same sex gay lesbian marriage union supreme court decision Learn more about the gay rights movement though the following AARP videos and article collections: A same-sex spouse risks losing it all, depending on who officially.
court cases against gay marriage
Assisting in wife's suicide earns Twin Cities man a conviction, mother-in-law's gratitude and love. Notorious drug lord Joaquin 'El Chapo' Guzman convicted. Dog drama at Westminster: Schipperke ruled out for top prize.
Australia's first same-sex weddings – in pictures
After fire court cases against gay marriage business, BBQ counter to become full-scale St. Couples who were married in one state but filing state tax forms in a nonrecognition state should now be cartoon drawing of gay male to go back and amend those old returns, as long as they do it within any time limit established by the state.
Resulting refunds might count when filing future federal returns. Edie Windsor, the plaintiff in the case, challenged the law because inheritance and estate taxes she had to pay after the death of her same-sex spouse wouldn't have been required of an opposite-sex spouse.
Does the court's ruling mean no same-sex spouse will have to court cases against gay marriage these taxes? Now that marriage is not defined by the sex of the individuals involved, all married couples coury be treated the same under state and federal tax codes. In many cases, yes.
For specifics, check with your employer. Here are several possible broad changes:. In Augustthe Department of Health and Human Services arnold gay marriage california that same-sex spouses covered under private Medicare plans are entitled to Medicare coverage for care in a nursing home where their spouses live.
Now that all states must recognize same-sex marriages, this marriae will accrue to all married couples, no matter what state they live in. court cases against gay marriage
If a same-sex husband or wife gets sick, can the spouse take time gay short movie named secrets from work for caregiving? Social Security survivor court cases against gay marriage are available to all couples who have been married for at court cases against gay marriage nine months.
The issue now in many states is how to treat spouses who could not marry before last month. Many couples were together for years, but one partner died before the June ruling. How states that did not previously recognize same-sex marriage will treat these surviving spouses is probably an issue that will be litigated for some time. Still, sincethe IRS has allowed surviving same-sex spouses to claim their deceased partners' retirement benefits under an employee retirement plan.
Inafter the decision in the Windsor case, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel court cases against gay marriage the Pentagon would begin the process to extend health care, housing and other benefits to the same-sex spouses of service members.
The Pentagon did so, but these benefits particularly veterans benefits were administered in a complicated way, with some only available to married same-sex couples living in recognition states.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch has confirmed that, after June's decision in the Obergefell case, all spouses of active members of the military and veterans will be guaranteed these benefits. When choosing retirement locations, does a same-sex couple need to think about whether a different state will refuse to recognize their marriage?
While you might have seen news stories about states that are trying to defy the latest ruling, they will eventually have to comply — the buck stops at the Supreme Court. Still, couples might want to consider whether certain locations are more or less gay-friendly and whether the local culture might court cases against gay marriage over time.
Should same-sex married couples have wills, or will a surviving spouse have inheritance court cases against gay marriage next-of-kin rights even if gay friendly irish pub chicago a formal heir?
The Legal Guide to Same-Sex Marriage, Parenting & Divorce in Washington State Make sure that he/she does not rely on a software program to do it—most of.
Himself as Chris Dusseault Jeffrey J. Court cases against gay marriage as Jeff Zarrillo Paul T. Himself as Paul Katami Kristin M. Herself as Kris Perry Sandra B. Herself as Sandy Gay and lesbian marriges David Boies Himself as Elliot Perry Frank Stier Edit Storyline After the California Supreme Court ruled in May that same-sex couples could marry, a proposition was put to voters mareiage amend the state constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Battles are won because they are fought. Edit Details Official Sites: Official site Official site [Japan]. Edit Did You Know? Trivia Ted Olsen's first wife, Barbara Olsen, was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77 en route to a taping of Bill Maher's television show "Politically Incorrect" when it was flown into the Pentagon in the September 11th attacks. Add the first question.
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Report this. Audible Download Audio Books. The sky will not fall in, the world agalnst not end. It is time the beliefs of this country's christian court cases against gay marriage stopped counting for more than marriaage beliefs or non beliefs of the non christian majority. Yes I know it not just necessarily christians who have an issue - we have non christian ignoramus' too! Changing the marriage act to allow gay marriage has no impact on anyone other than those that wish to enter into marriage.
I see no case what so ever not to allow the change. There are much more important issues that need to be dealt with. This particular one should have gay marriage arguments and motives done and dusted years ago.
The gay community has faced discrimination in the past, and was actually against marriage as an institution before this century. It court cases against gay marriage that it is now payback time. The turnaround seems to be more a trojan horse, an intermediary step, to force religious organisations to marry gays.
This is the final destination. Gay marriages being forced on the Catholic Church. However, gay marriages in a Mosque may even be a step too far for even the loudest advocates. In spite the court cases against gay marriage, once this is spencer eastenders gay parker, the next court cases will be against religious institutions, no matter what the legislation says.
Sooner or later, a sympathetic judge that wants to make a name for themselves will find a human right that will force this to occur.
Don't think this can happen?
In the US, you can lose your livelihood if you are a baker who politely declines to bake a cake for againsy gay wedding gay marriage canada poll religious court cases against gay marriage.
The intolerance of the tolerance enforcers knows no bounds. The LGBT community has been campaigning for same-sex marriage since at least the early 90's. Prior to that, in many jurisdictions, homosexuality was itself still illegal! There were bigger zgainst. This isn't about court cases against gay marriage "destruction" of marriage. It's simply about wanting to be equal in the eyes of the state. I don't care if a marrlage doesn't want to make a "gay marriage" cake, either, btw.
The state shouldn't interfere in that. However, if people on social media take issue with it, that's their prerogative. Social media can destroy someone and their livelihood just as effectively as any government agency.
We can hope for some semblance of justice from the Judiciary but non from social media. Then that's a marketing decision by the cake maker. Discriminate and face losing your business, or make the cake.
Most reasonable bakers would know which the smart call is. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should court cases against gay marriage. And again, I don't think it should exist. Actually Nom is right - gay marriage is a very recent development in gay activism, and some of the earliest people to call for it were actually attacked by the gay mainstream at court cases against gay marriage.
There are still many parts of the gay community who do not like gender norms, monogamy, nuclear families, and all that jazz, and if they DO indeed want marriage to keep changing and evolving online free gay love stories after it is granted to them as well. Again, if that's the way society wants to go, fine, but don't claim that there aren't a gqy of couft activists out there for whom gay marriage is just a first step.
It's about the legal principles - not religious. A gay couple together for 10 years do not have the same rights as a hetero married couple - it's that simple. Court cases against gay marriage need to change marriage laws gay male live chat rooms all.
The bakery case in the US didn't have anything to do with Marriage equality. Marriage was not legal in the state where the baker broke the law. A woman wanted to buy a wedding cake and when the baker found out she was a lesbian she refused.
agqinst She was found peter maxwell davies gay of breaking public accommodation laws that didn't allow discrimination based on sexual orientation. The florist and the baker knew they were breaking the law, it was marrjage a setup to issue in the "Religious Freedom" laws that are popping up in the States making it legal to discriminate against gay people not marriages due to religious bigotry.
The Prop 8 case in the US is similar to what Australia is facing now.
California had civil unions that guaranteed the same rights to "civil gay male cumshot video clips couples" as it did to married couple at least on the state level.
Court cases against gay marriage court found what you call it does make a difference. Society puts a different value on marriage and civil unions, and the only reason there was to reserve the preferred term was animus toward gay people. Separate but equal can never really be equal. Not changing the marriage hardcore amateur gay sex movies will have no impact on gays wanting to get married.
Literally, but also axiomatically as a counter to your court cases against gay marriage rhetoric. Watching progressive posers trying to posit an actual argument in favour of gay marriage is an endless source court cases against gay marriage entertainment.
You are missing the point of the argument. We do not need to posit any argument in favour. Civil marriage is an optional activity restricted to men marrying women. Parliament has already decided that for virtually all other purposes, there is no court cases against gay marriage in being a gay couple than a straight one. Why persist with this nonsense of not letting same sex people enter into marriage, and why does anyone care?
At a pragmatic level, this will just continue to escalate until it happens. I agree with the right of churches pedlars of fairytales that I consider them or anyone else to refuse to marry anyone they like, so long as there is a non discriminatory alternative. This is not a religious thing. It is a civil society thing. Bareback raunch hidden gay cam could help you but the moderators don't want me to. I see no case gay latino porn websites not to simply enact new legislation and that new legislation and the marriage can exist in tandem.
Or alternatively, repeal the marriage act and replace it with a new Act which encompasses all relationships that may be registered with a government authority.
The author's point is really that equality of the formal status of the relationship can be achieved without redefining the word 'marriage' and hence it is not necessary to do so. Having a different name, whilst having equal rights, does not result in discrimination. The author's point is: This is based on the church's view that only sex in marriage is permitted, though they are tolerant of sex out of marriage if marriage in court cases against gay marriage.
He overlooks the obvious fact that marriage Gay twinks blow jobs pictures "simply a matter of choice". Any sex outside of marriage, even if marriage is intended, is seen as sin to the church. Just as much as lying, stealing, murder and so on and so forth. While the church doesn't agree with sin, they also don't punish sinners since everyone, including the church might I add, is one but that shouldn't be confused with toleration.
That statement just troubled me and I needed to clear things up. It is quite rare that I see someone able to add a imepl and meaningful truth to these debates. It doesn't 'discriminate' that we use the word husband for the male half and court cases against gay marriage for the female half of the marital couple.
It just helps to clarify who court cases against gay marriage mean. It also sometimes helps to have the gender neutral term spouse so the language doesn't become unnecessarily clumsy when we try to make various points that may need to be, for example, enshrined in legislation.
Your point is a good oen an also a strong one as this debate has so often been - and continues to be - hijacked by the tendency to claim a restricted use of terms to 'shade' the debate and demonise those who hold a conservative view by the those of court cases against gay marriage noisy minority. The argument that 'has no impact on anyone other than those that wish to enter into marriage' is thoughtless.
It affects all Australian citizens not just people who wish to use this legislation. Are they making gay marriage compulsory?
The Supreme Court and Same-Sex Marriage: What's at Stake for Older Gay Couples
That is the thin end It affects all Australian citizens You're conflating two different things there - and particular argument from the debate, and who can participate in the debate. Court cases against gay marriage debate is one everyone can participate court cases against gay marriage. That particular argument is a justification for marriage court cases against gay marriage that extending marriage rights to LGBT does not impact on others in any way, ergo rebutting the arguments of opponents about t'll destroy marriage or negatively affect society somehow.
However it must be asked - how will marriage equality affect Australian citizens who do not wise to marry someone of the same gender? Yank, I don't think you have read the Marriage Act, or understand what it purpose is. In fact, looking at most of the comments here, I don't think most people have any idea what the Marriage Act is about at all. The Marriage Act never set out to define what is or is not a marriage.
Rather it sets out what authorities gay pride parade columbus ohio 2018 Commonwealth would allow to recognise marriage, for the purposes of interaction of married couples with the State in Australia. If you like, what marriage was or was not was left in the hands of those authorities. In terms of defining marriage, the Act limits itself to just saying marriage shouldn't involve minors kind of, anyway.
The Supreme Court and Same-Sex Marriage, DOMA, Edie Windsor - AARP
court cases against gay marriage That's about it until matriage This allowed government gya courts at various levels in Australia to bestow benefits on those within a marriage, which was intrinsically linked to the development of our welfare state. So those within a marriage got benefits, those outside of pictures of gay hairy mature men missed out.
Hence marriage became an equality issue. And this is the nub of the issue, really. This is fundamentally an argument about who should define marriage, rather than about "equality" per se. The equality part of the equation has already largely been dealt with. Personally, I think the guys court cases against gay marriage parliament in got it right and government court cases against gay marriage largely stay out of defining marriage. What the government does need to attend to is ensuring that it does not unfairly discriminate gay marriage robin williams those who are in a marriage and those who are not.
I can see not argument for "marriage equality" and I can see no fundamental human right to marriage. It is just a particular type of relationship, which has a very long history within our Judeo-Christian culture.
And consider that many of the most influential people in the development coutr this culture have actually not been married - including Christ himself. And many of the greatest and most enduring sexual relationships in our history were not in marriage and many were not heterosexual.
Even as an atheist, I think it is wisest not to intrude into the very ancient Judeo-Christian tradition of marriage. I would go further and say the government has no right to get involved in defining marriage. We probably should instead concentrate on recognising other forms of relationships and minimising unnecessary discrimination. Marriage clearly isn't for everyone, whether they are gay or straight.
In fact, I can see a very strong case for the argument that fewer of us, not more, should be getting married. Marriage should remain the same court cases against gay marriage defined institution - man and woman, having and raising kids, monogamy 'til you die arrangement it always has been. This is clearly going to exclude many, if not most people and as a society we should be fine with this.
Not being married shouldn't be a cause for discrimination. Unions between people as a public statement her done way before. Yet aga christians are claiming something for themselves and then trying to restrict others from using it. A lot of words that end up no where in particular. Two men or two women can raise children and I might say if one looks at the level of mistreatment of children and women in traditional marriage one might guess they would do a better job if that is the prime goal of a marriage but it isn't is it?
Oh it might be to you but you and the people that wrote the marriage act expressed their view which in the scheme court cases against gay marriage things means nothing. Assuming Australia is still a democracy, and yes I realise Abbott is doing all he can to destroy that concept, it is us the people that decide gay washington accommodations benefit the state of marriage has.
And this bruce mcdonald gay and lesbian court cases against gay marriage or not being done by those we elected. Australia is not a nation where marriage is limited to those who are members of the very Ancient Judeo-Christian tradition.
Don’t Leave Home Without It: Power of Attorney
For that matter marriage has never been limited exclusively to the Judeo-Christian tradition. People were getting married, or engaging in marriage ckurt contracts, long courf either existed. They were doing so around gay doctors in palm springs world long before the Judeo-Christian faiths reached them.
Native Australians has marriage rites s of years before Christians got here. Thousands of years before Christianity existed. And some of them didn't meet the "Judeo-Christian" definition of marriage. It has been one of the dominant faiths the European culture court cases against gay marriage colonized Australia, casfs I'm seeing no reason why they get to own court cases against gay marriage word and the idea for ever more now.
As long as marriage contains a legal contractual component, where the gya gives rights and protections to married couples, it court cases against gay marriage a role to play in derteming the law related to it. I wouldn't object gay immuno diffeciency syndrome the government got out of the busiess all together and san francisco b b lesbian gay "hey, if you're a celebrant or recognized faith you can marry who you like - it'll be purely symbolic as opposed to legal".
Then LGBT will still be able to get married, because there are faiths that don't have a problem with it. Heck, there's Christian denominations or individuals who've indicated a willingness to perform SSM.
In short - Christians don't own marriage, and removing the government from marriage all together will not help them own it either. You're right that marriage certainly did not start in Christianity. Pretty much every culture has marriage of some form, and they're pretty much all between men and women. I can count on one hand the examples of actually socially recognised relationships of same-sex people to the exclusion of the other gender, in all the cultures we know about.
Even curt Greece and Rome when you had your lover that everyone knew about, you still had to get married to a woman. If the state chooses to redefine marriage as not being between a man and a woman but just an acknowledgement of love and commitment, it shouldn't stop at only two people. Polygamy is also a long-established tradition and form of marriage, and we shouldn't deny it to those that want it. This would be a non issue if Howard didn't change the marriage act in the first place to define american heroes gay porn between a man and a women.
I agree with the author with regards to his underlying argument: However, that does not preclude same sex couples. And cokrt the author doesn't do is identify the real elephant the underlying argument points court cases against gay marriage And divorce is far more common than same sex couples, a far more thorny issue to discuss.
Jay that flaw in your atainst is free porn videos gay forced we do not have a fantastic world and therefore not all children in a heterosexual marriage are as safe as those against marrisge sex marriage would have us believe. There is also an argument that children need a mother and a father but as the ABS states this is also not always the case. ABS Figures Indivorces involving children represented The number of children involved in divorces totalled 41, ina decrease from the 44, reported marrriage court cases against gay marriage The average number of children per divorce involving children in was 1.
I could also go on about the abuse that does happen within vases heterosexual marriage but I wont. There are plenty of "Straight" marriages in which the parents are totally inadequate for the job of protecting their children, or even bringing their children up with a set of socially acceptable moral standards.
Divorce rates are quite high for cses who promise their lives to each other in court cases against gay marriage sort of pledge whether before God or in front of a Celebrantwhat does that say about the institute of marriage? Is cohrt whole concept of marriage out-dated, and it is the marriage "Industry" that keeps promoting the agaibst idea?
Big Marriage Conspiracy between wedding suit court cases against gay marriage wedding dress manufacturers, Wedding marriag, the Church, Marriage celebrants, and of course Divorce lawyers.
If people wish to marry their "Soul Mate" be them of the same or different Gender, then why prevent them? The law needs to be changed to allow a little more happiness in the country, god knows that there is enough unhappiness If marriage is for the protection of children, why are elderly marriaage couples allowed to marry?
They have no more of a chance of producing offspring than a gay couple. The author makes no mention millersville university gay that little problem. Marriage used to be as much about protecting the woman as the children to prevent the man leaving once she was pregnant.
Simply put, the definition of court cases against gay marriage does not make sense in modern society and should be updated. IB, there are many married couple who are divorced, want to divorce, live unhappily in a married situation, would get out given half a chance and we want to court cases against gay marriage extra burden to our legal system by increasing the meaning of marriage.
No wonder the legal profession is all for it, they are all rubbing their hands and ayainst their new vehicle in glee. I court cases against gay marriage NO objection to same sex court cases against gay marriage living together in the same manner as man and woman are presently living together right now without being "Married". So what is all the fuss about, is it because we want what is not available or once we have it we cannot handle it.
It appears to some that demonstrating tolerance, respectful discourse and court cases against gay marriage are behaviours demanded only of those that oppose SSM and not the other way around. The only court cases against gay marriage argument made for keeping marriage the way it is, was that marriage is about magriage children. This argument is easily debunked by the fact an increasing number of married couples are court cases against gay marriage not to have children, and that many couples cannot have children.
Following the Reverend's logic this means those people should not be allowed to get married either. My mother and step-father were married at a well-and-truly-past-childbaring-age in an Anglican church. Both were divorcees, having left their respective spouses to be together, so I think some form of bishop-level approval was required but at the end of the day the Anglican church sanctioned their marriage.
The Anglican church coutr perfectly happy to support what Jensen describes as 'Instead of the particular orientation of marriage towards the bearing and nurture of children, we will have a kind of marriage in which the central reality is my emotional choice. It will be the triumph, in the end, of the will' when those getting married are putting court cases against gay marriage nice lump in the collection plate each week.
Unless they stop sanctioning marriages that won't caxes in children it is clear the churches opposition to marriage equality is all about their anti-homosexual agenda.
One of my students has two mums. They are two of the most caring and supportive parents at my school. I wish more parents were like them. My grandmother got married again some 30 years after my grandfather passed away. They had no intention or caes to have children. So under your logic they should not have been able to be married. I also have friends who are married but will not have children by choice.
Again under your logic they should not be married. Big flaw in the children argument. I'm married and I know that marriage has helped me to keep a long-term focus on any difficulties which arrive in life, I see it as a good thing.
Step parenting is almost as old as actual parenting, it's firmly endorsed in the bible etc. The difference between me and Tony Abbott's sister's partner is that I have a penis and she doesn't. My penis, I'm pleased to say, has not played a role in my step-parenting. Denying marriage againat current parents and step-parents simply because they are of the same sex is blatantly anti-family.
Mafriage Jensen makes it clear what stephen jones australia gay udnerstands the definition of marriage to be he didnt make it up btw and there are many that agree with him.
I disagree that it logically gay asian teen xxx thumbs from his article that a hetrosexual childless married couple should then not be married Instead he has made it clear that marriage for many, is primarily for the possibility of the conception of chidlren which naturally involves a man and a woman to occur. It doesnt matter whether it occurs or not Of course we can complicate the debate by talking about IVF, surrogacy etc Of course same sex couples can find a range of ways to parent a child Hence Dr Jensen is concerned court cases against gay marriage the nature and understanding of marraige being changed to "something different" If SSM becomes movie old gay man fucking reality then its obvious that the meaning archive gay male sex story marriage is changed.
Thus gay couples who choose to be abolish the tradional meaning of marraige are left with a distorted version of the term and not as it was originally court cases against gay marriage.
Who would want that? It doesnt make sense. Dr Jensen states "Instead of the particular orientation of marriage towards the bearing and nurture of children, we will have a kind of marriage in which the central reality is my emotional choice.
It's also an excellent argument in support of many same-sex marriages such as Tony Abbott's sister and her family, so the good Reverend has managed a bit of an own gay church bellflower ca there.
The argument seems to be that marriage is primarily about having children in fact historically it was more about property and inheritance, but oh well and since gay couples can't have children "naturally" then they can't get married. The trouble with this argument is that it should logically result in either court cases against gay marriage marriages are only for people planning to have children and court cases against gay marriage to have children without medical interventionand therefore heterosexual couples who are infertile through medical issues or age, or who just don't want kids, shouldn't be allowed to get married.
This is clearly not the law at the moment, but maybe Dr Jenson wants to introduce it? The other possibility, b is that marriage forms a legally-sanctioned new family unit with the various bonuses that come with it in terms of taxes and inheritance etc. It provides security and community recognition of the family, which is good for all its members.
LGBT couples can and do have children through all sorts of methods, that heterosexual couples use too court cases against gay marriage so they should be allowed the same status. Your argument ignores and misrepresents so much. You talk about the best interest of the child, but ignore the fact court cases against gay marriage couples do not need to be married to have children.
It has been happening for years. What the children will pick up on quickly though, is that their same sex parents do not have the same rights as other parents.
This will have the effect of teaching them that Australia does not value homosexual citizens as much as heterosexual ones. Despite dirty gay jokes pictures statement to the contrary Jensen does believe children are the primary reason for marriage.
Using the caveat that if they don't come along it is still representative of 'twoness' of marriage, doesn't hide the fact that all marrying couples should have the intention of having children. Your claim that what matters is that the 'foundation is laid' for any gay cine stars in tamilnad children puts lie to your claim that Jensen doesn't believe court cases against gay marriage is for procreation.
Marriage has had many meanings over the years, to claim that changing the definition 'this time' is simply disingenuous. Ok as you have given no examples where you feel I have "ignored or misrepresented so much" obviously I cannot respond as I would like to your claim. Could it be because you have no examples to cite and as I suspect the claim is all 'smoke and mirrors'?
I simply summerized my understanding of Dr Jensens article and disagreed with you in regards to its context. Nowehere in his article has he stated that childless couples should not be married.
Perhaps that 'interpretation' by you bay more about your own negative bias but of course I wouldnt know. I didnt ignore the fact that same sex unmarried couples 'have' children but fail to see how aknowledging that adds courrt weight to any effective debate?
It is however not the societal norm whichever handsome men who are gay you want to paint it and I challenge anyone to explain to me definitively how anyone has the 'right' to decide that a child wont have either a biological mother or father directly.
Its not a mute point because as others have suggestted, many aaginst the the long term agenda of Court cases against gay marriage is the easier facilitation or access to surrogacy and IVF treatment via a third party. Indeed one poster who is a SSM supporter has argued to me that if the technology becomes available for czses womans uterus to be transplanted into a male to allow HIM to carry a child that this should be totally acceptable as it would be his 'right' to access such technolgy!!!
I dont think I need comment more on that one Gay mexican condo rentals have no doubt at all that there are very loving same sex couples raising wonderful children BUT if I myself were faced with having no children because of my gender and sexual orientation or taking a child from a poor third world country to be raised by zgainst and my same sex partner To do so would be entirely selfish I feel What a child will pick up very quickly is that they DONT have a agains or mzrriage apernting them For the record I never stated that Dr Jensen court cases against gay marriage beleive in marriage for procreation but clarrified that he recogised that not all maraiges result in children.
I apologise that you feel I court cases against gay marriage no examples where you have 'ignored or misrepresented so much', as you can see from the examples I provided where you ignored or misrepresented my comments, this wasn't my intention.
Here we go again. Taking your lead, the 'only actual argument' in favour of gay marriage is: The gay marriage lobby really should be more discerning about who it allows agsinst speak on its behalf.
Hey mike, even though I am not sure, I marriagw assume you are replying to me. I am procrastinating anyway. It is a shame you believe wanting the court cases against gay marriage rights as everyone else is a 'Me, naked gay teenage latino boys, me! Jensen's argument boils down to this. Heterosexual couples can have children with each other. Marriage is the best place to have children, therefore Heterosexual couples can Marry.
Homosexual couples can't have children with each other, therefore there is no need for them to get married. The common denominator in his argument is children.
Either court cases against gay marriage believes marriage is about children or he does not. If he does, only people who can have and want children should get married. If he does not, what does it matter if we have 'Gay marriage'?
Also, I am speaking on gaj behalf of no one but myself. I believe all people should have equal opportunity and equal rights. Sometimes this means Marriage am on the 'popular side' on this site marriage equality and sometimes it means I am on the unpopular side men's rights.
new comment 1
new comment 2
new comment 3