In response to:

The Goodness of Marriage

Dave64 Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 11:19 AM
Social Conservatives, please explain to me the following: I can right now, get a Marriage License, wait 24 hrs, have a NOTARY sign it, and then myself and my girlfriend sign it and we are MARRIED. No priest, no ceremony, no nothing. We can have a PRENUPTIAL agreement drawn up that says all of our own personal property BEFORE the Marriage will remain OUR OWN, that is, it does not become community property. Essentially, in 24 hours, we can have all the tax and financial benefits of Marriage. Contrast that to a couple who does premarital counseling, waits a year, gets married in a Church, has a big religious ceremony, and co-mingles their assets. Which couple is MORE Married? Does either couple look DIFFERENT to the Gov't. NOPE!!
Anominus Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 4:58 PM
"Which couple is MORE Married?"

You can't be "more married" - you either are, or you aren't. Not sure what argument you were attempting to make.

"Does either couple look DIFFERENT to the Gov't. NOPE!!"

That depends - did the couple who had a religious ceremony still apply for and file a marriage certificate at the courthouse? If they didn't, then the government IS going to see the difference.

Does that couple meet the requirements of age, sex, unmarried status, unrelated by blood, and offering consent to satisfy any questions on the license? If they don't, then the government IS going to see the difference.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 6:13 PM
Anominus

His point was obvious.... If two couples both get legally married then they are legally married and Gov looks at them the same (unless one is a same sex couple then their legal marriage is denied equal protection under the law)

A couple barely knowing each other in a quickie ceremony or a long term relationship with elaborate wedding, the Gov treats them Equal (again unless one is a same sex couple being denied that equality)
Anominus Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 7:00 PM
Actually, he never said that the second couple got "legally married," and as such, the two marriages would not be considered the same by the government.

Once again, so long as a couple meets the requirements of marriage, they will be treated the same by government. A homosexual couple does not meet the requirements of marriage, so they cannot legally be married. However, if a homosexual individual should attempt to marry someone of the opposite sex, and be denied marriage because of his sexual preference, you would then have some standing to invoke the equal protection clause. Until then, you have failed to demonstrate what rights homosexuals are being deprived.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 10:18 PM
Anominus wrote:

"A homosexual couple does not meet the requirements of marriage, so they cannot legally be married. "

Currently in Multiple states they DO meet the legal requirement for marriage. And the number of states that legally allow same sex couples to wed is growing.

And here are cases where the Equal Protection clause was used and won in US circuit Courts by same sex couples...

Nancy GILL & Marcelle Letourneau, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12291552107009775855&q=Gill+v.+Office+of+Personnel+Management&hl=en&as_sdt=2,11&as_vis=1

Dragovich v. U.S. Department of Treasury

http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12060
Anominus Wrote: Feb 13, 2013 1:59 PM
As if the courts get it right all the time - this is just another example in a long line of bad decisions and misinterpretation of the Constitution for the sake of creating "rights" where none actually exist to benefit a left-leaning constituency. It is no different from Roe v Wade and Dred Scott.

There are many states which forbid homosexual unions - still the majority in fact, and the majority of those laws were passed by popular vote, rather than judicial fiat. I have no doubt that as society naturally grows more corrupt and imbecilic, thanks to the efforts of perverts and "relative morality libertarians" who preach in public schools, our country will follow the march of many other fallen civilizations into the dustbin of history. It

NOTE: This is the third column in a series of columns related to National Marriage Week, Feb. 7-14, 2013. The second column is available here.

G.K. Chesterton observed in The Superstition of Divorce that “reformers of marriage . . . do not know what it is, or what it is meant to be, or what its supporters suppose it to be . . . .” Marriage opponents, who today seek not to reform but rather redefine marriage, appear to suffer from the problem diagnosed by Chesterton almost a century ago.

In their heedless rush to establish the legitimacy of...