I'll bet if you talked to a priest or a psychologist, you'd find that, at your most freaky, you're still a depressingly normal human being.
Since the beginning of Constitutional analysis.
Again, what states recognized the marriage of homosexuals in 1791? I'll answer it myself, none.
By passing the Fourteenth Amendment. Loving struck down the 1924 Virginia statute via the Fourteenth. We do not have the right to marry whomever we please.
If you want to pass the Gay Marriage Amendment or the Anyone Can Marry Anyone Else Including Groups or Animals Amendment, then pass it and start striking down the old, eeevil restrictive state laws.
(snipped)
The reason for the "marriage license" was so one could marry outside of their own race.
Marriage licence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaDo you have a reference for this statement?
Marriage licence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Page down to the United States and read. It is just Wiki but do some other homework if you like. I do not just make this crap up to stir the pot....ok sometimes but not this time
No, miscegenation statutes were struck down based on the 13th and 14th Amendment as badges of slavery. There was no recognized "right to marry whomever we pleased." No one conceived, enunciated or claimed any such right until relatively recently in history.
I've done a lot of genealogy research and find virtually all the marriages recorded in church records. The earliest marriage registration I have is from from an Ohio county clerk in 1825. It's a registration, not a license. This is by no means the ultimate answer, but is indicative of early marriages not requiring a license.Did a man and woman have to go to the local courthouse or other such government entity to get a marriage license in 1791 or was that started sometime afterward? I believe in a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman but I no longer believe in the state definition of marriage. I'd be surprised if you could even find a pastor and church that would perform a ceremony without a state marriage license.
I've done a lot of genealogy research and find virtually all the marriages recorded in church records. The earliest marriage registration I have is from from an Ohio county clerk in 1825. It's a registration, not a license. This is by no means the ultimate answer, but is indicative of early marriages not requiring a license.
Doesnt necessarily make you a crusader for the cause, but if you oppose gay marriage you are anti gay. How can it be any other way? You are wanting to deny two consenting adults the same rights you have because they are different.
I dont want to see a gay male couple do what they do, but why should I or anyone else deny them the same rights I have? People use religion as a crutch but that is just weak. Two guys getting married has nothing to do with you, your beliefs, or your life at all. If God really has an issue with it, let him handle it, you dont need to.
The arrogance of some to think they should be the judge and jury for others lives is laughable.
So, homosexuals that are against gay marriage, are anti gay?
Why some gays are against gay marriage
Apparently so, is there some gay Supreme Council somewhere that decides what all gays must believe and what all heterosexuals must believe in order not to be "anti-gay?" Is it a religion in which you're excommunicated for straying from the rigid elements of faith?
Ok, time to raise an age-old question. He's an elected representative. He is SUPPOSED to keep with the desires of his constituents almost to the exclusion of his personal values.
All politicians (or at least the good ones) are to a certain extent "hypocritical" in the sense that they have the ability to separate their personal views when they vote the will of their constituents.
ETA:
Depending on who is pissed off at you, a legislator is either hypocritical for voting his conscience when it departs from the will of the electorate, or hypocritical for voting the will of the electorate if it contradicts his own personal values.
I disagree that they are "supposed" to vote the will of their constituents. My belief is that they are supposed to tell their constituents what they stand for and if their constituents agree with what they stand for, they vote for them. If their constituents change their collective mind, as they tend to do, that doesn't mean their elected representative has some obligation to change his vote. He's still supposed to vote what he believes in, IMO.
is there some gay Supreme Council somewhere that decides what all gays must believe and what all heterosexuals must believe in order not to be "anti-gay?"
Doesnt necessarily make you a crusader for the cause, but if you oppose gay marriage you are anti gay. How can it be any other way?
You are wanting to deny two consenting adults the same rights you have because they are different.
I dont want to see a gay male couple do what they do, but why should I or anyone else deny them the same rights I have? People use religion as a crutch but that is just weak. Two guys getting married has nothing to do with you, your beliefs, or your life at all. If God really has an issue with it, let him handle it, you dont need to.
The arrogance of some to think they should be the judge and jury for others lives is laughable.