You do not need a gov liscence to marry either if you do so in Gods wittness & honor your vows God does recognize a marriage. I personally dont want goiv recognition of a Godly marriage to include sodomites.
People need a legitimate marriage license to have access to the many benefits and legal protections that marriage confers such as co-adoption, access to family medical leave and bereavement leave and inheritance rights.
You don't have to lie to marry someone of the opposite sex, its just a government liscence. You don't need to be in love to get married.
So you find marrying someone when there is no love an accpetable way of life. I can not believe what I have seen promoted in this thread
marriage without love
hatred and crueltry by children to homosexuals is a natural reaction becasue they (homosexuals) are unnatrual
These are the two THAT REALLY STICK OUT in my mind; unbelievable.
__________________ "America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves – if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?
This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time – to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth – that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people:
Yes We Can. "
President Barack Obama To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last time I looked traditional marriage vows included the promise to love honor and cherish. Saying “I do” is agreeing to this. To say this to someone you do not love is lying.
My bad, however considering a definition of love:
love: An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured object.
(source: dictionary.com)
I'm sure if you really wanted to you could find someone of the opposite gender you loved, it may not be in the traditional marriage sense but it would still be technically love.
So you find marrying someone when there is no love an accpetable way of life. I can not believe what I have seen promoted in this thread
marriage without love
hatred and crueltry by children to homosexuals is a natural reaction becasue they (homosexuals) are unnatrual
These are the two THAT REALLY STICK OUT in my mind; unbelievable.
I don't find it acceptable, but it is your right to marry someone of the opposite gender even if you don't love them in a deep sense. Since the people conducting the marriage can't read minds, I don't see any workaround.
I'm sure if you really wanted to you could find someone of the opposite gender you loved, it may not be in the traditional marriage sense but it would still be technically love.
Or are you going to pretend that interracial couples are “different” and thus exempt from your promotion f discrimination?
Inter-racial couples are a real case of not equal protection. As I mentioned earlier, if black people are only allowed to marry black people and white people are only allowed to marry white people, the laws aren't being applied the same to everyone. Thus inter-racial marriage is protected under the 14th amendment.
Segregation was different, black people could only marry black people and white people could only marry white people. Thus there were different rights for different people, not equal protection.
But that's not how the law read -- it allowed marriages with persons of the same race, and thus, in the views of the segregationists, granted blacks and whites the same right.
Now, what we have is that straight people can marry other straight people with whom they fall in love (or for whatever other reason strikes them as a valid one to marry), and gay people can... well, by the definition of the term, gay people fall in love with people of the same sex.
Think it through. It's the same "equal protection" as anti-miscegenation laws claimed to provide -- and the courts voided them as unjust.
But that's not how the law read -- it allowed marriages with persons of the same race, and thus, in the views of the segregationists, granted blacks and whites the same right.
Now, what we have is that straight people can marry other straight people with whom they fall in love (or for whatever other reason strikes them as a valid one to marry), and gay people can... well, by the definition of the term, gay people fall in love with people of the same sex.
Think it through. It's the same "equal protection" as anti-miscegenation laws claimed to provide -- and the courts voided them as unjust.
Yes but its obvious that the actual application of the law is different for different people.
In the case of homosexuals the application is the same, they can marry exactly the same people that everyone else can marry who happens to be of their gender. What you're arguing is that people have a right to marry someone they are sexually attracted to, assuming that person is available. That is another right altogether, not an instance of not equal protection.
Linear Mode
