Judge: Ky. must recognize same-sex marriages

[kalm]

You want to define marriage and have that definition codified based on your opinions. Would you tell a church that wanted to ordain a gay marriage that they couldn't because it doesn't jive with your definition?

Thought police.

Would you tell a church that wanted to ordain a polygamist marriage that they couldn't because it doesn't jive with your definition?

No, I don't think there's much argument over the definition of polygamy. And what business of mine are the relationships between two, three, 5, 8, consenting adults?

[JohnStOnge]

So you're ok with gay marriage as long as it's endorsed by a church?

I personally think the idea of homosexual marriage is absurd. But if a community of people wants to recognize a homosexual relationship as marriage I think they should be free to do so.

That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about a situation in which the People of the State of Kentucky voted to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman by a margin of 74% to 26% then some assholes filed suit to force them to recognize a homosexual union as marriage and a Federal judge ruled in favor of the assholes. It's about FORCING people to recognize homosexual unions as marriage; not about allowing people to opt to do that voluntarily.

[kalm]

So you're ok with gay marriage as long as it's endorsed by a church?

I personally think the idea of homosexual marriage is absurd. But if a community of people wants to recognize a homosexual relationship as marriage I think they should be free to do so.

That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about a situation in which the People of the State of Kentucky voted to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman by a margin of 74% to 26% then some assholes filed suit to force them to recognize a homosexual union as marriage and a Federal judge ruled in favor of the assholes. It's about FORCING people to recognize homosexual unions as marriage; not about allowing people to opt to do that voluntarily.

Again...the terrified hicks want to own the word marriage. Thought police.

[JohnStOnge]

Again...the terrified hicks want to own the word marriage. Thought police.

Again: The "Thought police" aspect is on the other side. You are trying to force people to think of a relationship in a certain way.

I've said before and I'll say again that we have reached a point where I think marriage should be eliminated as a civil institution. During the first 200+ years of our existence as a country everyone pretty much agreed with respect to what marriage is. Now we have the absurdity of homosexual marriage and so there is substantial disagreement.

The obvious solution is to eliminate marriage as a civil institution and just make it a religious thing. If one Church wants to marry homosexuals and another does not that's fine. It's just a religious thing like saying you've been baptized. It's between you and God.

Then if we want to have civil benefits for certain relationships we can do that and call it something else.

But it really is absurd. This thing of acting like homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality really is pretty bad.

[CID1990]

Would you tell a church that wanted to ordain a polygamist marriage that they couldn't because it doesn't jive with your definition?

Polygamy is only illegal for tax reasons
You can't have 25 deductions (or whatever)



Get the government OUT of the marriage business (period)

Holy shit it's Rand Paul's pseudonymous butt ass friend

Rand, I lovs you