Why do same sex marriages have to be "legalized?"

[BOSSHOG]

Where in the Constitution does it say that marriage will not be between two people of the same sex? Why do we use the terminology "same-sex" marriage? Why are we allowing divorcing, incest performing, getting teens pregnant, spouse abusing, homosexual hating, falwell loving red state neanderthals the opportunity to define the terms?

I'm a happily married (31 years) heterosexual who spent 24 years in the military wondering what the fuck I served for. So some fat ass bastard who couldn't make an honest living can get in a pulpit and moralize to people who throw money at him?

[Mr_Spock]

1. LOL - just another attempt by the NeoClansman to divide us

and start a civil war. They HATE America and want to destroy it.

[theorist]

2. Seems that all you'd have to do is cross out the sexes on the form.

I know that some churches will marry same-sex couples, but it is not a legal union. They want a return to "traditional values", i.e. where the wife and the children are possessions of the male head of the household.

I always get so pissed when I think about this issue.

edit: Apologies for insensitive comment. I shouldn't let my anger get the best of my conscience.

[BOSSHOG]

"Not a legal Union"

Why would it not be a legal union? Not being argumentative but I can't find one (non church) doctrine that says marriage will not be between two people of the same sex. I don't care if a church chooses not to join two people of the same sex in matrimony BECAUSE I AM A STRONG SUPPORTER OF THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, but if two folks want to go down to the justice of the peace, what document does that justice possess that says such a same sex union is illegal?

[theorist]

4. I think you're right. It would be the discretion of the official. n/t

[candy]

3. How many Freepers do you personally know without teeth?

That was one of the weirdest comments I have ever seen.

[theorist]

6. Now that I think of it....

I don't know any freepers personally. Like I wrote, the subject angers me - practically visceral. That mixed with my sleep deprivation led to my nutty comment.

[Maddy McCall]

8. No. No dental care is a poverty issue.

And lots of Democrats even posting at DU have mentioned having to have teeth pulled because they can't afford dental care.

[SoCalifer]

5. IMO

The Government has no business interfering with marriages anyway. Basically what we have is the Government taking it upon itself (like some kind of Kingship) to require you to have a "marriage license".

Am I the only one who sees the government over stepping of their authority here? As well as the inherent slave mentality treatment from government to require two human beings to have to get approval from and to register themselves with the Kingship before getting married (aka - requiring licensing)?

I don't know.. Maybe it's just me or maybe I was born in the wrong time.. :shrug:

[ihaveaquestion]

7. This is what the Mass Supreme Court said.

That's why the freepers got all riled up about "activist judges." It got them reading the Constitution and coming up with the same conclusion - there's nothing in there to stop same-sex marriages, nada, niet and nein - nothing. In fact, the equal protection clause appears to mean that same-sex marriage is constitutionally legal!

Everyone's coming to the same conclusions here. It freaked out the freepers, big time! That's what got em pushing all the state constitution same-sex ban referendums (referendi?).

I think it's a just matter of time before same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states. Because of all the rw freaks, it might take 50 years, but it'll happen.

[Zenlitened]

9. I prefer to use the phrase "marriage fairness" when discussing this.

Agree, the pukes are still defining this debate, and the sooner we jettison their terminology, the better.