Alliedassault - View Single Post - Canada approves same-sex marriage

TGB! · 07-01-2005, 03:34 AM

[quote:81896]there is no pre requisite that says marriage is only defined as between a man and woman.[/quote:81896]

The Defense Of Marraige Act signed in 1997 would disagree with your - assessment.

[quote:81896] marriage is every citizens right[/quote:81896]

Im not going to get into the fact that "marraige" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution - but I'll humor you and agree that anyone should be able to get married. And they can.

[quote:81896]and it is unconstitutional to deny a citizen and tax payer the right to such a public right.[/quote:81896]

As above - noone is deined the ability to marry. If there were state troopers outside churches then yes - the feds are wrong. There arent.

[quote:81896]it is also discriminate to create an alternative form of marriage (civil union)[/quote:81896]

Ok since you want to use this clunky logic - is it then "seperate but equal" to discriminate based on social factors: income for example? We have SEPERATE BUT EQUAL tax codes - surely you see the obvious discriminatory implications of such laws. Either bring everyone up to the same tax code of the top one percent, or bring that top one percent down in line with everyone else.

	(#26)
TGB! is Offline Command Sergeant Major Posts: 2,644 Join Date: Dec 2003	07-01-2005, 03:34 AM [quote:81896]there is no pre requisite that says marriage is only defined as between a man and woman.[/quote:81896] The Defense Of Marraige Act signed in 1997 would disagree with your - assessment. [quote:81896] marriage is every citizens right[/quote:81896] Im not going to get into the fact that "marraige" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution - but I'll humor you and agree that anyone should be able to get married. And they can. [quote:81896]and it is unconstitutional to deny a citizen and tax payer the right to such a public right.[/quote:81896] As above - noone is deined the ability to marry. If there were state troopers outside churches then yes - the feds are wrong. There arent. [quote:81896]it is also discriminate to create an alternative form of marriage (civil union)[/quote:81896] Ok since you want to use this clunky logic - is it then "seperate but equal" to discriminate based on social factors: income for example? We have SEPERATE BUT EQUAL tax codes - surely you see the obvious discriminatory implications of such laws. Either bring everyone up to the same tax code of the top one percent, or bring that top one percent down in line with everyone else.