Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
Brief note -- it was Mass. that decided the case, not Maryland.
|
Those 'M' states all look the same to me.
Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
Here is what everyone is getting wrong about this case. It DID NOT DID NOT DID NOT say "gay marriage" was required, but rather that the benefits of marriage should be provided to gay couples.
|
Makes sense... and personally I agree with it, but again that raises the question, if same sex unions are the same as hetero unions, why not polygamy? Why not two couples who like each other SOO MUCH that they want to (all 4) get married? If M/F has nothing magical about it, and M/M or F/F is fine, then why not M/F/F, F/M/M, or even M/M/F/F. Hell if a really good friends wife works for the gubberment, you and your wife could marry him and his wife to get the sweet med. benefits! All these permutations seem just as valid to me once you say that M/F holds no special place in society.