Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Look, here is how deep I can get into the issue: "It is fucked up that people mess with Gay people, and they have to argue for such basic rights." That is my only position substantively.
|
But why is it a basic right for two men to marry each other yet it is not a basic right for a man to marry two women?
What argument in the MA opinion could not also be used to justify polygamy? Especially as practiced by those who are convinced that god is ordering them to engage in this practice and that they cannot achieve eternal salvation for their souls lest they marry more than one woman? But even putting aside those who engage in it for religious reasons, what about those who just want to?
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Next week, when you and Ty continue your discussion I would note that procedurally one win in Con. Law cases by carefully picking your plaintiff.
|
My plaintiffs are the Donald, the Ivana, and the Marla.
What if Donald Trump wants to be married to both Ivana and Marla and both Ivana and Marla want to be married to the Donald? Which of those reasons articulated by the MA SC to require gay marriage could not be used to justify that union?
