I think you have this precisely backwards. Why should churches control whether anyone gets married? That’s what led to the whole mashup over gay marriage in the first place.
There should be civil marriage, with the state regulating whether people are old enough, unrelated enough, etc. If people then want to have a religious institution bless their marriage, power to them. But the ability to marry should not be a religious issue.
Don’t worry Martha, you’re certainly not getting invited to any threesomes.
And I would be able to discern her “seizure” and “non-seizure” behavior how?
Marriage in the US is a contract at civil law.
Government is in charge of civil law—ergo government decides about how marriage is structured.
It ain’t rocket surgery, Snookums.
One state is generally foamier than the other. I leave it to you to decide which.
But what would Cheesus say about that?
The FoxNews Blonde Bimbettes are never shy about trotting out the old slippery slope logical fallacy.
Since such unions are illegal for everyone now, there is no reason to assume that such unions will be made legal.
I guess this means pet stores are going to have to stock more box turtles.
Mrs Von Holst and I have been enjoying a “foursome” in bed with our two miniature pinschers for years now. It’s been wonderful. Although “Cali” does tend to sleep on the pillow above my head.
Good.
You mean like menage a trois ?That’s nothing new.
Justice Alito? Is that you?
FOX brand willful ignorance. They put the anus in ignoranus!
Does this mean that "manimals’ will have the same rights as their human parents? Huh, huh…
I’m planning on making sweet, slow love to a huge martini with hand-stuffed blue cheese olives right about 5:30.
Dog farts are bad enough at a distance; having them right over my head is not an option in our house.
Fox Anchor Asks Whether Ruling Means ‘Three People’ Can Be Married Now
Maybe you should ask Mitt Romney.
Yup. Nothing like a dog fart in a closed up car to start the conversation. It’s pretty much what’s going on at Fox this morning.
I beg your pardon, Cali, does not fart, on occasion she is known to mildly bombinate. Besides, as miasmas go, they’re very small.
I hate this argument. There is no equivalency between two people being able to marry regardless of their gender/sex and multiple people marrying. The exclusion of a group from the existing structure of marriage was the issue, not changing the concept of marriage to include more than two individuals. I don’t generally care what people do but am against polygamy on practical grounds (even apart from the power dynamics issues, but let’s assume that there are none and you truly have three+ consenting adults). Divorce, custody, child support, estate issues, taxes all are set up for a two person system and changing all of that would be a monumental task, if not impossible in some cases.