Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmccarrell
I would invite you to find a single republican in office that has said that they want to lock up gay people or unmarried people, or anyone having oral sex. That is a plain lie. No one has said anything like that in 50 years, unless you're fringy. Besides, I mean, remember Larry Craig? He's a closeted gay man and no republican is trying to kill him or arrest him for sodomy. The people who went after him the most were democrats! This is just plain absurd!
|
As I posted earlier, the Republican administration in charge of Texas prosecuted the case of Lawrence v. Texas (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas ) - which asked the USSC to up hold the state law in Texas that made it a crime for gay people to have sex, though married and unmarried heterosexual people apparently could fellate and sodomize all they wanted (this remains unclear though). The Lawrence case overturned the Bowers case, which though immediately applicable to the prosecution (yes, they were prosecuted as two other guys were in Lawrence) of two gay guys for having sex, the GA statute applied to all sodomy (defined as all anal and oral sex regardles of sexuality or marital status).
So, there's more than one. In fact, there's a few. Capice?
I am not making this up though you may not want to believe it
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmccarrell
. . . Marriage licenses have not been around for more than 150 years, that is also incorrect. The benefits given to married people have also not been around since then because we've only had a national tax system since around World War I. Health Insurance hasn't been around that long either. I don't know where you're getting your information, but it's wrong.
|
The actual issuance of the license is hardly the point considering legal prohibitions to certain marriages have been around far longer regardless of whether a state issued license was issued. As early as 1665, the Maryland colonial assembly made interracial marriage a crime. In addition, there are more benefits then the tax system. Try property rights and inheritance rights for starters. In any event and no matter how long rights are being given based solely on religion, the issuance of rights based on religion is wrong and unconstitutional.
But and again, I agree with you because I think you said you would be for the word "marriage" to appear in no law book. If two consting adults want to marry, they should find a church to marry them and then contract for their property rights. To me, that is the fairest way. Sadly, the R party finds that idea incomprehensible and abhorrent. So we have to work with what we have, which is pathetic if you ask me. Interestingly, many far right religious leaders find the idea of the state's requirement for a license abhorrent.
For the record, do you think the state should have any business telling any teo consenting adults anything about marrying? Or, do you believe the state has the right to prohibit consenting adults from marrying based solely on religion?