Thank you Supreme Court...

[August]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the states, decision is correct in it takes feds out of marriage but the sweeping activist language is troubling.Court did not define homosexuals as a suspect class either.

Marriage is not a privilege granted by the states. They may withhold their official recognition of a marriage but they cannot stop someone from marrying.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by August

Marriage is not a privilege granted by the states. They may withhold their official recognition of a marriage but they cannot stop someone from marrying.

Yes, it is a privilege.Sure, they can't stop you from having a ceremony but the privilege is the legal benefits and recognition that come along with it, they may grant or deny based on if you meet the criteria they set for a marriage license.Some state's say you must have different equipment, other's do not, it's up to them as long as it is not denied on basis of race, gender, etc.

[August]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Yes, it is a privilege.Sure, they can't stop you from having a ceremony but the privilege is the legal benefits and recognition that come along with it,

Sorry, government handouts will never be what defines a commitment as intimate as a marriage between two people.

Of course, you would jump on a typo. 4 not 5* They did say it was unconstitutional, read the decision.

Perhaps you should have read the decision.
Even your attempt at correcting your mistake fails.
Perhaps you are right, maybe those people teaching you law really do know nothing. It would certainly explain a lot.

Sorry, government handouts will never be what defines a commitment as intimate as a marriage between two people.

So being "next of kin" is a government handout?????

For example, both Christianity and Islam claim Adam and Eve as the "origins" of humanity. While neither text states clearly that they were married, they both show a picture of a married couple. Their son, Cain is the first specific mention of marriage in religious texts. There are no known non-religious texts or records that would predate the religious claims.

You are correct that it doesn't state that they were married, however it doesn't imply that they were married either so that picture is one you are drawing for yourself.
Cain is indeed the first mention of marriage, but he had to go to the land of Nod to get married. Which suggests that the religious community in Eden didn't have marriage but the ungodly masses living in the other place did. So your religious text clearly undermines the claim you are trying to put on it.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Cain is indeed the first mention of marriage, but he had to go to the land of Nod to get married. Which suggests that the religious community in Eden didn't have marriage but the ungodly masses living in the other place did. So your religious text clearly undermines the claim you are trying to put on it.

Might as well be a reflection of exogamic traditions, though.

[Oberon]

In the name of Kane!

Might as well be a reflection of exogamic traditions, though.

Well that's where it gets tricky, did he really marry outside of his community or did he marry his twin, or did he perhaps marry one or both of the Abel triplets to avoid the twincest?
If he married outside his community to one of the mortal women who inhabited the earth before the creation of Adam and Eve was he adopting their non religious societal culture and their accepted norms?
Were Michael and Gabriel really best men at the wedding? Or if they had been among those angels shagging the humans before the creation of Adam and Eve were they there as father of the bride or brides?

[Wolferz]

Maybe the Westboro Baptist Curch is running things now?
Christians drinking the haterade?