On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 5:24:49 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/22/2016 4:13 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 11:35:30 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:

I want the definition of "marriage" to go back to what it was before -
the union of one man and one woman in matrimony. Any other combination
that wants to be united can be called something else.




The big problems come when you then deny those other unions the rights
and equal protection under the law that the govt extends to unions
that are a man and woman.


There is no denial of rights because EVERYONE still has the same right
to a marriage between one man and one woman.


There most certainly is a denial of rights, because a same sex couple
was denied the same rights that a heterosexual couple was granted.
When you're taxed differently, can't adopt, are denied survivor benefits,
can't make decisions for a comatose loved one in the hospital, based
on govt laws, it is a denial of rights.



Any OTHER combination is NOT marriage and, therefore, not qualified for
rights defined under marriage. Civil unions should have rights defined
in reference to civil unions alone.

--
Maggie

And unless those civil rights of civil unions are the same as those
of marriage, then you have a denial of equal protection under the law.
Funny, you claim to be a conservative, but obviously the constitution
escapes you. It didn't escape the SC though.