mahwidj
pretty sure i've said this before. but it's worth repeating. the fundamental problem before the supreme court this week is there's one word and two meanings. we need a defense of marriage act. but it should clearly differentiate between the two meanings. it should affirm a religion's right to define a marriage before their god any way they want. it should also define the rights and responsibilities of a legal marriage. like next of kin, power of attorney, fifth amendment protections, immigration, and taxes. if the federal government offers a contract package, called a marriage, to couples, it must make that contract package available to all couples. it cannot offer such benefits to some couples but not others. the supreme court's interpretation of the equal protections clause is pretty clear. basically the argument against marriages of a man and a man are exactly the same as the argument against marriages of a black person and a white person. of which society approves. though in some backwards places it didn't as little as 50 years ago. maybe in 50 years the whole argument will seem really silly. one can only hope. i really don't understand why this is even an issue.