@suicideluvkitty No, actually, the idea is to strike anything that regards to gender from the descriptor of marriage. So, any 2 human's would be able to marry. Species reassignment though, that one will take you out of the loop for marriage.
Because, Hugh Hewitt (as you are all aware) the marriage contract (as you are well aware) can only be signed by two people. Due to the language of that contract it is impossible to fulfill that contract if there are more than 2 people involved! hello? By your logic however, there should be no marriages at all. (yay, this is better than yelling at the tv)
@atxthumper - no. his point is that the court failed to follow its own equal protection and fundamental right reasoning to its logical conclusion.
@suicideluvkitty No, actually, the idea is to strike anything that regards to gender from the descriptor of marriage. So, any 2 human's would be able to marry. Species reassignment though, that one will take you out of the loop for marriage.
Because, Hugh Hewitt (as you are all aware) the marriage contract (as you are well aware) can only be signed by two people. Due to the language of that contract it is impossible to fulfill that contract if there are more than 2 people involved! hello? By your logic however, there should be no marriages at all. (yay, this is better than yelling at the tv)
@ApologiaTV Ah, I should not 'half listen' while 'half asleep' :-) it was still more fun than yelling at the TV though. thanks!
Ok, back to sleep.