Quote:
Originally Posted by This_person  No one is denying a homosexual person from the right to enter into a marriage contract. They're merely defining what a marriage contract is. They (in CA, anyway, where we're talking about in this thread) have the option of going into a civil union contract since that fits the situation they are in should they want to enter with someone of the same genderYou mean, other than age?Then you would have the polygamists, then the incestuous......... Because, if you can't say opposite gender, then HOW can you put a limit on number, or relationship? Change it and it may never end changing. Leave it alone, and it's fine.No one is trying to control it, just define the similarities through civil union contracts, and differences through civil union contracts. |
Age, as I have said repeatedly, passes constitutional muster because it makes NO distinction based on race, creed, religion, gender or sexual habits.
There is no constitutional issue defining marriage as limited to two adults as limited contracts in terms of number of partners or members are nothing new and, again, as in age, it would apply evenly and without discrimination.
By all means, lose the opportunity to compromise and lose the whole thing in the process.