wrote in message No, the burden is on the state to prove why the right should be denied. Ask the state. You're the one making baseless accusations against judges. It's up to you to support them. They define marriage so as to deny same-gender unions. Right, they just need to issue the license. No license is needed to ride a bicycle. That's a very poor analogy. But homoloveuals are denied the right to sign a marriage contract with the consenting non-related adult of their choice. The state has shown no reason to deny them that right. Your denial doesn't help your case. Now support your accusation against the judges. Clbuttic denial. I guess you don't. Which context is that? That's funny, most legal experts seem to think they are. I think I'll take their word over some anonymous person on the Internet. Nope. They deny two people of the same love to enter into a marriage contract together. That is a fact. And they must provide a valid reason why they must deny that right to same-love couples. -- Funny Sister Lurlean quote #76: "They just elected a uncut ex Nazi as governor of California. I'm afraid he's gonna come down here and GROPE me." --Lurlean demonstrates her paranoid delusions.
|
