Bill Baker That was convincing. Point is, whatever the law allows, there will always be some people who feel limited. That's not a reason to change law. Enough people exerting enough pressure can effect a change in almost any law. All you have to do is examine case history and legislative history to understand that. That something would be difficult in this society does not mean it would be impossible. Thirty years ago people would have said it was ridiculuous to even contemplate the possibility that courts would entertain the idea of changing marriage to include two people of the same gender. Laws limiting marriage to two people of opposite gender are already in place. You're talking about people who are taking it to the level of consbreastutional law to protect society from judges overstepping their bounds and writing law. Why don't you cite what law they've interpreted. Michingan: 551.2 Marriage as civil contract; consent; license; solemnization. Sec. 2. So far as its validity in law is concerned, marriage is a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of parties capable in law of contracting is essential. Let me guess. You were never on a debate team. Then it shouldn't be any problem for you to provide a cite. Cite the part where it says that marriage is a right. I'll help you. The decision was based on a violation of the fourteenth amendment. Laws protecting the sancbreasty of the family are irrelevant? Who will, in effect, be writing law. And there will be no reason for anyone to bet married. And not everyone who gets a drivers license operates a motor vehicle in a safe manner so why bother to issue licenses at all. I see, in addition to skipping membership on a debate team, you slept through Logic 101.
|
