419 views and no answer!?!? Not very Progressive.

And here I though he was speaking English.

 

That's funny!

 

Me. I oppose the institution of marriage for any sexual orientation.

 

Since I'm not young, nor a man, nor a member of any church I can't answer a question clearly not addressed to me.

 

Marriage should be between one young woman and another young woman.

 

I do not think they would have a problem with the church keeping the term marriage if it meant the government afforded the same rights and tax advantages as a male/female couple.

 

Without a doubt this is the biggest reason.

 

But the Government, that is Congress changed the tax law to expressly promote the institution of Marriage by giving them the tax advantages. Right or wrong, that is what happen. It seems the answer is to lobby Congress
to correct the blunder not change the meaning of Marriage so that the reason the tax advantage in the code, no longer isolates the intended targets.

 

My last response to anything written in Yoda.

 

Judicial branch isn't designed to lobby congress.

 

Well yeah! Simply bitching to the court about the grievance using the 14th amendments equal protection is convoluted and disingenuous to say nothing about probably incorrect.

 

I think Marzy's point is that the word "marriage" comes from an ancient word for "woman."

I think.

 

Not even a little, lol...