Because that would be a contract between you and 7 different people not a contract between you and 1 different person.
its also a fact that Dems have very low voter enthusiasm right now. They will be lucky to turn out as many Ds as Rs. The sup. ct decision may have sealed the turnout deal in favor of the Rs.
... if you can discount the importance of history and the man and women thing... and the caring for progeny, why draw the line at 1 contract... it is a completely arbitrary place to discriminate.
LEPERup continues Operation: Overcompensation. Next, he'll go back and have some more lengthy discussions with like-minded gents at that fried chicken joint, where they'll compare their latest lumberjack outfits and accessories. Oh, they'll have such fun.
just like discriminating between 2 dudes is an arbitrary place to discriminate..... Like i said before its a contract between 2 people, i dont want to see it be defined as marraige but i dont believe the government should be involved in defining that to begin with. All it is is a contract between 2 people...... If you support the government picking out the way that contract should work, then you would have to be in favour of hate crime laws, and Affirmative action, 2 more bullshit narratives, where the government tries to define who the person is as opposed to simply enforcing contracts where 2 people are involved...... Everyone is a person in the eyes of the law, and whether you are white, black, brown yellow, female, straight should not matter, the government has no business defining what types of people get to be involved in contracts with each other.....