On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:32:48 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 12/24/13, 12:29 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:10:06 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 12/24/13, 11:57 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 10:46:40 -0500, John H.
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/mrpp845

This is just a taste of the things to come! Such great news, especially at this time of year.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!


I imagine the polygamists in Utah see this as a good thing too.

Shelby ruled,
"The court agrees with Utah that regulation of marriage has
traditionally been the province of the states, and remains so today.
But any regulation adopted by a state, whether related to marriage or
any other interest, must comply with the Constitution of the United
States. The issue the court must address in this case is therefore not
who should define marriage, but the narrow question of whether Utah's
current definition of marriage is permissible under the Constitution."

There is nothing in the constitution that defines marriage as one man
and one woman or any other combination of 2 or more people.

They have systematically separated marriage from sex, cohabitation and
having children. The only issue left is financial and there is no
reason why that should be limited to 2 people.
In places with lots of older people who might choose to live together
for purely financial reasons, there is no good excuse to deny them
these protections.


Isn't it interesting that when Johnnymop spreads his hate in here, you
righties don't jump on his back. I'm glad I only see the occasional
Johnnymop hate post.

I didn't see any hate. It was a link to a Washington post article.


Oh, right, because of course you didn't take note of Johnnymop's
sarcasm. Right, I get it.

For some *real* sarcasm, FOAD, you need to read my response to Don's 'hate posts'. Of course, I'm
just following Don's 'lead'. When he makes a non-caustic or non-namecalling post, he deserves a
response in kind. (That doesn't happen very often!)

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!