On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 12:10:06 PM UTC-5, 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.

No different than yours, ASSHOLE.