grantmichaels said:
It's time to find something new to divide us ...
Genetically engineered children ftw and mandatory 2 child per household limits! yay!
grantmichaels said:
It's time to find something new to divide us ...
D3monic said:
Genetically engineered children ftw and mandatory 2 child per household limits! yay!
D3monic said:I'm scarred
Hybrid Mode 01 said:
At first I read that ^ as "I'm scared". That made more sense.
grantmichaels said:
Wow, so did I ...
But that's because I know what I'm getting when I click some QQ shit ...
11222528_10153518756104758_3222379435210362323_n.jpg
Glancing at the US Constitution a person would likely agree. After all, defining marriage is not right specifically given to the federal government. As such, a casual glance would cause a person to think the right to do so resides with the states and the people. However, when you consider the HUGE number of laws that have been written specifically for married people the issues of equal protection come into play. Now failing any law governing marriage, I would agree it is not the federal government's place to define the thing. Ah, but the moment they started writing laws to govern marriage they made the institution a matter of equal protection.ribbedturtleneck said:Looks like a loss for democratic states' rights to me.
lol this is what I imagine when people say "this decision will create a slippery slope! Before you know it werewolfs will be marrying tacos!!!"D3monic said: