Right, it is BS and the State of TN is backwards in this regard. People here think it is also thier God given right to not have an income tax...go figure. This is the bible belt and that is the way it is. Here is the real rub, the Black Gospel church around here is the most vocal against gay marriage and gay rights. Try to figure that out...I don't get it.

It's the same logic that made the most ignorant, redneck white hick look down his nose at Martin Luther King just because he was black... everyone likes to have someone to look down on.

Yep, we have not come very far, have we.

When you get right down to it, we'll all just a bunch of upright primates. *L*

I think in a way, your first paragraph answers your second...using the gun analogy...in Canada (correct me if I'm wrong) you can have a shotgun but not a handgun...both are guns but not considered equal.

I would agree but we are not without our hypocricy's.

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."

~ Pat Paulsen for President

Sort of upright...some are debatable...



(present company excepted, of course)

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."

~ Pat Paulsen for President

The Unitarian church isn't the only one that recognizes marriages between same sex individuals. And marriages with multiple women have long been recognized by many religions and are still recognized.

At least when it comes to polygamy, the "state" argue a case for proscribing them because that denies some men the equal protect of the law by removing women from the pool of mates.

Plural marriage, multiple men and women married to each other, on the other hand, does give both woman and men equal opportunity for marriage.

So, that means that you think that the individuals entering into a gay marriage should be completely free of the interference of the state in taking responsibility for their own sexual relationships?

For what reason should the state interfere in the individual actions of two citizens no matter what their choice as long as they both mutually consent to the actions and they cause no harm to any other individual?

Doesn't the California Supreme Court decision meet your criteria for individual responsibility, etc.?

Not quite true - we've got three levels of firearms licensing - prohibited, restricted, and non-restricted. All firearms fall into one of those three categories... for instance, handguns with a barrel length of 4.14 inches or less are considered prohibited - you can only own them if you have a prohibited license (which is pretty much impossible to get unless you owned a prohibited firearms before 1998). All other handguns are considered restricted - you need to go through a fair amount of red tape to get a restricted license, but so long as you have a clean record, you can obtain one.

Shotguns and Rifles with a barrel length of 18 inches or more are considered Non-restricted - you only need a basic license to own them. However, if the barrel is too short, they're Prohibited. There's more detail, such as caliber and magazine restrictions, etc., but that's the basic regulations.

Didn't the US Supreme Court rule against polygamy in the Mormon Cases, though?