You're all wrong, but I tire of this.

Posty, you're all wet. I said I DO want the state to be involved in CIVIL UNIONS but not MARRIAGES. UNIONS to me would be where you as a citizen get to designate anyone you want, including your Civil Unionister, to be your beneficiary of benefits. That's it. That's the sole input of the State. I said I don't want folks to get benefits based on an improper MARRIAGE, not a civil union or a designation or whatever you want to call it. That's not circular in any way, it's perfectly logical, and I'm sorry if you don't see it. Maybe I'm not explaining it, but I have to argue with about 5 people on every serious subject, and I ain't that good, sorry. So you still apparently don't understand what I'm saying.

Besides, Cappy's post #109 answers that perfectly. You just hate it that we have states.........you just want to be America, a big federal country. That ain't what they built. If you want it that way, change the name and the Constitution, and get some folks that understand what's plainly written. States are not alike. They don't want to be. They don't want to live exactly alike. They have individual laws. But I guess that bothers you, I guess they shouldn't have any of those.

Thump, you're the Master at twisting, and you did it again. You took my answer to Sunny about a religious topic, and twisted it to mean you think it applies to my argument about the SCOTUS ruling. Nope, no way, Jose. Two topics. The religious argument is the crux of how I live my personal life, and the State's Rights issue is regarding my civil beliefs. If you want us to stay on one topic each thread, hire Alison Widmer. Till then, don't twist my stuff.