Judiciary once again oversteps boundry

[Thulsa Doom]

Stopping homosexuals from marriage & stopping homosexuals form attaining marriage like rights & priveleges can be argued to be of one subject. It's not like, no marriage for gays & guns for everybody or something.

So do you think all 78% of those people didnt want gays to be able to form civil unions? do you think 78% didnt want gays to even have simple domestic partnership rights that arent even a fraction of the rights YOU recieve when YOU marry? If the answer is no (and no simply requires one person remember) then you have MULTIPLE issues.

 

[Gonz]

So do you think all 78% of those people didnt want gays to be able to form civil unions?

Yes I do. If they didn't like how the amendment read they could have voted NO.

Let's take a look at clear & concise writing...

the legal incidents of marriage

with that line, they clearly defined the limits of this clause to be all inclusive.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Yes I do. If they didn't like how the amendment read they could have voted NO.

But they didnt want to vote AGAINST it and risk having gay marriages occur in the state. So many voted FOR it despite the fact that they didnt agree with ALL of it. That right there should tell you you are dealing with multiple issues.