G
GaryTaylor
Guest
That’s the issue in the nut shell though, so the point of “it being the right idea” then it would set the precedent for future definition. Which is why the brief is framed as general and traditional. Otherwise “any” combination of the social experiment could develop and be defined marriage and become part of the government business. At least that’s how I’m understanding this. I suppose every argument used in the past decade will again come out. Interesting is our progress though isn’t it?Yes, OK has the right idea. This makes it fair and equal for everyone. Why shouldn’t a brother and sister living together for mutual support be excluded from the same benefits a married couple receive automatically under the law? Why can’t there be plural spouses?
This way OK doesn’t have to deal with any of those questions.