Vercingetorix writes:
that is for citizens, no one answered the question above if the arabic peoples in question were citizens or not, if they were they would be called americans so i am guess they are not, and therefore not coverd by that amendment.
In the example I was using I meant that they would be American citizens of Arabic descent. I apologize for the confusion that you had to deal with. Sometimes in my haste to make a point I am not absolutely clear in my communication.
Come to think of it though, what does that really matter? It would be ok to round up any non-citizen (passport and visa in hand) and cart them off to a stockade? Is that your implication by such a flippant remark?
The very issue of homosexual marriage is about the rights of the individual.
Example: Even if we were married for only one day, my wife cannot be compelled to testify against me in a court of law. That recognizes the intimate relationship (we know a lot about each other) we have and does not force her to break that relationship.
A homosexual couple, even if they've lived together for 25 years, do not have that protection. Shouldn't that be considered a violation of their intimate relationship to force (by threat of contempt of court...fines and jail) testimony from one against the other?
What part of your or the church's rights are violated by allowing them to be married?