Posted by burnsy483 on 1/2/2014 3:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 1/2/2014 2:58:00 PM (view original):The issue ND is having is about the ramifications of allowing people to get married who consider themselves married already through SSM. Right? That's what you said the issue is. So...you can't get married if you already have something you call a marriage because of the issues stated re: benefits. There is an entity that considers your SSM a marriage, so for that reason, we can't give you a marriage license because of the benefits you're getting.
Are we going to play the "marriage is about benefits" card?
I argued earlier in this thread that civil unions / domestic partnerships with all the same legal benefits of marriage, just without the word "marriage", should satisfy most people.
I recall that BL said that benefits wasn't enough, they needed the term "marriage" too.
I don't think ND is saying "Hey, we have a problem that needs to be fixed OMG, whatever shall we do?".
I think it's other people who are pointing out the potential scenario that can play out under current laws of the states. A scenario which never existed before SSM became trendy and vogue, and all the lib-tards pushed to make it happen.