Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

avebury

(11,204 posts)

3. I am not sure that they actually had any laws that defined

Reply to white_wolf (Reply #2)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 01:20 PM

Oct 2012

marriage as between one man and one woman back then because it probably didn't occur to them that there would ever be any other type of marriage. Later on there were laws regarding mixed race marriages.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I learned something interesting about the "State's rights" arguments the Right loves. [View all] white_wolf Oct 2012 OP

Interesting. That would also mean that state could not pass avebury Oct 2012 #1

I actually wondered about gay marriage myself. I'm not sure about it... white_wolf Oct 2012 #2

I am not sure that they actually had any laws that defined avebury Oct 2012 #3

there are many interpretations alc Oct 2012 #4

Yes, but the interpretation I mentioned has been used to support Supreme Court precident... white_wolf Oct 2012 #6

Discussion is over my head -- but very interesting. Go on.... n/t philly_bob Oct 2012 #5