I'm wondering how this hypothetical national law would fare with anti-gay marriage activists?

';No local, state or federal law can be made banning, restricting, or favoring any type of marriage within the United States of America.





All decisions regarding the institution of marriage will henceforth be made by any private organization which decides to grant marriages to people whom they decide meet their criteria, with respect to existing anti-discrimination laws governing race and sex.';





This law would efectively allow strait, same sex, monogomous, polygamist, any any other type of marriage someone can think of as long as there is an institution that will allow it.I'm wondering how this hypothetical national law would fare with anti-gay marriage activists?
You have only read part of the law. Your obs are utter baloneyI'm wondering how this hypothetical national law would fare with anti-gay marriage activists?
I would be opposed as it would violate the Constitution....





When the Gov. steps in and forcibly allow marriage to be other then man woman you now will have...and this is NOT a hypothetical it happened in Cali. but was thrown out when the law allowing gays to marry was overturned...will go to a church that prohibits homosexuality in its cannons and DEMAND to be wed in that church. If as in the case I stated the church refused, the gays sued the church for discrimination.





you can NOT allow one groups demand for SPECIAL RIGHTS to supersede the right of the majority of the people.





EVERYONE has the right to wed....SOMEONE OF THE OPPOSITE SEX





If you are of other persuasions you must not try and impose your DIFFERENT life style on the population.





CIvil Unions with all the rights of marriage are the way to go...
I don't think you begin to understand the complexity of what you suggest, nor the vital role of civil marriage in government of a country. What do you suggest for all the other laws about marriages? Can a polygamous wife inherit the property of a sister wife?





I want to see gays in monogamy because it will strengthen monogamy and the nation. Allowing mixed races to marry legally 30 years ago was a big step in the right direction.





What you are suggesting will destroy marriage as we know it, and all the legal benefits associated with it as a civil contract.
Marriage laws are very confussing and with alot of Grey ares or Loop holes in them.





Each State has made its own definition of marriage laws and leagle marriages that apply for Gay as well but this is my beliefs in the Marriage type of laws.





A male and female is a Marriage! As long as there 18 an older then its in every form a marriage... Those whom are Gay or BI or Lesbian or are Trans sexual, this is where I feel ';Freedoms or Choice'; comes into the deffinition of Marriage! My rights are not defined in a sexual Choice! This is why I feel gay MarriaGE IS NOT RIGHT! Furthermore , if this was the case and you allowed Sex as a right issue then in all truth of the matter we all would have too acknowledge marriage between a sheep and a man as leagle or those with faiths that have more than one wife as a leagle wife! This is merely my oppinion, and my Beliefs as well.
Depends on i they read your analysis or only read the first line of the bill. Because they basically read the first line of anything or see the movie trailer and jump to some ridiculous conclusion not supported by the entire work.





So if they get to ';organization'; and stop they will be for it. But if they read all the way to the end they will oppose it on the ';moral' grounds that only their particular church has the right to decide for everybody who can and cannot get married.
This is America, and I like it here and I'll be dog-gone if some guy tells me where I can or can't live. The moment we have to run and hide and live in the shadows, that is the moment we have lost our liberties,and it's not gonna happen, not on my watch, you didn't get permission from me to be who you are, so damn sure I'm not gonna get permission from YOU to be who I am.
The answer before me is good. The government would be forced to eliminate references to marriage under the law. Voters won't put up with our tax dollars subsidizing incestuous marriage or polygamy. I don't know how we would handle children. Perhaps the government would have to inspect every home situation for every child to certify some level of care is being given.
It won't stop there. People will demand to marry their sister, son, and pet. Marriage came from church and now it's going to be perverted.
Don't you think that would cause all kinds of new organizations to start popping up all over the place? Such as adults who want to marry children, humans marrying animals, etc.