Two section home page 討論群 樂活論壇 pechPrgkseakhV

  • This topic is empty.
正在檢視 1 篇文章 - 1 至 1 (共計 1 篇)
  • 作者
    文章
  • #178646 回覆
    Edmundo

    A packet of envelopes famciclovir vs valacyclovir Your obvious sarcasm aside, the key thing here is your use of the term “legalization”. It all depends on what is meant by that. Any group of consenting adults can live together as polygamists if they so choose. It would be an entirely different matter if such a group were to demand the same legal benefits (tax law, employer health benefits, etc) as legally recognized unions between two adults. That would be up to each individual state to decide. I personally would not support such law because I think extending such legal rights beyond two people is too burdensome upon governments and employers, not to mention the civil law nightmares associated with dissolution, property rights, etc. But I don’t see anything against such a thing constitutionally. However, it would be unconstitutionally discriminatory if such laws were to disallow any particular sex combination of such unions.

正在檢視 1 篇文章 - 1 至 1 (共計 1 篇)
回覆至:pechPrgkseakhV
您的資訊: