[ Lo sentimos, el contenido de esta página está restringido. ]

...possibly mean. It surely cannot be a novelty to make explicit what has ever been our tradition, that marriage "means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." That cannot be the earth-shaking novelty here. The legislation is unprecedented only in the sense that,...

...possibly mean. It surely cannot be a novelty to make explicit what has ever been our tradition, that marriage "means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." That cannot be the earth-shaking novelty here. The legislation is unprecedented only in the sense that,...

...possibly Bean. It surely cannot be a novelty to make explicit what has ever been our tradition, that marriage "means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wir«. " That cannot be tbe earth-shaking novelty here. The legislation is unprecedented only in the...

...politicians want to change it. Maybe some activist groups want to change it. But to define marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" I don't think is mean-spirited, I don't think is intolerant. The act also defines spouse as "a person...

...introduced the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defines marriage in exclusively heterosexual terms, as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." The last legislation that Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole co-sponsored before he resigned...

...section of the bill creates a definition of marriage for all federal purposes. The definition says that a marriage means "only a legal union between one man and one woman * * *." Just as the law struck down in Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1 (1967) discriminated on the basis...

[ Lo sentimos, el contenido de esta página está restringido. ]

[ Lo sentimos, el contenido de esta página está restringido. ]

[ Lo sentimos, el contenido de esta página está restringido. ]