Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not for long...
Here in Florida same sex marriage has about as much chance of being legalized as Stand Your Ground has in being repealed. NONE. I suspect similar situations exist in the other SSM banned states. Actually the last time I looked, SSM was banned in 30 states . In this updated (Feb. 26, 2014) map from CNN, it shows bans in 34 states, indicating if there is any trend it is in the direction of more states BANNING it, not less.
Same-sex marriage in the United States
I favor most all Castle Doctrine Statutes and have a list of priorities that my state should address.
And gay marriage is 132nd and dropping on that list.
Education, energy, business interests which cover probably 24 and many other issues are more important than gay marriage.
Makes us wonder why you are so infatuated with the gay boogeyman.
Here in Florida same sex marriage has about as much chance of being legalized as Stand Your Ground has in being repealed. NONE. I suspect similar situations exist in the other SSM banned states. Actually the last time I looked, SSM was banned in 30 states . In this updated (Feb. 26, 2014) map from CNN, it shows bans in 34 states, indicating if there is any trend it is in the direction of more states BANNING it, not less.
Same-sex marriage in the United States
I favor most all Castle Doctrine Statutes and have a list of priorities that my state should address.
And gay marriage is 132nd and dropping on that list.
Education, energy, business interests which cover probably 24 and many other issues are more important than gay marriage.
Makes us wonder why you are so infatuated with the gay boogeyman.
Just because one is concerned about the spread of the cancer of homosexuality, doesn't mean that he/she isn't concerned about other issues, and just as vehemently. Before you make foolish judgements look at posters' OP lists, so you have some idea of what you're talking about.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/search.php?searchid=7654606
I favor most all Castle Doctrine Statutes and have a list of priorities that my state should address.
And gay marriage is 132nd and dropping on that list.
Education, energy, business interests which cover probably 24 and many other issues are more important than gay marriage.
Makes us wonder why you are so infatuated with the gay boogeyman.
Just because one is concerned about the spread of the cancer of homosexuality, doesn't mean that he/she isn't concerned about other issues, and just as vehemently. Before you make foolish judgements look at posters' OP lists, so you have some idea of what you're talking about.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/search.php?searchid=7654606
My sister died of cancer November 20, 2014 after fighting it for 12 years.
You comparing cancer to homosexuality is an example of your ignorance and stupidity.
Having grown up in the late 50s and 60s I often heard that vague term "they".
Who the hell are the "theys"?
YOUR team is the one defining not only discrimination but homosexuality.
You all claim to be conservative Reagan Republicans but fall back on the old reliable BULL SHIT "homosexuality is a choice" when FORTY DAMN YEARS AGO Reagan stated THEY ARE BORN THAT WAY.
I was voting Republican when you were in diapers.
I am neither a Republican or a Reaganist. Reagan was an opportunist, con artist, and traitor to America, and far removed from being a Conservative. His opposition to the Briggs Initiative was proof of that, as well as other non-conservative attributes about him, which I already mentioned previously.
Reagan Neocon? Why do so many people use that term without knowing what it meant. Reagan was a fiscal conservative, he wasn't a big government spender.
What was even his military use that justifies the label? Grenada? OK, he toppled the government, but clearly nation building was not his primary objective in selecting an Island in the Caribbean to topple a Communist government. He didn't topple Lebanon even though he was involved in it. He didn't topple Libya, he just retaliated against them for terrorism like the German disco attack. He wrecked the USSR financially.
You realize "Neocon" has an actual definition. How does it make sense more than tangentially to Reagan?
Just because one is concerned about the spread of the cancer of homosexuality, doesn't mean that he/she isn't concerned about other issues, and just as vehemently. Before you make foolish judgements look at posters' OP lists, so you have some idea of what you're talking about.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/search.php?searchid=7654606
My sister died of cancer November 20, 2014 after fighting it for 12 years.
You comparing cancer to homosexuality is an example of your ignorance and stupidity.
No need to lecture me about cancer. I've been fighting it for 50 years, since I handled carcinogen chemicals in the Army in 1964. I just got 14 stitches taken out of my arm from a skin cancer surgery last month, and will have another skin cancer surgery later this month. I've had more than a dozen of these, in addition to dozens of liquid nitrogen squirts. I also have my right hand and arm covered (now as I type) with flourouracil cream, to kill cancer cells. I'll talk about cancer all I choose to, and comparing it to homosexuality is perfectly valid and based on knowledge, which you have received the benefit of. You're welcome.
PS - November 20, 2014 hasn't arrived yet.
Not for long...
Here in Florida same sex marriage has about as much chance of being legalized as Stand Your Ground has in being repealed. NONE. I suspect similar situations exist in the other SSM banned states. Actually the last time I looked, SSM was banned in 30 states . In this updated (Feb. 26, 2014) map from CNN, it shows bans in 34 states, indicating if there is any trend it is in the direction of more states BANNING it, not less.
Same-sex marriage in the United States
Doesn't matter, gays can still marry, have children... AAAWWWWW, too bad!.
Just because one is concerned about the spread of the cancer of homosexuality, doesn't mean that he/she isn't concerned about other issues, and just as vehemently. Before you make foolish judgements look at posters' OP lists, so you have some idea of what you're talking about.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/search.php?searchid=7654606
My sister died of cancer November 20, 2014 after fighting it for 12 years.
You comparing cancer to homosexuality is an example of your ignorance and stupidity.
No need to lecture me about cancer. I've been fighting it for 50 years, since I handled carcinogen chemicals in the Army in 1964. I just got 14 stitches taken out of my arm from a skin cancer surgery last month, and will have another skin cancer surgery later this month. I've had more than a dozen of these, in addition to dozens of liquid nitrogen squirts. I also have my right hand and arm covered (now as I type) with flourouracil cream, to kill cancer cells. I'll talk about cancer all I choose to, and comparing it to homosexuality is perfectly valid and based on knowledge, which you have received the benefit of. You're welcome.
PS - November 20, 2014 hasn't arrived yet.
Here in Florida same sex marriage has about as much chance of being legalized as Stand Your Ground has in being repealed. NONE. I suspect similar situations exist in the other SSM banned states. Actually the last time I looked, SSM was banned in 30 states . In this updated (Feb. 26, 2014) map from CNN, it shows bans in 34 states, indicating if there is any trend it is in the direction of more states BANNING it, not less.
Same-sex marriage in the United States
I favor most all Castle Doctrine Statutes and have a list of priorities that my state should address.
And gay marriage is 132nd and dropping on that list.
Education, energy, business interests which cover probably 24 and many other issues are more important than gay marriage.
Makes us wonder why you are so infatuated with the gay boogeyman.
Just because one is concerned about the spread of the cancer of homosexuality, doesn't mean that he/she isn't concerned about other issues, and just as vehemently. Before you make foolish judgements, look at posters' OP lists, so you have some idea of what you're talking about.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/search.php?searchid=7654606
Actually, Loving was about equal treatment under the law. The VA SCOTUS said interracial marriage was unnatural, the US SCOTUS said that didn't matter and you had to treat people equally under the law.
I never claimed the US SCOTUS said anything about naturalness or un.
You said >> "The SCOTUS decided that it really didn't fucking matter who thought something was "unnatural" when it came to ruling on LAW."
So on the one hand you first say they "decided" it. Now you say you didn't claim they said it ("unnatural"). But you claimed they decided it. How can one decide, without saying ? Did they use sign language maybe ? Did they hand each other written notes ? Sounds like you DID claim they said something about something being "unnatural", and now you're trying to wiggle out of it.
Lesson to be learned - if you can't back up what you say, don't say it.
In the final analysis, the SCOTUS didn't say a word about homosexuals or the naturalness or unnaturalness of their condition. The only thing I see them having said
that pertains to queers is what is stipulated earlier about compelling interest >>>
So once again, for those who seem to want to avoid the truth >>>
The question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest.
Interesting phrase that "compelling interest" is. Does a state have a compelling interest, for instance, to keep queers out of classrooms ? Of course it does. It has a interest to prevent queers from spreading their sick perversions to kids with young impressionable minds. Few better and stronger examples of compelling interest have ever existed in American society.
Nonsense.
Measures that seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law completely lack a proper legislative end, there is no compelling governmental interest in denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights. Such laws seek only to make gay Americans unequal to everyone else, which the states are not allowed to do (Romer v. Evans (1996)).
And your notion of ‘keeping gays out of the classroom’ is an example of the sole motive behind denying gay Americans their civil liberties: hatred of homosexuals.
You're using the very same philosophy of government that statist liberals do.
And you'd prefer anarchy ? And nutjob queers running amok all over the country ? I'll stick with the statist philosophy, which isn't a "liberal" philosophy, it is an American philosophy. Government of the people, by the people for the people.
Nope. The American tradition is a firm rebuke of unlimited democracy. You don't get that, and as a result end up endorsing the kind of government that imposes these overbearing anti-discrimination laws in the first place. You reap what you sow.
My sister died of cancer November 20, 2014 after fighting it for 12 years.
You comparing cancer to homosexuality is an example of your ignorance and stupidity.
No need to lecture me about cancer. I've been fighting it for 50 years, since I handled carcinogen chemicals in the Army in 1964. I just got 14 stitches taken out of my arm from a skin cancer surgery last month, and will have another skin cancer surgery later this month. I've had more than a dozen of these, in addition to dozens of liquid nitrogen squirts. I also have my right hand and arm covered (now as I type) with flourouracil cream, to kill cancer cells. I'll talk about cancer all I choose to, and comparing it to homosexuality is perfectly valid and based on knowledge, which you have received the benefit of. You're welcome.
PS - November 20, 2014 hasn't arrived yet.
Cancer = two men attracted by each other. Hang on, I have to answer my banana and eat a cell phone. Be right back to you.
"And 34 US states have declared that to be so with bans on queer marriage."
SCOTUS will rule that the states', while having the power to regulate marriage, cannot deny civil rights per the 14th.
Good news for you, projection isn't deadly. That would make the cancer the least of your problems.No need to lecture me about cancer. I've been fighting it for 50 years, since I handled carcinogen chemicals in the Army in 1964. I just got 14 stitches taken out of my arm from a skin cancer surgery last month, and will have another skin cancer surgery later this month. I've had more than a dozen of these, in addition to dozens of liquid nitrogen squirts. I also have my right hand and arm covered (now as I type) with flourouracil cream, to kill cancer cells. I'll talk about cancer all I choose to, and comparing it to homosexuality is perfectly valid and based on knowledge, which you have received the benefit of. You're welcome.
PS - November 20, 2014 hasn't arrived yet.
Cancer = two men attracted by each other. Hang on, I have to answer my banana and eat a cell phone. Be right back to you.
We pretty much decphired your lunacy already.
"And 34 US states have declared that to be so with bans on queer marriage."
SCOTUS will rule that the states', while having the power to regulate marriage, cannot deny civil rights per the 14th.
Yeah ? And after 50 years of NOT RULING THAT, what gives you the notion that suddenly they will ?
EARTH TO JS: The SCOTUS has already ruled that they CAN discriminate. Are you reading the thread ? Try to keep up.
The Courts are finding no Compelling State Interest, which means, you and your kind are screwed. Damn shame, those fags getting rights eh? I know, it was more fun when you used to be able to shove their heads in a toilet. Ah, the Good Old Days."And 34 US states have declared that to be so with bans on queer marriage."
SCOTUS will rule that the states', while having the power to regulate marriage, cannot deny civil rights per the 14th.
Yeah ? And after 50 years of NOT RULING THAT, what gives you the notion that suddenly they will ?
EARTH TO JS: The SCOTUS has already ruled that they CAN discriminate. Are you reading the thread ? Try to keep up.
The Courts are finding no Compelling State Interest, which means, you and your kind are screwed. Damn shame, those fags getting rights eh? I know, it was more fun when you used to be able to shove their heads in a toilet. Ah, the Good Old Days."And 34 US states have declared that to be so with bans on queer marriage."
SCOTUS will rule that the states', while having the power to regulate marriage, cannot deny civil rights per the 14th.
Yeah ? And after 50 years of NOT RULING THAT, what gives you the notion that suddenly they will ?
EARTH TO JS: The SCOTUS has already ruled that they CAN discriminate. Are you reading the thread ? Try to keep up.
But our friend here will still be trying to drive his armor-plated golf cart, through the side of a battleship, and then wondering why his head hurts.The Courts are finding no Compelling State Interest, which means, you and your kind are screwed. Damn shame, those fags getting rights eh? I know, it was more fun when you used to be able to shove their heads in a toilet. Ah, the Good Old Days.Yeah ? And after 50 years of NOT RULING THAT, what gives you the notion that suddenly they will ?
EARTH TO JS: The SCOTUS has already ruled that they CAN discriminate. Are you reading the thread ? Try to keep up.
And the funny thing is that since July those rulings have been based on the Windsor decision and the recognition that denying equal recognition of Civil Marriages for same-sex couples was discriminatory and unconstitutional from a federal law perspective.
>>>>
Your claim that hating people for their sexual orientation being different than hating people for their race is absurd.
Hate is hate and discrimination is discrimination.
But I admire you for admitting you make that distinction on who you believe is okay to discriminate.
There is nothing illegal about homosexual behavior.
Your claim there is and they should be punished for it is false.
So go find someone else that has behavior you do not like to discriminate against because you HAVE LOST YOUR WAR with homosexuals.
