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.
This is not a right.. goddamn it, get government out of it except in governmental matters...
If people don't want to accept 2 guys as a 'married' couple, so be it.. have the government recognize the family for taxation and inheritance.. have the government not interfere in medical matters for that family unit and let it the fuck be... stop trying to use the government for acceptance..
If I don't wish to think of this couple as something acceptable, or I think to think of that couple as traditionally married, it should be no skin off someone else's ass...
Fuck.. let people be with whomever they wish to be with... and let people decide on what choices of other people they wish to accept, deal with, or associate with... and stop all this touchy feely bullshit and government interference
It was my right to get married under the laws of my state.
All it required was a fee.
Where does it state that some folks can not get married in The Constitution?
One that is conservative and wants less government stands behind the Constitution, a document dedicated to telling what THE GOVERNMENT CAN NOT DO instead of telling a certain group of Americans that happen to be different than you and I, what they can not do.
Limited government means giving gays and lesbians that same marriage license, they pay their fee and government stays out of marriage altogether.
Unless one wants their religous views supported by government but that is not what a conservative stands for.
No.. limited government means getting government out of marriage and keeps family units under the same terms of legal contracts and power of attorney... Limited government does not mean getting the government involved in a case where a gay couple FEELS it is not being accepted by others
Let me go tell our daughter she doesn't exist. Let me go tell all the children of gay couples they don't exist.
You have spoken.
Yeah, I can't wait to tell the five babies I had that they don't exist. I can anticipate my son's response..."does that mean I don't have to go to school?"
Your son's response is predictable. Otherwise, as long as I do not have to pay for your children....
It was my right to get married under the laws of my state.
All it required was a fee.
Where does it state that some folks can not get married in The Constitution?
One that is conservative and wants less government stands behind the Constitution, a document dedicated to telling what THE GOVERNMENT CAN NOT DO instead of telling a certain group of Americans that happen to be different than you and I, what they can not do.
Limited government means giving gays and lesbians that same marriage license, they pay their fee and government stays out of marriage altogether.
Unless one wants their religous views supported by government but that is not what a conservative stands for.
No.. limited government means getting government out of marriage and keeps family units under the same terms of legal contracts and power of attorney... Limited government does not mean getting the government involved in a case where a gay couple FEELS it is not being accepted by others
So who stops gays from getting married other than a government law?
You keep side stepping and dodging the fact that is is GOVERNMENT you want to define marriage with a law to ban gays from marrying.
How else do you stop gays from getting married?
I want less government but even if there was none of that involved who wants to get involved in the personal lives of others?
Gay marriage affect you? How?
A couple of things.
First, the Court stopped short of ruling on the overall issue of whether there is a constitutional right to marriage, and only went halfway and said Prop 8 was unconstitutional. So they didn't take the bait the Judge Walker laid out for them with Justice Kennedy in mind.
Second- this ruling- like Walker's, is on hold until it fully runs its course in the courts. Prop 8 could be overturned as early as November at the ballot box.
Third- and most important. Again, my biggest problem with the way this has been approached is that courts are overruling legislatures and the voters. This is judicial activism at its worst.
I have no problem with gay marriage. Why should just the straights have to suffer?
I have a real problem with unelected judges saying, "Screw what the people want, this is what the law would say if I were writing it!" And there's some of that on both the right and the left. The Judiciary has too much power.
Oh...how are they "suffering"?
You'd go a lot further in life if you grew a sense of humor...
Warrior would be SO disappointed he did not get that crown, Steph.saying marriage isnt a federal issue is stating an opinion...What the fuck do you want me to say???
My morals mean shit, hence my personal opinion means shit..
What is legal is all that matters..
I don't come here to post my opinion... Oh, and when I do I use "IMO."
I dont have the words for how stupid you are. You have literally set the bar in this thread as thee dumbest poster on the internets.
Stepthanie isnt this stupid.
You really are just a ugly little man..one of the most hateful people on this board.
marriage isn't a federal issue...
which is an opinion not a fact
Powers of the federal government are STRICTLY laid out in the constitution.. please show where marriage is a federal issue as dictated within the constitution
You did not pay attention. No same sex couple can have a child without the participation of a third party or parties. Adoptive families do not have the genetic materials of BOTH parents. Do you think that marriage should now be expanded to include a third spouse for child bearing purposes?
Men and women only need a man and a woman.
Adopted children do not share genetic material of either parent or other family members... are you saying they should not have been adopted? Do adopted children somehow destroy family values?
It would also seem to me that heterosexual couples are in need of a third party to become pregnant these days. Are you saying that it should no longer be a right or that it somehow it is wrecking their family? I am sure that sperm donor clinics will be very unhappy being put out of business.. and the men who donate will now be a second husband.
Many heterosexual couples need some kind of help. In numerous cases multiple abortions has rendered the female infertile. IF someone wants a child of two loving individuals, that child will not come from two women or two men. It is simple biology. There are no accidental births from homosexual relationships. Two lesbians or two gay men will NOT have an unplanned pregnancy. There has to be the participation of one or more people.
This should not be that hard.
What on earth is your point? Yeah, I can't wait to tell the five babies I had that they don't exist. I can anticipate my son's response..."does that mean I don't have to go to school?"
Your son's response is predictable. Otherwise, as long as I do not have to pay for your children....
Why would you have to "pay for" my children? WTF are you even talking about?
Tell you what, without legal recognition of my partnership, if something were to happen to me, you'd be paying for my children. They'd be wards of the state because my partner wouldn't be their legal parent. (which she wouldn't be in a number of states that don't allow 2nd parent adoption by same sex partners)
As for "paying"...thanks to the unConstitutional DOMA, I already pay considerably more than heterosexual couples.
Ending the Gay Health Care Tax
Homosexuals didn't get to vote?
So the 95% who are not homosexual got to vote on what rights could be extended to the 5% who are
I think the problem is more definitions than rights. The Gay Community would find much less oppositions to Civil Unions. Stepping Stone? Maybe. So what. Marriage, as we see it, is One Man, one Woman. Deal with it. When you buy a Hamburger and receive a Hotdog instead, is it really the same? Are they interchangeable? No. You are not asking for a Right. You are changing the Definition of Marriage. Your Argument is and has been about Fraud and Misrepresentation.
Your son's response is predictable. Otherwise, as long as I do not have to pay for your children....
Why would you have to "pay for" my children? WTF are you even talking about?
Tell you what, without legal recognition of my partnership, if something were to happen to me, you'd be paying for my children. They'd be wards of the state because my partner wouldn't be their legal parent. (which she wouldn't be in a number of states that don't allow 2nd parent adoption by same sex partners)
As for "paying"...thanks to the unConstitutional DOMA, I already pay considerably more than heterosexual couples.
Ending the Gay Health Care Tax
If you did not set up your family relationship correctly, it's no one's fault but yours. You could have set up a legal guardianship for your partner. If you didn't care enough to protect your children, why should anyone else?
Gays and lesbians have always had the right to marry. That they choose not to marry is not a general concern.
I have a real problem with unelected judges saying, "Screw what the people want, this is what the law would say if I were writing it!" And there's some of that on both the right and the left. The Judiciary has too much power.
I have a real problem with unelected judges saying, "Screw what the people want, this is what the law would say if I were writing it!" And there's some of that on both the right and the left. The Judiciary has too much power.
The people wanted interracial marriage in place. Had they been allowed to vote on it, it would not have had majority support until the 1990s. Loving v Virginia was ruled on in the 60s.
Were the SCOTUS of the 1960s "activist judges" when they struck down interracial marriage bans?
Adopted children do not share genetic material of either parent or other family members... are you saying they should not have been adopted? Do adopted children somehow destroy family values?
It would also seem to me that heterosexual couples are in need of a third party to become pregnant these days. Are you saying that it should no longer be a right or that it somehow it is wrecking their family? I am sure that sperm donor clinics will be very unhappy being put out of business.. and the men who donate will now be a second husband.
Many heterosexual couples need some kind of help. In numerous cases multiple abortions has rendered the female infertile. IF someone wants a child of two loving individuals, that child will not come from two women or two men. It is simple biology. There are no accidental births from homosexual relationships. Two lesbians or two gay men will NOT have an unplanned pregnancy. There has to be the participation of one or more people.
This should not be that hard.
So only people that have an unplanned pregnancy are deserving of the fundamental right of marriage?
You're right though...we can't get pregnant "by accident". We have to plan it carefully. Most of us make sure that our relationship is stable and that we have the means to support our children when they're born. Many of us give loving homes to the "unplanned pregnancies" of you fucking hets...
Why aren't our families deserving of the same rights, benefits and privileges associated with legal civil marriage that heterosexual families enjoy?
This is not a right.. goddamn it, get government out of it except in governmental matters...
If people don't want to accept 2 guys as a 'married' couple, so be it.. have the government recognize the family for taxation and inheritance.. have the government not interfere in medical matters for that family unit and let it the fuck be... stop trying to use the government for acceptance..
If I don't wish to think of this couple as something acceptable, or I think to think of that couple as traditionally married, it should be no skin off someone else's ass...
Fuck.. let people be with whomever they wish to be with... and let people decide on what choices of other people they wish to accept, deal with, or associate with... and stop all this touchy feely bullshit and government interference
It was a right that was taken away. There is a long history of legal cases establishing marriage as a right. It was reestablished in Virginia vs Loving that marriage is indeed a right
Voters do not get to vote on what rights other citizens are allowed to have.
Constitutionally it is NOT a RIGHT.. case law by power hungry courts deemed that.. well sorry, the court does not grant rights nor deem something to be a right... please show in article 3 where the courts have this power
First you say you are for getting government out of marriage, then you put government right back into it.. like the hypocrite that you are
Many heterosexual couples need some kind of help. In numerous cases multiple abortions has rendered the female infertile. IF someone wants a child of two loving individuals, that child will not come from two women or two men. It is simple biology. There are no accidental births from homosexual relationships. Two lesbians or two gay men will NOT have an unplanned pregnancy. There has to be the participation of one or more people.
This should not be that hard.
So only people that have an unplanned pregnancy are deserving of the fundamental right of marriage?
You're right though...we can't get pregnant "by accident". We have to plan it carefully. Most of us make sure that our relationship is stable and that we have the means to support our children when they're born. Many of us give loving homes to the "unplanned pregnancies" of you fucking hets...
Why aren't our families deserving of the same rights, benefits and privileges associated with legal civil marriage that heterosexual families enjoy?
Because your family is depraved and degenerate. You can only have children that grow up to be dysfunctional adults,unless raised very very carefully. Not that you are alone. Any single sex household suffers from the same disabilities. The goal should be improvement not destruction. Just the fact that you consider babies the product of "fucking hets" should preclude you from parenthood at all. No doubt those hets are divided into bleeders and breeders. This is what you are passing on to children raised in your household. ALL without exception, all of the people that your children are going to have to deal with throughout their lifetimes will be the product of fucking hets. No doubt you feel you are giving them a priceless gift.
It was a right that was taken away. There is a long history of legal cases establishing marriage as a right. It was reestablished in Virginia vs Loving that marriage is indeed a right
Voters do not get to vote on what rights other citizens are allowed to have.
Constitutionally it is NOT a RIGHT.. case law by power hungry courts deemed that.. well sorry, the court does not grant rights nor deem something to be a right... please show in article 3 where the courts have this power
First you say you are for getting government out of marriage, then you put government right back into it.. like the hypocrite that you are
Unfortunately for your limited view of Constitutional law, the Courts DO get to decide what falls within the realm of constitutional rights. And they have repeatedly ruled that marriage is a right
Surprise, surprise the ultra liberal 9th court of appeals rules against the will of the people again.
I think I'm one of the few that is not shocked.
Most view law as logic..
Emotion is what drove the 9th in this Ruling...
Personal Opinion over Nature's Design and our "very Existence" as the Supreme Court once Concluded...
peace...
Constitutionally it is NOT a RIGHT.. case law by power hungry courts deemed that.. well sorry, the court does not grant rights nor deem something to be a right... please show in article 3 where the courts have this power
First you say you are for getting government out of marriage, then you put government right back into it.. like the hypocrite that you are
Unfortunately for your limited view of Constitutional law, the Courts DO get to decide what falls within the realm of constitutional rights. And they have repeatedly ruled that marriage is a right
The constitution is what gives the government its power, is it not?
The powers listed are specific and those powers not granted are reserved for the states or the individuals respectively, are they not?
Just because government has been obsessed with grabbing more power, and have grabbed more power, does not mean they were supposed to and does not make it right or legal. I have the strict text of the constitution on my side. You have nothing
