Chris Christie Chooses to Drop Opposition to Marriage Equality

[martybegan]

It is none of the business of voters

97% of heterosexual voters should not get to vote on what rights that the 3% of homosexuals are allowed to have

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

So you choose minority rule over majority rule------------move to north korea, thats the way they do it.

When it comes to individual rights....yes I do

Unless it involves firearm ownership, which is explicit in the consitution.

 

[martybegan]

When it comes to individual rights....yes I do

What if the minority wanted the right to marry dogs and cats?----actually there probably is a minority that supports that.

do we make exceptions for every minority no matter how weird or obscene?

Do your individual rights allow you to shit on the rights of a majority?

Let me see.......when the topic is Gay Marriage
The immediate response from the right is always........beastiality, Beastiality, BEASTIALITY

So how do we respond to their rant?

Bestiality is a crime, gay marriage is not
Marriage implies mutual consent and an animal is not capable of consent
Gay mariage requires consenting adults
Society can define a reason why bestiality is harmful, they cannot do the same with gay marriage

If legislatively a society wants to define gay unions as marriage it is the right of said society, but unless you amend the consitution, it is not a right.

I would vote for gay marriage to be legal in my state, but its still not a real marriage no matter how much gay people want it to be.

 

[rightwinger]

So you choose minority rule over majority rule------------move to north korea, thats the way they do it.

When it comes to individual rights....yes I do

Unless it involves firearm ownership, which is explicit in the consitution.

I have no problem with individual firearm ownership

I just hate gun nuts

 

[martybegan]

When it comes to individual rights....yes I do

Unless it involves firearm ownership, which is explicit in the consitution.

I have no problem with individual firearm ownership

I just hate gun nuts

Individual firearm ownership on YOUR terms, I would assume.

And I doubt your sincerty on the statement as well.

 

[rightwinger]

Unless it involves firearm ownership, which is explicit in the consitution.

I have no problem with individual firearm ownership

I just hate gun nuts

Individual firearm ownership on YOUR terms, I would assume.

And I doubt your sincerty on the statement as well.

Absolutely on my terms

I think I should be allowed to choose who can have a gun and who can't

 

[JakeStarkey]

On OP: Christie has his right to his beliefs as everyone else and to work for them. In this case, his state's SS say marriage equality is the law of NJ.

He abides by it.

This issue is over.

 

[Nosmo King]

Do you think those in that 7.4% unemployment and the average Amercians give a crap about this?

only in the small worlds of the left is this important

their priorities for this country is warped...and they are RUNNING it folks

Unlike you, you shrill stupid harpy, people are fully capable of handling two divergent topics at one time. Your posts in this thread (abortion vs marriage equality and this inept one about unemployment) only serve to show us that you cannot hold more than one thought in your vacant head at a time.

You may notice at the home page of this message board there is a list of various threads on divergent topics. Seems everyone else can pick a topic and discuss it without dragging doorknobs into a conversation on apples.

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage is a contract, nothing more. If gays want thier own contract, have them make it up, call it "blarriage" and submit it to the state.

Straights first.

We already have it. The legwork was done centuries ago. What you want is the same recognition as straight couples, and that isnt going to happen.

Already did happen. Hello, DOMA ruling.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Do you think those in that 7.4% unemployment and the average Amercians give a crap about this?

only in the small worlds of the left is this important

their priorities for this country is warped...and they are RUNNING it folks

Unlike you, you shrill stupid harpy, people are fully capable of handling two divergent topics at one time. Your posts in this thread (abortion vs marriage equality and this inept one about unemployment) only serve to show us that you cannot hold more than one thought in your vacant head at a time.

You may notice at the home page of this message board there is a list of various threads on divergent topics. Seems everyone else can pick a topic and discuss it without dragging doorknobs into a conversation on apples.

Hey Nozzle Queen... her point is that most people don't give a shit... the reality is there is $18,000,000,000,000 debt, massive deficits, the clusterfuck called Obamacare, double-digit unemployment, etc., etc... and we're talking about gay marriage?

Whatthefuckever.

 

[Nosmo King]

Marriage is a contract, nothing more. If gays want thier own contract, have them make it up, call it "blarriage" and submit it to the state.

Straights first.

We already have it. The legwork was done centuries ago. What you want is the same recognition as straight couples, and that isnt going to happen.

Your point is there should not be equal justice under the law? If homosexuality was a crime, you might have a point. But it isn't is it? Folks applying for marriage licenses must prove a few specific things. Are they of the age of majority? Are they siblings? Are they entering this legal contract of their own free will? Are they already married? After that, justice should be blind, not homophobic.

 

[Nosmo King]

Do you think those in that 7.4% unemployment and the average Amercians give a crap about this?

only in the small worlds of the left is this important

their priorities for this country is warped...and they are RUNNING it folks

Unlike you, you shrill stupid harpy, people are fully capable of handling two divergent topics at one time. Your posts in this thread (abortion vs marriage equality and this inept one about unemployment) only serve to show us that you cannot hold more than one thought in your vacant head at a time.

You may notice at the home page of this message board there is a list of various threads on divergent topics. Seems everyone else can pick a topic and discuss it without dragging doorknobs into a conversation on apples.

Hey Nozzle Queen... her point is that most people don't give a shit... the reality is there is $18,000,000,000,000 debt, massive deficits, the clusterfuck called Obamacare, double-digit unemployment, etc., etc... and we're talking about gay marriage?

Whatthefuckever.

And your point is we should ignore all other concerns until the budget is in surplus? It was in 2000. What happened?

 

[Redfish]

I have no problem with individual firearm ownership

I just hate gun nuts

Individual firearm ownership on YOUR terms, I would assume.

And I doubt your sincerty on the statement as well.

Absolutely on my terms

I think I should be allowed to choose who can have a gun and who can't

what gives you that right? How about society as a whole? How about voting on it? How about letting the majority decide? How about democracy?

How about prop 8 being rejected twice by the voters of liberal california? The will of the people matters to you on some issues but not on others----------you, like all liberals, are a hypocrite.

 

[martybegan]

Straights first.

We already have it. The legwork was done centuries ago. What you want is the same recognition as straight couples, and that isnt going to happen.

Your point is there should not be equal justice under the law? If homosexuality was a crime, you might have a point. But it isn't is it? Folks applying for marriage licenses must prove a few specific things. Are they of the age of majority? Are they siblings? Are they entering this legal contract of their own free will? Are they already married? After that, justice should be blind, not homophobic.

Its not homophobic to say that a union between two people of the same sex is not marriage unless stated so under the laws of a state. It is not homophobic to say there is no "right" to a gay marriage found in the consitution. It is reality.

 

[martybegan]

Straights first.

We already have it. The legwork was done centuries ago. What you want is the same recognition as straight couples, and that isnt going to happen.

Already did happen. Hello, DOMA ruling.

The DOMA ruling was correct in the fact that the federal government has no right to determine what a marriage is, since it is a state function.

What the states then do, is up to the state legislatures.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Unlike you, you shrill stupid harpy, people are fully capable of handling two divergent topics at one time. Your posts in this thread (abortion vs marriage equality and this inept one about unemployment) only serve to show us that you cannot hold more than one thought in your vacant head at a time.

You may notice at the home page of this message board there is a list of various threads on divergent topics. Seems everyone else can pick a topic and discuss it without dragging doorknobs into a conversation on apples.

Hey Nozzle Queen... her point is that most people don't give a shit... the reality is there is $18,000,000,000,000 debt, massive deficits, the clusterfuck called Obamacare, double-digit unemployment, etc., etc... and we're talking about gay marriage?

Whatthefuckever.

And your point is we should ignore all other concerns until the budget is in surplus? It was in 2000. What happened?

No it wasn't.... Clinton never ran a surplus.. it was a mere accounting trick.. he just borrowed more from SS than the public sector. And no, my point is that in the grand scheme of things it is a mere diversion from what really matters.

 

[Redfish]

Straights first.

We already have it. The legwork was done centuries ago. What you want is the same recognition as straight couples, and that isnt going to happen.

Your point is there should not be equal justice under the law? If homosexuality was a crime, you might have a point. But it isn't is it? Folks applying for marriage licenses must prove a few specific things. Are they of the age of majority? Are they siblings? Are they entering this legal contract of their own free will? Are they already married? After that, justice should be blind, not homophobic.

why does it matter if homosexuals are siblings? the ban on close familial marriages is to prevent inbreeding and birth defects. two men or two woman are not going to produce a child. why not monther/dauthter or father/son?

you idiots have no idea the can of worms you are opening up with this.

 

[martybegan]

I have no problem with individual firearm ownership

I just hate gun nuts

Individual firearm ownership on YOUR terms, I would assume.

And I doubt your sincerty on the statement as well.

Absolutely on my terms

I think I should be allowed to choose who can have a gun and who can't

Then by logic I should be able to decide who gets married and who doesnt, right?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

We already have it. The legwork was done centuries ago. What you want is the same recognition as straight couples, and that isnt going to happen.

Your point is there should not be equal justice under the law? If homosexuality was a crime, you might have a point. But it isn't is it? Folks applying for marriage licenses must prove a few specific things. Are they of the age of majority? Are they siblings? Are they entering this legal contract of their own free will? Are they already married? After that, justice should be blind, not homophobic.

why does it matter if homosexuals are siblings? the ban on close familial marriages is to prevent inbreeding and birth defects. two men or two woman are not going to produce a child. why not monther/dauthter or father/son?

you idiots have no idea the can of worms you are opening up with this.

Yes they do... they absolutely do... it's all part of the master plan to totally decimate society.

 

[Redfish]

Your point is there should not be equal justice under the law? If homosexuality was a crime, you might have a point. But it isn't is it? Folks applying for marriage licenses must prove a few specific things. Are they of the age of majority? Are they siblings? Are they entering this legal contract of their own free will? Are they already married? After that, justice should be blind, not homophobic.

why does it matter if homosexuals are siblings? the ban on close familial marriages is to prevent inbreeding and birth defects. two men or two woman are not going to produce a child. why not monther/dauthter or father/son?

you idiots have no idea the can of worms you are opening up with this.

Yes they do... they absolutely do... it's all part of the master plan to totally decimate society.

Sadly, you are probably right.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

why does it matter if homosexuals are siblings? the ban on close familial marriages is to prevent inbreeding and birth defects. two men or two woman are not going to produce a child. why not monther/dauthter or father/son?

you idiots have no idea the can of worms you are opening up with this.

Yes they do... they absolutely do... it's all part of the master plan to totally decimate society.

Sadly, you are probably right.

Just look at all they hold near and dear... gay marriage, transgender issues, abortion, anything anti-Christian, juvenile gender direction, condoms for grade schoolers, etc., etc....