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.
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....
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.
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.
Until one of the "no" states gets back to the SCOTUS. The DOMA ruling only effected states that say "yes" to marriage equality. The "no" states haven't been ruled on...yet.
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.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.
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.
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.
Until one of the "no" states gets back to the SCOTUS. The DOMA ruling only effected states that say "yes" to marriage equality. The "no" states haven't been ruled on...yet.
They shouldnt be ruled on at all, but since progressives perfer forcing people to do things instead of convicing them to do things, thats the way it will roll.
A real court wouldnt even consider challenges, but we get bench legislators instead of judges now.
Until one of the "no" states gets back to the SCOTUS. The DOMA ruling only effected states that say "yes" to marriage equality. The "no" states haven't been ruled on...yet.
They shouldnt be ruled on at all, but since progressives perfer forcing people to do things instead of convicing them to do things, thats the way it will roll.
A real court wouldnt even consider challenges, but we get bench legislators instead of judges now.
Of course they should rule on clearly unconstitutional laws.
They shouldnt be ruled on at all, but since progressives perfer forcing people to do things instead of convicing them to do things, thats the way it will roll.
A real court wouldnt even consider challenges, but we get bench legislators instead of judges now.
Of course they should rule on clearly unconstitutional laws.
a state law saying a marriage contract can only be between a man and a woman, one each is not unconsitutional. A law saying that it can be between same sex, or even more than 2 people wouldnt be unconstitutional either.
Of course they should rule on clearly unconstitutional laws.
a state law saying a marriage contract can only be between a man and a woman, one each is not unconsitutional. A law saying that it can be between same sex, or even more than 2 people wouldnt be unconstitutional either.
The courts are ruling contrary to your opinion.
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.
Is incest legal in your state?
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.
Is incest legal in your state?
Nope, but it might soon be in yours. Is a gay hookup between two sisters considered incest? Maybe you need to consult your Websters. What if they "marry" but never have sex? incest or gay marriage?
The marriage contract establishes a next of kin relationship. Siblings already enjoy that relationship so marriage would be redundant.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.
Is incest legal in your state?
Nope, but it might soon be in yours. Is a gay hookup between two sisters considered incest? Maybe you need to consult your Websters. What if they "marry" but never have sex? incest or gay marriage?
a state law saying a marriage contract can only be between a man and a woman, one each is not unconsitutional. A law saying that it can be between same sex, or even more than 2 people wouldnt be unconstitutional either.
The courts are ruling contrary to your opinion.
The courts have been overstepping thier consitutional bounds for the past 40 years.
Marriage equality?
What a pile of crap!!!
The marriage contract establishes a next of kin relationship. Siblings already enjoy that relationship so marriage would be redundant.Is incest legal in your state?
Nope, but it might soon be in yours. Is a gay hookup between two sisters considered incest? Maybe you need to consult your Websters. What if they "marry" but never have sex? incest or gay marriage?
The courts are ruling contrary to your opinion.
The courts have been overstepping thier consitutional bounds for the past 40 years.
Bullshit. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. DOMA was clearly unconstitutional.
The marriage contract establishes a next of kin relationship. Siblings already enjoy that relationship so marriage would be redundant.Nope, but it might soon be in yours. Is a gay hookup between two sisters considered incest? Maybe you need to consult your Websters. What if they "marry" but never have sex? incest or gay marriage?
So what do you call it when sisters live together and make a committment to take care of each other? why are they denied the benefits of two gay women who are unrelated but make the same kind of committment?
why are those sisters taxed as individuals and the gay women allowed to file as married?
like I said earlier, you fools have no idea the can of worms you are opening with this gay marriage BS.
The courts have been overstepping thier consitutional bounds for the past 40 years.
Bullshit. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. DOMA was clearly unconstitutional.
please quote the language in the constitution that specifically addresses marriage in any form.
something cannot be unconstitutional if the constitution is silent on it.
