TemplarKormac
Political Atheist
Dear FF: It just means you need a big enough PR budget to "turn the other cheek"
like ChickFilA did. And call people nationwide to support their business in the face of opposition. They even served free food to people protesting in the heat. Answered by "speaking the truth with love" and won more support than anything said in anger.
I don't and have never supported discriminating against gays.
The marriage laws were written to protect children pure and simple; i.e. being aware of any communicable diseases, age limitations, restrictions on marrying persons too closely related, etc. Most are rules and regs that are entirely unnecessary in a same sex marriage.
Otherwise there would be no need for marriage laws of any kind. But children do require one man and one woman to create same, and while single parents or gay parents can be great parents, children nevertheless benefit from having a loving mother and father, i.e. positive role models from each gender, in the home.
Further, though there are always exceptions, the traditional family is the surest safeguard against child poverty, it helps keep track of the genetic blood lines that might be important to know, it promotes more stable, more affluent, more safe, and more aesthetically pleasing quality of life, and most societies have found it promotes the general welfare to encourage traditional marriage.
Nobody was discriminated against in the marriage laws that existed in all 50 states. You didn't have to be 'in love' to get married. You could be of any race, any ethnicity, any sexual orientation, etc. etc. etc. The requirement was purely that a marriage consisted of one man and one woman who were not married to anybody else, who were at least a certain age, and who were not too closely related. You cannot change the definition of something without making it into something different than it was.
Did that mean that people, straight or gay, who for whatever reason could not or did not want to marry were somewhat disadvantaged over people who could and did marry? Yes it did. Which is why I have long been an active hands on up close and personal advocate for laws that would help other people form family units with the tax and social and economic advantages that married people have enjoyed. That way we get everybody what they need and leave traditional marriage intact.
Does that make me a bigot? Ya'll think you should picket my place of business, threaten me and my friends and family and customers, threaten my suppliers? Destroy me. Wreck me financially? All because most of you do not agree with my views on this?
If you think so, in my opinion you are far more evil and dangerous than a fundamentalist Christian baker will ever be.
And about marriage, whatever your opinions or beliefs are, as long as they differ from other people's beliefs or values they should be kept in private under religious or community organizations that represent you or them or whoever has differences.
that is just constitutional to keep beliefs separate and out from under the state.
the only part the state has any business in is contracts, for shared custody, estates, etc.
not for the personal relationship which is private. both sides are hypocrites for trying to force their beliefs through the state. they should be pulling the other way toward privitazation and make all sides happy, equally included under the same Constitution.
Aahh, another piss-ignorant quadrant heard from. I swear, I can almost FEEL my IQ drop a couple of points every time this font of duuuhhh talks.
Good thing I'm here as the lightning rod.