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.
You are truly an asshole.
I am not the bigot. How you could read what I wrote in the prior post and come to that completely empty conclusion is mystifying. Your narrow mind is so polluted that you apparently just "see" what you expect to see regardless of whther there's any hint of it being there. You asshole.
I happen to agree with Clint. It is my view that if the nation of "conservative" is properly understood, most conservatives would (at least as far as the law is concerned) agree with me that this is not a matter we should even be involved in.
Your plan is stupid. It is an expr4ession of your particular viewpoint that does violence to the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause.
But since you appear to be just another mindless liberal, you don't care about larger principles and you are fine with an over reaching government.
The government should not be in the business of making any religious decisions.
Did I mention how much of an asshole you are?
First, the First Amendment is just as much about freedom FROM religion
You meant Prostitutes, right?
Making Farmer Jimmy Carter into a businessman doesn't disprove the theory that businessmen make terrible Presidents.
Jimmy Carter ran that multi million dollar peanut farm for decades.
It was a business and still is.
Jimmy Carter was a business man for most of his life.
The claim that all businessmen make terrible Presidents is rank rhetoric.
George Washington-businessman
Lawyers and farmers are businessmen and 29 out of the first 33 Presidents were:
BUSINESSMEN
This argument only works if you come up with a very wide definition of businessmen that would cover nearly everyone. Under your argument, I'd qualify as a businessman. It's specious, at best.
Most of these guys were professional politicians who held at least one elected office before becoming presidents. That makes them politicians by trade, not "businessmen".
Clint Eastwood Signs Brief Supporting Same-Sex Marriage
And?
Lots of people share his view that "legal" opposition to the right of gay people to marry each other is archaic and misguided.
If the State has to be involved in the "union" of couples for reasons like child care and insurance and inheritance, etc., that's maybe a legitimate use of government power.
But what the State does should not be to "sanctify" the relationship beyond legal recognition. So, call every union, whether its heterosexual couples of gay and lesbian couple, the same name. Call it the civil union.
If the folks who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds seek an official religious bond and the title to go with it that excludes gays, they can go into their churches or temples and get "married" there. Under this plan, the government will still call it a "civil union," but the religious folks get to call it a "marriage" and they can to their hearts' content deny that name to the gays.
Under this plan, the gay couples, by contrast, can find a church or temple that does recognize gay unions and which refers to the result as "marriage." The heterosexual religious folks who object don't have to buy into that use of language, but at least their personal views have no legal force. At least the State stays out of religious matters.
Problem solved.
Thats the problem, the opposition is not predicated on religious grounds.
Marriage is contract law, written by state lawmakers and administered by state courts. The 14th Amendment requires the states to allow all citizens access to all state laws, including marriage law.
That the marriage contract is executed by a member of the clergy or by a justice of the peace is legally irrelevant.
Separate but equal is not an option with regard to marriage equality marriage for opposite-sex couples and civil unions for same-sex couples would be just as un-Constitutional as disallowing same-sex couples access to marriage altogether.
Same-sex couples seek the same thing as opposite-sex couples: the right to marry, to have their union given the same recognition, standing, and privileges and immunities as opposite-sex couples. To indeed be seen as equals both in the eyes of the law and the community.
Opposition to marriage equality is thus based on hate and ignorance grounds, on the desire to see same-sex couples treated as second-class citizens, and subject to laws designed only to make homosexuals less equal to other citizens.
Barry Goldwater was the 1st Senator to openly stand up in the Senate and DEMAND open service to gays and lesbians in the military.
Wasn't he A CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN?
[
If being a douche-bag makes you a bad president why do you like Clinton and Obama?
Well, first of all, you are an asshole idiot.
Secondly, you have been dropped on your head far too often.
Thirdly, you are wicked stupid.
Fourth, of course, you aren't at all intelligent.
But enough about you.
The word is "religious." The word is "really." You spell as poorly as you think. So cover it up. Use spell check.
Next, I am not a mouth breather. Furthermore, you should learn that just because YOU have a different perspective doesn't mean others are the dumb ones, you retard. Additionally, I happen not to be religious. You presume far too much with way too little evidence or information, you asshole.
Now, back to the point which you remain too idiotic to grasp. If "marriage" is defined by religious types as the union of a man and a woman, then GOVERNMENT should not be in the "marriage" business. The Government doesn't sanctify ANY relationship. Get it yet, you asswipe?
Thus, it is reasonable to permit the government to have its legitimate say over the unions of couples to the extent needed for the legitimate governmental purposes and to divorce government from the religious component.
Now, go back to munching on your own feces, you dip shit fucktard.
....
First, only like a five-year old quibbles about typos on a message board.
Second, if you are doing things because an imaginary sky pixie tells you to, you are a really stupid person, really.
Third, Marriage as an institution predates they mythical characters of Jesus, Yahweh, etc. It exists in societies that never heard of Jesus until recently. The notion that it comes from your Magic Sky Fairy, and you only have a valid marriage through a religion racket (and that's all religion is, a racket for stupid people.)
Looking forward to the happy day that Gays can get married in the whole country, and you religious mouth-breaters can't do jack diddly about it..
"Marriage" is essentially a religious institution. Yet the State does have some valid interests on behalf of children and inheritance laws (etc.) that justify some meddling on the unions between couples. So get the State OUT of the "marriage" business altogether. The State can administer its laws and rules without having to resort to the "word" marriage.
And so as to avoid discrimination, the State should not verbally distinguish between "straight marriage" and "gay unions." As far as the interest of the State is concerned, all unions are just that "unions;" simple civil law contractual relationships. The partners involved can call it whatever they want. Straights with religiously-based concerns can claim that only THEY are actually married. Gays can call themselves "married" without a care in the world that some other private citizens reject their terminology. Grow up.
Who gives a fuck as long as the disagreement is between people who aren't obliged to agree? In the eyes of the law, the partners who have solemnized their unions get the same language from the State. No official discrimination.
Again, the "problem" is solved.
As for your bitchy disrespect for the religious views of people who "believe," get over yourself You aren't required to believe. So it doesn't matter if you dislike those who do. They aren't require to adopt your limited views, .
Gays will get legal marriage and it will last until such time as gays are swinging from the lamp posts. History never changes, it just rolls along repeating itself every time.
"Marriage" is essentially a religious institution. Yet the State does have some valid interests on behalf of children and inheritance laws (etc.) that justify some meddling on the unions between couples. So get the State OUT of the "marriage" business altogether. The State can administer its laws and rules without having to resort to the "word" marriage.
And so as to avoid discrimination, the State should not verbally distinguish between "straight marriage" and "gay unions." As far as the interest of the State is concerned, all unions are just that "unions;" simple civil law contractual relationships. The partners involved can call it whatever they want. Straights with religiously-based concerns can claim that only THEY are actually married. Gays can call themselves "married" without a care in the world that some other private citizens reject their terminology. Grow up.
Who gives a fuck as long as the disagreement is between people who aren't obliged to agree? In the eyes of the law, the partners who have solemnized their unions get the same language from the State. No official discrimination.
Again, the "problem" is solved.
As for your bitchy disrespect for the religious views of people who "believe," get over yourself You aren't required to believe. So it doesn't matter if you dislike those who do. They aren't require to adopt your limited views, .
Well, actually, when the courts make gay marriage legal, you are stuck with my view.
Except here's the thing. Probalby in 50 years or so, bigot and haters like you will be on the trashbin of history, and just like the Churches now like to pretend they weren't for slavery when they wholeheartedly supported it, they are all going to be denying that they were behind most of the homophobia, when they obviously were.
Sorry, man, gays are getting married, they are going to call it marriage legally, and there's nothing you or your imaginary friend in the sky can do about it.
[
If being a douche-bag makes you a bad president why do you like Clinton and Obama?
As much as I hate feeding the trolls...
Not a fan of Clinton, but I'd LOVE to have his economy back.
Not much of a fan of Obama, either, but he was preferable to the Weird Mormon RObot you guys were trying to foist on the country.
You are truly an asshole.
I am not the bigot. How you could read what I wrote in the prior post and come to that completely empty conclusion is mystifying. Your narrow mind is so polluted that you apparently just "see" what you expect to see regardless of whther there's any hint of it being there. You asshole.
I happen to agree with Clint. It is my view that if the nation of "conservative" is properly understood, most conservatives would (at least as far as the law is concerned) agree with me that this is not a matter we should even be involved in.
Your plan is stupid. It is an expr4ession of your particular viewpoint that does violence to the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause.
But since you appear to be just another mindless liberal, you don't care about larger principles and you are fine with an over reaching government.
The government should not be in the business of making any religious decisions.
Did I mention how much of an asshole you are?
First, the First Amendment is just as much about freedom FROM religion
My free posting advice of the day.
If you start your post off with total bullshit no intelligent, well informed, person is going to pay any attention to anything you say. If you want to make a totally absurd point you should wait until you actually present something that sounds halfway like an intelligent point, then come in with the crap.
Gays will get legal marriage and it will last until such time as gays are swinging from the lamp posts. History never changes, it just rolls along repeating itself every time.
Amazing.
Oh, I forgot, businessmen steal their money from others.
Now you're getting it!
^ complete imbecile.
Gays will get legal marriage and it will last until such time as gays are swinging from the lamp posts. History never changes, it just rolls along repeating itself every time.
Gays will get legal marriage and it will last until such time as gays are swinging from the lamp posts. History never changes, it just rolls along repeating itself every time.
Amazing.
And sad.
That anyone could be so consumed by hate and ignorance.
Ignorance? Pick up a history book. Do you really think this is new? Gays have never been accepted before? Do you really think that?
Gays have absolutely had exactly the kind of acceptance they want it just has never lasted for very long. Eventually the culture that accepted same sex relationships are overcome by a culture that does not. It always ends the same way.
[
If being a douche-bag makes you a bad president why do you like Clinton and Obama?
As much as I hate feeding the trolls...
Not a fan of Clinton, but I'd LOVE to have his economy back.
Not much of a fan of Obama, either, but he was preferable to the Weird Mormon RObot you guys were trying to foist on the country.
