GOP Senator Celebrates His Vote Against Gay Marriage By Attending Son's Gay Marriage

[struth]

Yes. Nothing about marriage But have you read the 9th Amendment?

yes..how does that support your argument?

 

[boedicca]

It's not necessary to support the Federal Takeover of Marriage to attend a Gay Wedding. States can enact marriage laws just fine.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's not necessary to support the Federal Takeover of Marriage to attend a Gay Wedding. States can enact marriage laws just fine.

You mean, they can ban it, and the person attending that wedding would support it, and so do you. Don't be shy.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It is completely possible to favor the rights of gays to marry, but to want that right enshrined by each state. You know. Like the U.S. Constitution says.

That has been my position for a long time. I was happy for them when Cam and Mitch got married, after having cursed at the USSC for forcing gay marriage on every state, and cursing the judges who subject shopkeepers to compelled speech.

Nice thing about being libertarian, you can think for yourself and see common logic.

 

[pknopp]

It is completely possible to favor the rights of gays to marry, but to want that right enshrined by each state. You know. Like the U.S. Constitution says.

Which is fine as long as we remove the Federal benefits. The Federal government is not going to be able to say "you get the benefits, but you can not". Equal access and all.

That has been my position for a long time. I was happy for them when Cam and Mitch got married, after having cursed at the USSC for forcing gay marriage on every state, and cursing the judges who subject shopkeepers to compelled speech.

Nice thing about being libertarian, you can think for yourself and see common logic.

I say to get the government out of marriages, period.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Which is fine as long as we remove the Federal benefits. The Federal government is not going to be able to say "you get the benefits, but you can not". Equal access and all.

Yes.

I say to get the government out of marriages, period.

Yes, yes.

Ideal and simplest solution. Let each adult legally name whoever they want for their next of kin and let churches, atheist clubs, or rowboat captains perform marriage ceremonies for them, as they see fit.

 

[Failzero]

Prop H8te passed in California with big push over top by Oriental ( Asian ) & Black voters

 

[Couchpotato]

Bullshit ! Once again: Should gay people be able to marry the person of their choice who is of the same gender. Yes ot no and why or why not? Stop being a coward!

Whenever you can articulate how that factors into what the law says I'll answer your question. Deal? Otherwise go back and read the post you quoted and figure it out dum dum

 

[Couchpotato]

pknopp

What are you disagreeing with? You're as bad as PP thinking what you feel has some bearing on what the law says.

 

[pknopp]

pknopp

What are you disagreeing with? You're as bad as PP thinking what you feel has some bearing on what the law says.

Just directly answer his question.

 

[Couchpotato]

Just directly answer his question.

I will once he can articulate how it matters To what the law says. I’m not a dog I dont sit and speak when I’m told.

 

[Couchpotato]

pknopp

Why am I required to post something but he’s not?

 

[Couchpotato]

pknopp

Youre disagreeing with a question…..

 

[Couchpotato]

pknopp

Youre disagreeing with you disagreeing with a question?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is completely possible to favor the rights of gays to marry, but to want that right enshrined by each state

Which describes almost nobody against the federal law or SCOTUS decision.

That con isn't fooling anyone, sorry.

 

[Couchpotato]

pknopp

So youre not disagreeing with you disagreeing with a question? What exactly are you disagreeing with?

 

[initforme]

Most marriages end in divorce. Someday there will be no need for them anyway. Not a huge deal.

 

[Couchpotato]

pknopp

Just answer the question..,..

 

[pknopp]

pknopp

Just answer the question..,..

You wouldn't answer the question posed to you so no one has any obligation to reply to you any differently.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Whenever you can articulate how that factors into what the law says I'll answer your question. Deal? Otherwise go back and read the post you quoted and figure it out dum dum

What I have figured out is that you are a bigot. Your statement that gays already had equal rights because they could marry someone of the opposite sex said it all. You claim that "feeling" are irrelevant to the law, but what you really mean is that the "feelings" of gay people are irrelevant as far as you are concerned . You do not think that it is important to gay people to be able to marry for love and attraction and try to mask that by dismissing the importance of emotions as a factor at all. Then you try to cover it all up by stating that you never said that oppose gay marriage. Finally, I have figured out that you are a coward because you won't actually say what you think and believe