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.
How many years ago was that? Are you so out of touch with reality that you do no know that there has been a sea change in public opinion since then?It won in California so that makes you think. Oklahoma or Kansas or Arkansas or New Hampshire or Idaho would balk ?
Yep , like the sea change in accepting of Pedo / NAMBLA ( Minor Attracted) activities as “ Just another alternative Lifestyle “ ?How many years ago was that? Are you so out of touch with reality that you do no know that there has been a sea change in public opinion since then?
In any case, you seem to be rooting for the demise of gay marriage. Why is that?
We are not accepting pedo you fucking jackass! That is not "just another alt-lifestyle. How fucking stupid are you?Yep , like the sea change in accepting of Pedo / NAMBLA ( Minor Attracted) activities as “ Just another alternative Lifestyle “ ?
Except that when states violate a persons right to due process and equal protection under the law, the federal courts must step in
38 states define/defined marriage as the union of 1 man and 1 woman. So in those 38 states that statement is true. I dont know why you are mad at me. I didnt write those laws (State Constitutional Amendments in some of them), I just pointed out their existence. I dont even live in 37 of those states so how am I to blame for the laws passed in them. (I didnt live in the state where I currently reside which has a 1 man 1 woman amendment when they passed their version either so I cant be held accountable for that I dont think) You're calling me a bigot because I wont "say the magic words".Bullshit ! You said that gays people already had equal rights because that could marry some one of the opposite sex. To say that they already had equality IS NOT a fact. It is a way to dance around your bigotry with out admitting your bigotry.
Quote where I said gay people should not be allowed to get married. You keep saying I said that and I keep asking for the quote. I haven't even implied it. You just keep inferring it.You callously dismissed the idea that gay people should be able to marry the person who they are attracted to. Then say something to the effect that no one has that right under law, that the law is not concerned about "feelings" while knowing full well that straight people always had that right
The laws that define marriage as being betwen a man and a woman have been invalidated and are uninforceable. You say that you did not write the laws but you have not condemned them. In addition you refuse to say that you support same sex marriage . Tell me again how you are not a bigot, and a coward.
Which is the primary argument for the court to stay out of issues like this.How many years ago was that? Are you so out of touch with reality that you do no know that there has been a sea change in public opinion since then?
In any case, you seem to be rooting for the demise of gay marriage. Why is that?
Wait!! WHAT!!? How in the name of hell does the fact that in those 38 states was specified as being a man and a woman make your rediculous statement, the gays already had eqyality because they could mary someone of the opposite sex true??? You'll have to draw ne a map38 states define/defined marriage as the union of 1 man and 1 woman. So in those 38 states that statement is true.
I am not mad at you, I am however amazed at the brazen way you deny being a bigot ,No you did not write the laws but you are not speaking out against them. But I am not calling you a bigot for what you won't say. I am calling you a bigot for what you did say. I dont know why you are mad at me. I didnt write those laws (State Constitutional Amendments in some of them), I just pointed out their existence. I dont even live in 37 of those states so how am I to blame for the laws passed in them. (I didnt live in the state where I currently reside which has a 1 man 1 woman amendment when they passed their version either so I cant be held accountable for that I dont think) You're calling me a bigot because I wont "say the magic words".
Actually, I was a primary reason for the courts to get involved.Which is the primary argument for the court to stay out of issues like this.
Your opinion that the court acted outside the bounds of what the federal government is granted purview does not make it fact. The reliance on the 14th amendment is sound. AS far as your reliance on Full Faith and Credit goes , I don;t see that as real generous, or something that obsloves you of you bigotry. Gay people, unlike others, would be forced to go out of state to be married.Thst is still discrimination.And the point I made in my original post about this was that because the court was acting outside the bounds of what the federal government is granted purview over I would understand if they overturned Obergfell but would agree with it only if they at the same time stated that Article IV Sec 1 applies to marriage contracts.
No it does not make you a double bigot. It actually makes you a bit more rational. The bigotry that you have displayed does not stem from your opposition to marriage, if in fact that is the case. It stems from your support for the unequal treatment of gays vs. othersI havent said I support opposite sex marriage either. Does that make me a double bigot? You're grasping a straws.
Wait!! WHAT!!? How in the name of hell does the fact that in those 38 states was specified as being a man and a woman make your rediculous statement, the gays already had eqyality because they could mary someone of the opposite sex true??? You'll have to draw ne a map
Face it, That statement was bigoted when you first posted it, it is bigoted now and it will always be bigoted no matter how hard you try to squirm out of it
I never said it did. Hence it being my opinion. And your opinion relying on the 14th amendment being sound is just that an opinion. One I dont personally agree with.Your opinion that the court acted outside the bounds of what the federal government is granted purview does not make it fact. The reliance on the 14th amendment is sound. AS far as your reliance on Full Faith and Credit goes , I don;t see that as real generous, or something that obsloves you of you bigotry. Gay people, unlike others, would be forced to go out of state to be married.Thst is still discrimination.
onlinemarriage.com
Right I wont say the magic words so Im a bigot. Fuck off.No it does not make you a double bigot. It actually makes you a bit more rational. The bigotry that you have displayed does not stem from your opposition to marriage, if in fact that is the case. It stems from your support for the unequal treatment of gays vs. others
Moonbat he voted the way his constituents told him to vote on the issue.
Pa. Rep. Glenn Thompson votes against same-sex marriage days after attending son's gay wedding
A Pennsylvania lawmaker is facing criticism for attending his gay son's wedding last week, just days after opposing a bill in the U.S. house that would enshrine protections for same-sex marriage into federal law.www.cbsnews.com
"A Pennsylvania lawmaker is facing criticism for attending his gay son's wedding last week, just days after opposing a bill in the U.S. house that would enshrine protections for same-sex marriage into federal law. Representative Glenn Thompson's office said in a statement that he and his wife were thrilled to attend the nuptials and are very happy to welcome a new son-in-law into the family. His office did not respond to a follow-up question about why he decided to vote against the measure."
So I guess the key to opposing same sex marriage is to just oppose it for everyone else but not your own family? Cool...Kinda makes for an awkward wedding knowing your Dad would have gladly voted to stop you from being married "legally" if Republicans ever had their wish....I am sure the weasel excuse given is:
"I am totally for gay marriage bro, I just don't want them to be federally protected...that's all"
I assume this is a case of a politician just doing what he thinks he has to do to get elected -- and for some reason, there are a lot of Republicans believing that the easiest way to remain in power is to oppose gay rights in any form it pops up...which is odd, because I keep hearing from the so-called Conservatives on this message board that "Bro, nobody is trying to take away rights from gays bro..." -- Seems once again, Conservatives are lying about their own positions....
Thank you for admitting that you are a BIGOTRight I wont say the magic words so Im a bigot. Fuck off.
WHAT!!?? Sounds like a load of bullshit to me And would the marriage be reccognized in a state that does not have gay marriage?The furtherest anyone would have to travel is the local library to get married.
Two Michigan State University professors think there's a better way. They say states that offer same-sex marriage should allow couples anywhere in the country to obtain a marriage license online. But skeptics of this plan abound.
Still, the concept fails to change the reality that the vast majority of states refuse to recognize same-sex marriage. And online marriage could pose an economic threat to states where it is legal.
Not my opinion. The opinion of the supreme courtI never said it did. Hence it being my opinion. And your opinion relying on the 14th amendment being sound is just that an opinion. One I dont personally agree with.
In Obergefell that court was ruling on state law issues…not a federal law. State laws can’t violated the US Constitution38 states define/defined marriage as the union of 1 man and 1 woman. So in those 38 states that statement is true. I dont know why you are mad at me. I didnt write those laws (State Constitutional Amendments in some of them), I just pointed out their existence. I dont even live in 37 of those states so how am I to blame for the laws passed in them. (I didnt live in the state where I currently reside which has a 1 man 1 woman amendment when they passed their version either so I cant be held accountable for that I dont think) You're calling me a bigot because I wont "say the magic words".
Quote where I said gay people should not be allowed to get married. You keep saying I said that and I keep asking for the quote. I haven't even implied it. You just keep inferring it.
And the law isn't concerned about any feelings you may or may not have toward the person you are getting married to. Again please post a link to the state marriage statute that talks about romance and love, or physical attraction.
And the point I made in my original post about this was that because the court was acting outside the bounds of what the federal government is granted purview over I would understand if they overturned Obergfell but would agree with it only if they at the same time stated that Article IV Sec 1 applies to marriage contracts.
I havent said I support opposite sex marriage either. Does that make me a double bigot? You're grasping a straws.
