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

[struth]

The right exists, the acknowledgement of that right might not.

huh? we literally had the court acknowledge it

there is no place in the country where homosexuals can’t get married

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

where is that being denied?

What the hell is wrong with you. You asked "What would be denied ? " ( if Obergefell were over turned) I told you,. Now you move the goal posts and ask where is that being denied? What kind of sick game are you playing? Or are you just that stupid?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

What the hell is wrong with you. You asked "What would be denied ? " ( if Obergefell were over turned) I told you,. Now you move the goal posts and ask where is that being denied? What kind of sick game are you playing? Or are you just that stupid?

Stupidity is putting your dick in another man's ass and not expect to get Monkey Pox or any other of the multitude of diseases....

 

[pknopp]

huh? we literally had the court acknowledge it

there is no place in the country where homosexuals can’t get married

As of now.

 

[BS Filter]

Gay people have children too and you do not get to define the purpose of marriage

Yes we do get to define marriage. If the majority say marriage is a man and woman, isn't that democracy in action?

 

[BS Filter]

What the hell is wrong with you. You asked "What would be denied ? " ( if Obergefell were over turned) I told you,. Now you move the goal posts and ask where is that being denied? What kind of sick game are you playing? Or are you just that stupid?

Are you misappropriating the 14th amendment again? Shame on you.

 

[struth]

As of now.

so you think if the Court rules that gay marriage is unconstitutional a federal law is going to over ride it?

Really?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

but you just said it already exist

Good fucking grief! Do we have to explain everything to you? It exists in the form of a SCOTUS decision that my be overturned. What part of that do you not understand?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

so you think if the Court rules that gay marriage is unconstitutional a federal law is going to over ride it?

Really?

You really don't understand much about how things work, do you.? The court will not rule that gay marriage is unconstitutional. By overturning Obergfell they will be returning the matter to the states, and some states will ban it. And yes, a federal law will override those bans

 

[Couchpotato]

No hypocrisy?

On planet Bizzarro

So this man's choices are

1. Abandon what he believes to be legal and correct for him to do as a Senator representing his constituency and support his son's decisions through legislative action.

or

2. Vote the way he believes is legal and correct and representative of his constituency's wishes and abandon his son cutting him out of his life completely.

Those are the choices in your head he has?

 

[Couchpotato]

You really don't understand much about how things work, do you.? The court will not rule that gay marriage is unconstitutional. By overturning Obergfell they will be returning the matter to the states, and some states will ban it. And yes, a federal law will override those bans

The court could overrule Obergfell turning the decision back to the states and at the same time hold that the full faith and confidence clause applies so that states would have to honor marriage contracts entered in to in other states. Constitutionally I think that's probably the right call.

 

[Lesh]

The court could overrule Obergfell turning the decision back to the states and at the same time hold that the full faith and confidence clause applies so that states would have to honor marriage contracts entered in to in other states. Constitutionally I think that's probably the right call.

And they likely will overturn the gay marriage right

 

[Couchpotato]

And they likely will overturn the gay marriage right

There's no "right" to "gay marriage" any more than there is a "right" to "straight" marriage in the Constitution which is why if the court decided to turn it back to the states I wouldnt have an issue with it. So long as they hold that Article IV Sec 1 applies to marriages.

That said I dont believe they will do that because the marriages that are currently on the books depend on Obergfell to one degree or another, but Constitutionally I wouldnt have an issue if they did.

 

[Lesh]

There's no "right" to "gay marriage" any more than there is a "right" to "straight" marriage in the Constitution which is why if the court decided to turn it back to the states I wouldnt have an issue with it. So long as they hold that Article IV Sec 1 applies to marriages.

That said I dont believe they will do that because the marriages that are currently on the books depend on Obergfell to one degree or another, but Constitutionally I wouldnt have an issue if they did.

That’s the same argument Republicans used with Roe and look what happened there

 

[Couchpotato]

That’s the same argument Republicans used with Roe and look what happened there

And Constitutionally it was the right decision. Look if you want abortion to be a Constitutional right you're gonna have to pass an amendment. The court was wrong on Roe in 70. The pro abortion crowd went about getting their way the wrong way, so Im confused why they are so upset that it got overturned, they should have seen this coming.

 

[Lesh]

And Constitutionally it was the right decision. Look if you want abortion to be a Constitutional right you're gonna have to pass an amendment. The court was wrong on Roe in 70. The pro abortion crowd went about getting their way the wrong way, so Im confused why they are so upset that it got overturned, they should have seen this coming.

Make no mistake… as this crap shows… these assholes are not done taking away rights

 

[Couchpotato]

Make no mistake… as this crap shows… these assholes are not done taking away rights

They aren't taking away rights guaranteed in the Constitution. That's a false narrative you are putting out there. Show me in the Constitution where you have a right to a state sanctioned marriage of any kind. Show me the right to an abortion. Do I have a right to fireworks? Do I have a right to smoke pot? Do I have a right to drive? There are countless things you can do in one state that you cant in another. That's our system. If you dont like the way the system works there's an amendment process built into the document that governs the system.

 

[Lesh]

They aren't taking away rights guaranteed in the Constitution. That's a false narrative you are putting out there. Show me in the Constitution where you have a right to a state sanctioned marriage of any kind. Show me the right to an abortion. Do I have a right to fireworks? Do I have a right to smoke pot? Do I have a right to drive? There are countless things you can do in one state that you cant in another. That's our system. If you dont like the way the system works there's an amendment process built into the document that governs the system.

Tell all that to women in red states who can no longer get abortions or gays who fought for years to get the right to marry

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There's no "right" to "gay marriage" any more than there is a "right" to "straight" marriage in the Constitution

You're right. There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage. But that is not relevant. The fact is that marriage has been assumed to be a right and treated as a right for straight people while excluding gays. THAT is discrimination and it is unconstitutional.

 

[Couchpotato]

You're right. There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage. But that is not relevant. The fact is that marriage has been assumed to be a right and treated as a right for straight people while excluding gays. THAT is discrimination and it is unconstitutional.

Can a gay man not marry a woman? Can a gay woman not marry a man? They are being treated exactly the same under the law, if your definition of marriage is the union of a man and woman. For your argument to be true you have to redefine what marriage is/was. If in the State's law it defines marriage in the way I said then no one is being discriminated against.