Hillary Rodham Clinton Speaks Out for Gay Marriage

[LogikAndReazon]

Heck, if that scandal ridden, carpetbagging, coat tail riding, dyke thinks its a good idea........

 

[Redfish]

each state should have a vote of the people on whether that state should sanction same sex marriage. Alabama does not have to do the same thing that California does. This should never be a federal issue.

That's not realistic.

There are tons of federal issues involving marriage such as Social Security, Veteran and Military Benefits, Tax issues, Federal Employment Benefits, Immigration issues just to name a few.

Anyone who thinks government should get out of marriage has no idea what protections the government provides for the individuals of that marriage.

try to pay attention. I said each state should decide whether it will sanction gay marriage, if a state sanctions it then the things you list will be taken care of at the state and federal level.

The result would be that gay couples would migrate to the states that voted to sanction gay marriage.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Yes, it is being threatened for destruction. People believe marriage between one man and one woman is sacrosanct. And that's all that matters.

Then that is the kind of marriage THEY should have....and keep their nose out of other law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adults' marriages.

Nope. No one is stopping anything. This is about a certain faction of people attempting to redefine marriage.

Actually, in this day and age, it's more like a certain faction of people are attempting to halt social progress......and are failing.

 

[aplcr0331]

You should not get to vote on the rights that other people are entitled to.

*RKBA* I agree, you should not get to vote on the rights that other people are entitled to *Pro 2A*.

 

[Redfish]

each state should have a vote of the people on whether that state should sanction same sex marriage. Alabama does not have to do the same thing that California does. This should never be a federal issue.

You should not get to vote on the rights that other people are entitled to

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

Really? then why vote on the president and congressmen? The constitution defines our rights, it does not list the right of two people of the same sex to marry. It also does not give you the right to marry your dog, sorry winger

 

[Michelle420]

As of March 2013, eleven countries (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden), and several sub-national jurisdictions (parts of Brazil, Mexico, and the United States), allow same-sex couples to marry. Bills allowing legal recognition of same-sex marriage have been proposed, are pending, or have passed at least one legislative house in Andorra, Colombia, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Nepal, New Zealand, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay as well as in the legislatures of several sub-national jurisdictions (in Scotland as well as parts of Australia, Mexico, and the United States).

Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legalize gay marriage

 

[sfcalifornia]

each state should have a vote of the people on whether that state should sanction same sex marriage. Alabama does not have to do the same thing that California does. This should never be a federal issue.

That's not realistic.

There are tons of federal issues involving marriage such as Social Security, Veteran and Military Benefits, Tax issues, Federal Employment Benefits, Immigration issues just to name a few.

Anyone who thinks government should get out of marriage has no idea what protections the government provides for the individuals of that marriage.

try to pay attention. I said each state should decide whether it will sanction gay marriage, if a state sanctions it then the things you list will be taken care of at the state and federal level.

The result would be that gay couples would migrate to the states that voted to sanction gay marriage.

That's dumb. So if a gay couple lives in New York, they'll be able to file a joint federal tax return but if they live in Mississippi, they can't?

If they live in New York, the surviving spouse of a gay couple will receive the Social Security benefits of their deceased but if the person lives in Mississippi, they won't?

Use your brain.

 

[rightwinger]

each state should have a vote of the people on whether that state should sanction same sex marriage. Alabama does not have to do the same thing that California does. This should never be a federal issue.

You should not get to vote on the rights that other people are entitled to

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

Really? then why vote on the president and congressmen? The constitution defines our rights, it does not list the right of two people of the same sex to marry. It also does not give you the right to marry your dog, sorry winger

I'm sorry...I really tried

But I can't figure out what the fuck your post has to do with my comment

 

[Redfish]

Then that is the kind of marriage THEY should have....and keep their nose out of other law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adults' marriages.

Nope. No one is stopping anything. This is about a certain faction of people attempting to redefine marriage.

Actually, in this day and age, it's more like a certain faction of people are attempting to halt social progress......and are failing.

so you think gay marriage is social progress??? progress?? LOL.

 

[bodecea]

How does allowing us to legally marry the non familial consenting adult partner of choice create a "special class"?

I think the reality is that homsexuality is juvenile behavior at best. It exists so some adults may frolick sexually without the fear of rejection by the opposite sex or procreation. There is no maturity revealed in homosexuality.

I hear it comes about from not having enough "manly things" when you were a child or by watching too many Broadway shows

Ah...Focus on the Family's suggestion that fathers shower with their pre-teen sons and show them the "family jewels" to make them manly.

 

[bodecea]

each state should have a vote of the people on whether that state should sanction same sex marriage. Alabama does not have to do the same thing that California does. This should never be a federal issue.

I think it's an excellent idea if states NO LONGER recognize each others' marriage licenses. Think of the money they can raise by MAKING people who travel thru or move to their state go thru obtaining a new marriage license....at a nominal fee, of course.

 

[Redfish]

You should not get to vote on the rights that other people are entitled to

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

Really? then why vote on the president and congressmen? The constitution defines our rights, it does not list the right of two people of the same sex to marry. It also does not give you the right to marry your dog, sorry winger

I'm sorry...I really tried

But I can't figure out what the fuck your post has to do with my comment

you said we should not vote on what rights others can have. Did the states vote to ratify the constitution? Did colo and wash vote to legalize pot? WTF do you think those votes were if not the rights of others?

 

[bodecea]

Heck, if that scandal ridden, carpetbagging, coat tail riding, dyke thinks its a good idea........

I take it you are not planning on voting for her if she runs for President in 2016.

 

[Rocko]

I think the reality is that homsexuality is juvenile behavior at best. It exists so some adults may frolick sexually without the fear of rejection by the opposite sex or procreation. There is no maturity revealed in homosexuality.

I hear it comes about from not having enough "manly things" when you were a child or by watching too many Broadway shows

Ah...Focus on the Family's suggestion that fathers shower with their pre-teen sons and show them the "family jewels" to make them manly.

Link?

 

[bodecea]

each state should have a vote of the people on whether that state should sanction same sex marriage. Alabama does not have to do the same thing that California does. This should never be a federal issue.

You should not get to vote on the rights that other people are entitled to

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

Really? then why vote on the president and congressmen? The constitution defines our rights, it does not list the right of two people of the same sex to marry. It also does not give you the right to marry your dog, sorry winger

Are you not aware that voting for someone for governmental office is NOT the same as voting on the civil rights of American citizens?

Your school failed you, I'm afraid. Sad.

 

[bodecea]

Nope. No one is stopping anything. This is about a certain faction of people attempting to redefine marriage.

Actually, in this day and age, it's more like a certain faction of people are attempting to halt social progress......and are failing.

so you think gay marriage is social progress??? progress?? LOL.

Absolutely. When fellow law-abiding, tax-paying adult citizens are no longer vilified and kept from equal civil rights based on superstitions and the Ick-Factor....that is social progress.

 

[Jarhead]

That's not realistic.

There are tons of federal issues involving marriage such as Social Security, Veteran and Military Benefits, Tax issues, Federal Employment Benefits, Immigration issues just to name a few.

Anyone who thinks government should get out of marriage has no idea what protections the government provides for the individuals of that marriage.

try to pay attention. I said each state should decide whether it will sanction gay marriage, if a state sanctions it then the things you list will be taken care of at the state and federal level.

The result would be that gay couples would migrate to the states that voted to sanction gay marriage.

That's dumb. So if a gay couple lives in New York, they'll be able to file a joint federal tax return but if they live in Mississippi, they can't?

If they live in New York, the surviving spouse of a gay couple will receive the Social Security benefits of their deceased but if the person lives in Mississippi, they won't?

Use your brain.

I am not against gay marriage....I am a conservative and I bleieve that all should have the right to live their lives the way they wish.

However....

What he is saying is not "dumb" as you put it.

I live in NY and I pay a very high state tax. If I wish to continue paying it, I will stay here. If I wish not to, I will move.

Its all about choices. If the people of Mississippi prefer to not change their definition of marriage, they should be allowed to. If one does not apprecviate the decision of the people, they can move to another state.

If each state can mandate how much money they take from a resident, then each state should be able to mandate anything that does not inlude interaction with other states.

 

[Redfish]

each state should have a vote of the people on whether that state should sanction same sex marriage. Alabama does not have to do the same thing that California does. This should never be a federal issue.

I think it's an excellent idea if states NO LONGER recognize each others' marriage licenses. Think of the money they can raise by MAKING people who travel thru or move to their state go thru obtaining a new marriage license....at a nominal fee, of course.

you are making it too complicated. A gay marriage could be recognized in one state but not another. gay marriage partners would have to live in states that sanctioned their gay marriage. They could travel to other states but their marriage would not be recognized by those states---big deal.

 

[bodecea]

I hear it comes about from not having enough "manly things" when you were a child or by watching too many Broadway shows

Ah...Focus on the Family's suggestion that fathers shower with their pre-teen sons and show them the "family jewels" to make them manly.

Link?

You don't believe they said that? You sure?

 

[Jarhead]

Actually, in this day and age, it's more like a certain faction of people are attempting to halt social progress......and are failing.

so you think gay marriage is social progress??? progress?? LOL.

Absolutely. When fellow law-abiding, tax-paying adult citizens are no longer vilified and kept from equal civil rights based on superstitions and the Ick-Factor....that is social progress.

you and I will be long dead when the gay community is no longer vilified.

But it is just a matter of time before all states agree that marriage is a right for everyone