Hillary Rodham Clinton Speaks Out for Gay Marriage

[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.

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.

No problem if that applies to ALL marriages. A straight marriage could be recognized in one state but not another....unless they plink down some money for that state's marriage license. $$$$ for the state coffers.

 

[bodecea]

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

True....there are some who still vilify the black community. But the progress over the last 50 years on gay rights is wonderful.

 

[sfcalifornia]

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.

I do.

I think relegating people with moronic opinions to the tiniest minority of society is the best social progress of all, however.

 

[bodecea]

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.

I do.

I think relegating people with moronic opinions to the tiniest minority of society is the best social progress of all, however.

So, who determines what is and what is not a "moronic opinion"? The Thought Police? Or are you just talking about the Court of Public Opinion laughing at the losers?

 

[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

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.

not at all, its yours that failed. We vote on the rights of others on almost every ballot. drug legalization, tax rates, gun laws, abortion, capital punishment.

what you do not get is that gay marriage is not a "right" in everyone's opinion. Thats why we vote on such things, and why the majority vote is what we all live by.

 

[Redfish]

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.

I do.

I think relegating people with moronic opinions to the tiniest minority of society is the best social progress of all, however.

So you advocate thought control? Hitler would be proud of you.

 

[Rocko]

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?

Do you have a link or no?

 

[sfcalifornia]

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.

We're talking about FEDERAL benefits here.

Would you please tell me how you can apply Federal benefits discriminately to people according to which state they live in?

Do we need to review the definition of federal?

 

[bodecea]

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

I do.

I think relegating people with moronic opinions to the tiniest minority of society is the best social progress of all, however.

So you advocate thought control? Hitler would be proud of you.

If she was, I would be against that. However, society has a way of laughing at the loser opinions amongst us....i.e. hardcore segregationists

 

[bodecea]

Link?

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

Do you have a link or no?

You sure I'm lying here? Positive? Care to make some kind of wager?

 

[Redfish]

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

I do.

I think relegating people with moronic opinions to the tiniest minority of society is the best social progress of all, however.

So, who determines what is and what is not a "moronic opinion"? The Thought Police? Or are you just talking about the Court of Public Opinion laughing at the losers?

are a majority of the voters in california "a tiny minority with moronic opinions" ? they voted down gay marriage twice, remember?

But your idea of "regulating" people who do not share your opinions makes you a true socialist of the worst kind----the hitler, mao, pol pot, idi amin kind.

 

[Redfish]

I do.

I think relegating people with moronic opinions to the tiniest minority of society is the best social progress of all, however.

So you advocate thought control? Hitler would be proud of you.

If she was, I would be against that. However, society has a way of laughing at the loser opinions amongst us....i.e. hardcore segregationists

she used the term "relegating people" what does that mean to you?

 

[Rocko]

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

Do you have a link or no?

You sure I'm lying here? Positive? Care to make some kind of wager?

Is this what you do everytime someone asks you for a link? If you're willing to bet then you probably have some sort of link. If so, I would like to verify your link.

 

[Jarhead]

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

True....there are some who still vilify the black community. But the progress over the last 50 years on gay rights is wonderful.

I dont consider it "gay rights"...for we dont have "heterosexual rights"

I simply consider them all rights of all Americans.

That should be the argument. Once you throw in a term that groups the people, it clouds the issue.

This is America...all men are created equal. Stay on that plane.

It worked in my mind set. It may work in the mindset of other conservatives.

On a side note...that is why I am against the "women protection" laws......

All people deserve equal protection. If some drunk 500 pound former sumo wrestler beats the crap out of me, why am I not afforded the same protection a woman is?

Think about it.

 

[sfcalifornia]

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

I do.

I think relegating people with moronic opinions to the tiniest minority of society is the best social progress of all, however.

So, who determines what is and what is not a "moronic opinion"? The Thought Police? Or are you just talking about the Court of Public Opinion laughing at the losers?

50 years from now (probably less) we'll be laughing at Redfish the same way we are laughing at the folks who were against interracial marriages.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

We're talking about FEDERAL benefits here.

Would you please tell me how you can apply Federal benefits discriminately to people according to which state they live in?

Do we need to review the definition of federal?

No need to get condescending with me.

You make a valid point.

It could have been made with a simple...."what about federal benefits"....without tossing in the "do we need to review...." line which was inserted to insult my intelligence.

 

[bodecea]

I do.

I think relegating people with moronic opinions to the tiniest minority of society is the best social progress of all, however.

So, who determines what is and what is not a "moronic opinion"? The Thought Police? Or are you just talking about the Court of Public Opinion laughing at the losers?

are a majority of the voters in california "a tiny minority with moronic opinions" ? they voted down gay marriage twice, remember?

But your idea of "regulating" people who do not share your opinions makes you a true socialist of the worst kind----the hitler, mao, pol pot, idi amin kind.

What was the margin of yes/no the first time it was voted for? The second time? And voting for taking away already established civil rights for law-abiding, tax-paying citizens....you ok with that if a majority approves? How about if we were to have a vote about gun rights....right now?

 

[Katzndogz]

Are there still those who think we don't have segregation today? Pity those.

What was Hillary really up to? She gave this announcement making it obvious by her speech and body language that there was a stick up hers ass the whole time she was reading the teleprompter. Bill Clinton has the ability to sound sincere no matter what. It is a quality that Hillary lacks. Or it was deliberate. Hillary saying she is now for same sex marriage but not really. Wink wink I gotta do this because Ron Portman did and we can't let a republican have the last word.

 

[Redfish]

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

True....there are some who still vilify the black community. But the progress over the last 50 years on gay rights is wonderful.

I dont consider it "gay rights"...for we dont have "heterosexual rights"

I simply consider them all rights of all Americans.

That should be the argument. Once you throw in a term that groups the people, it clouds the issue.

This is America...all men are created equal. Stay on that plane.

It worked in my mind set. It may work in the mindset of other conservatives.

On a side note...that is why I am against the "women protection" laws......

All people deserve equal protection. If some drunk 500 pound former sumo wrestler beats the crap out of me, why am I not afforded the same protection a woman is?

Think about it.

you are correct, of course. I personally have no issue with civil unions for gays. But marriage is a union of one man and one woman.

if two gays want to commit to each other for life, thats great. But its not a marriage.

 

[bodecea]

I do.

I think relegating people with moronic opinions to the tiniest minority of society is the best social progress of all, however.

So, who determines what is and what is not a "moronic opinion"? The Thought Police? Or are you just talking about the Court of Public Opinion laughing at the losers?

50 years from now (probably less) we'll be laughing at Redfish the same way we are laughing at the folks who were against interracial marriages.

What will happen is that people like Redfish will either evolve or try to hide their 2012 opinions on gay marriage from their grandchildren who ask them about the "idiots against gay marriage back in the day".