Hillary Rodham Clinton Speaks Out for Gay Marriage

[Jarhead]

how about a three person marriage? marriage between a human and his/her dog? group marriage? where does it end?

If that is what you want....advocate for it. And while you are at it....figure out how a dog can give legal consent. Let us know how it works.

its not what I want, but its the next logical step from gay marriage. "if someone loves their dog and their dog loves them, why should they be banned from making a marriage committment to each other?" notice the quotes, its not my idea but we can expect such a statement from the beastiality supporters.

for one to love their dog, they likely enagage in acts of beastiality?

 

[bodecea]

If that is what you want....advocate for it. And while you are at it....figure out how a dog can give legal consent. Let us know how it works.

its not what I want, but its the next logical step from gay marriage. "if someone loves their dog and their dog loves them, why should they be banned from making a marriage committment to each other?" notice the quotes, its not my idea but we can expect such a statement from the beastiality supporters.

for one to love their dog, they likely enagage in acts of beastiality?

Hey! Everyone knows that's the logical progression! No......wait.

 

[Jarhead]

Things always get worse instead of better.

Not in my life.

I learn everyday....and the more I learn, the more forward I go.

 

[Katzndogz]

how about a three person marriage? marriage between a human and his/her dog? group marriage? where does it end?

Compare apples to apples.

The gay community is not asking for more than what the laws allow for heterosexual couples.

But if a heterosexual couple were leaglly allowed to bring a third in the marriage, then I assume gay couples should have the same right.

However, as for right now? The gay community simply wants the right to marry as a heterosexual couple does.

Dont spin their sentiments or motives. It gets us nowhere.

the gay community wants the straight community to sanction gay unions and call them marriages. that idea violates the teachings of most religions and is unacceptable to a majority of americans.

its the use of the word "marriage" that creates the issue. most do not object to a civil union or a mutual support and committment contract. those kinds of documents would give them the "rights" that they claim to seek.

but face it, thats not all they want, they want to mandate that the marjority change their beliefs by government dictate, and that violates freedom as guaranteed by the constitution,.

It's really more than a committment contract. All marriages used to be contracts, signed or even made with a mark. It's getting recognition of those contracts by parties that are not part of the contract. A committment contract by gays is not recognized by the federal government (although most state governments recognize civil unions). Gays under contract do not get certain benefits, nor do they have the same responsibilities, regarding the federal government. Just because someone signs a contract doesn't mean that everyone has to accept that the provisions of that contract apply to them. A contract between two people to buy and sell property doesn't bind anyone to sell that property to them. You and I could sign a contract under which we both get seats on the next flight to the moon. It just won't get us seats on the next flight to the moon no matter how much we agree between the two of us that we're getting those seats.

Gays want marriage, traditional religious marriage because they want their contract recognized by God. If not actually by God, they want to bind the religious to agree that their marriage is recognized by God. In Britian government legalization of same sex marriage doesn't go far enough. Churches, mosques and synagogues must be required to perform marriage ceremonies.

Everyone must have a legal marriage. Marriage ceremonies are quite different. You can have an elaborate ceremony or walk out the County Clerk's office with nothing more than a paper in hand. There is no right to any marriage ceremony you wish to have. Neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals have that right. There is no man and woman that can walk into a synagogue or mosque and demand High Mass and traditional Catholic rites. A man whose belief system allows polygamous marraiges does not get the right to bind others to his agreement with his wives who do not have to recognize the validity of multiple marriages.

A baker will be entirely within his rights to deny a wedding cake to a man who wants three brides. A baker has been legally held to be within his rights to deny a birthday cake for a child whose name was Adolph Hitler. Gays just don't want to be treated like others who risk not having their contract bind third parties.

 

[bodecea]

Things always get worse instead of better.

Really?

Ask women that. We get to vote now, and in most things we are considered legally equal.

Ask children that. Child labor is gone...and child abuse is treated as a crime now.

Ask minorities that. Blacks went from slaves to 2nd class citizens to equal. Asians went from not being allowed citizenship to 2nd class citizens to equal.

Ask the handicapped that. They went from being locked up with criminals to put away in mental hospitals to being considered worthy of respect and consideration and worth.


Yes....things get worse.....for the bigots.

 

[Katzndogz]

the gay community wants the straight community to sanction gay unions and call them marriages. that idea violates the teachings of most religions and is unacceptable to a majority of americans.

its the use of the word "marriage" that creates the issue. most do not object to a civil union or a mutual support and committment contract. those kinds of documents would give them the "rights" that they claim to seek.

but face it, thats not all they want, they want to mandate that the marjority change their beliefs by government dictate, and that violates freedom as guaranteed by the constitution,.

You might want to be a little more hesitant to claim that the majority of American's are against Same-sex Civil Marriage (SSCM).

1. Poll after poll has documented the shifting position toward acceptance of SSCM.

2. The results at the ballot box during General Elections when Same-sex Civil Marriage has been on the ballot have documented the shifting attitudes. In the early 2000's anti-SSCM initiatives on General Election ballots passed with (IIRC) 23-76% margins of victory. In 2008 & 2009 (CA Prop 8, MA Question 1 respectively) it was chopped to the point where a change of only 2.5% would have been needed to change the outcome. Now in 2012 there were 4 SSCM questions on General Election ballots and all three passed on the SSCM side (3 approving SSCM and 1 electing not to enshrine discrimination in the State Constitution).​

Attitudes have changed greatly in the last decade.



>>>>

gay marriage has been voted down in twice in the liberal state of california. all of the red states are opposed to it. my statement is accurate.

Not only has gay marriage in California been voted down, but advocates recently tried to get it on the ballot again. Seems like there is a pervasive belief that opinion has changed. But they couldn't get enough signatures to qualify for a ballot initiative.

 

[mal]

how about a three person marriage? marriage between a human and his/her dog? group marriage? where does it end?

If that is what you want....advocate for it. And while you are at it....figure out how a dog can give legal consent. Let us know how it works.

^Wants to Unconstitutionally Expand Special Rights for her Chosen Deviation only...

What a ****.



peace...

^Fact not Fiction.



peace...

 

[bodecea]

You might want to be a little more hesitant to claim that the majority of American's are against Same-sex Civil Marriage (SSCM).

1. Poll after poll has documented the shifting position toward acceptance of SSCM.

2. The results at the ballot box during General Elections when Same-sex Civil Marriage has been on the ballot have documented the shifting attitudes. In the early 2000's anti-SSCM initiatives on General Election ballots passed with (IIRC) 23-76% margins of victory. In 2008 & 2009 (CA Prop 8, MA Question 1 respectively) it was chopped to the point where a change of only 2.5% would have been needed to change the outcome. Now in 2012 there were 4 SSCM questions on General Election ballots and all three passed on the SSCM side (3 approving SSCM and 1 electing not to enshrine discrimination in the State Constitution).​

Attitudes have changed greatly in the last decade.



>>>>

gay marriage has been voted down in twice in the liberal state of california. all of the red states are opposed to it. my statement is accurate.

Not only has gay marriage in California been voted down, but advocates recently tried to get it on the ballot again. Seems like there is a pervasive belief that opinion has changed. But they couldn't get enough signatures to qualify for a ballot initiative.

Prop 22 in 2000...61% against, 39% for legal gay marriage

Prop H8 in 2008...52% for, 48% against eliminating legal gay marriage

In 8 years...the margin dropped from 22% to 4%. Do you notice the trend?

In 2000, NO states had legalized gay marriage.....0 out of 50.....now we have 9 states. Do you notice the trend?

Also...just about a year ago.....anti-gay marriage people on this board bragged about how no states had voted in gay marriage. Not hearing that any more. Why?

 

[WorldWatcher]

You might want to be a little more hesitant to claim that the majority of American's are against Same-sex Civil Marriage (SSCM).

1. Poll after poll has documented the shifting position toward acceptance of SSCM.

2. The results at the ballot box during General Elections when Same-sex Civil Marriage has been on the ballot have documented the shifting attitudes. In the early 2000's anti-SSCM initiatives on General Election ballots passed with (IIRC) 23-76% margins of victory. In 2008 & 2009 (CA Prop 8, MA Question 1 respectively) it was chopped to the point where a change of only 2.5% would have been needed to change the outcome. Now in 2012 there were 4 SSCM questions on General Election ballots and all three passed on the SSCM side (3 approving SSCM and 1 electing not to enshrine discrimination in the State Constitution).​

Attitudes have changed greatly in the last decade.



>>>>

gay marriage has been voted down in twice in the liberal state of california. all of the red states are opposed to it. my statement is accurate.

Not only has gay marriage in California been voted down, but advocates recently tried to get it on the ballot again. Seems like there is a pervasive belief that opinion has changed. But they couldn't get enough signatures to qualify for a ballot initiative.

IIRC, the primary organizations choose not to try for a ballot repeal because of the litigation of the Prop 8 case. It wasn't that they couldn't get enough signatures for the ballot, it was a tactical decision.

IIRC they need about 500,000 signatures for a referendum, since Prop 8 had 6,401,482 votes against it getting only about 7% of those people to sign an initiative signature would be any problem.


>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

You might want to be a little more hesitant to claim that the majority of American's are against Same-sex Civil Marriage (SSCM).

1. Poll after poll has documented the shifting position toward acceptance of SSCM.

2. The results at the ballot box during General Elections when Same-sex Civil Marriage has been on the ballot have documented the shifting attitudes. In the early 2000's anti-SSCM initiatives on General Election ballots passed with (IIRC) 23-76% margins of victory. In 2008 & 2009 (CA Prop 8, MA Question 1 respectively) it was chopped to the point where a change of only 2.5% would have been needed to change the outcome. Now in 2012 there were 4 SSCM questions on General Election ballots and all three passed on the SSCM side (3 approving SSCM and 1 electing not to enshrine discrimination in the State Constitution).​

Attitudes have changed greatly in the last decade.



>>>>

gay marriage has been voted down in twice in the liberal state of california. all of the red states are opposed to it. my statement is accurate.

Prop 22 in 2000...61% against, 39% for legal gay marriage

Prop H8 in 2008...52% for, 48% against eliminating legal gay marriage

In 8 years...the margin dropped from 22% to 4%. Do you notice the trend?

In 2000, NO states had legalized gay marriage.....0 out of 50.....now we have 9 states. Do you notice the trend?

I noticed the trend of liberal judges and state legislators imposing same sex marriage on the public who wouldn't vote for it. Yes there's a trend.

 

[Katzndogz]

gay marriage has been voted down in twice in the liberal state of california. all of the red states are opposed to it. my statement is accurate.

Not only has gay marriage in California been voted down, but advocates recently tried to get it on the ballot again. Seems like there is a pervasive belief that opinion has changed. But they couldn't get enough signatures to qualify for a ballot initiative.

IIRC, the primary organizations choose not to try for a ballot repeal because of the litigation of the Prop 8 case. It wasn't that they couldn't get enough signatures for the ballot, it was a tactical decision.

IIRC they need about 500,000 signatures for a referendum, since Prop 8 had 6,401,482 votes against it getting only about 7% of those people to sign an initiative signature would be any problem.


>>>>

Two weeks ago, the canvassers were at the grocery store trying again to get signatures to qualify for a ballot initiative. It was a tactical decision. Based on public disinterest.

 

[WorldWatcher]

gay marriage has been voted down in twice in the liberal state of california. all of the red states are opposed to it. my statement is accurate.

Prop 22 in 2000...61% against, 39% for legal gay marriage

Prop H8 in 2008...52% for, 48% against eliminating legal gay marriage

In 8 years...the margin dropped from 22% to 4%. Do you notice the trend?

In 2000, NO states had legalized gay marriage.....0 out of 50.....now we have 9 states. Do you notice the trend?

I noticed the trend of liberal judges and state legislators imposing same sex marriage on the public who wouldn't vote for it. Yes there's a trend.

So you ignore the trend of the votes during General Elections in the early 2000's to the 2008/2009 and then on into last year.

Because why? Is it inconvenient to acknowledge that voting demographics during actual General Elections when go to the ballot box have changed?



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not only has gay marriage in California been voted down, but advocates recently tried to get it on the ballot again. Seems like there is a pervasive belief that opinion has changed. But they couldn't get enough signatures to qualify for a ballot initiative.

IIRC, the primary organizations choose not to try for a ballot repeal because of the litigation of the Prop 8 case. It wasn't that they couldn't get enough signatures for the ballot, it was a tactical decision.

IIRC they need about 500,000 signatures for a referendum, since Prop 8 had 6,401,482 votes against it getting only about 7% of those people to sign an initiative signature would be any problem.


>>>>

Two weeks ago, the canvassers were at the grocery store trying again to get signatures to qualify for a ballot initiative. It was a tactical decision. Based on public disinterest.

If canvassers were at the grocery store two weeks ago, then they were not part of an initiative process for either the 2010 or 2012 elections - those are in the past.

As to the canvassers you speak of, it's hard to know what was going on with out seeing them and their paperwork (and I'm sorry I won't be taking your word on it). They could have been canvassing for an initiative or simply polling to gage public opinion. That is not uncommon at this stage to determine the validity of a future true initiative drive.

If they were gathering signatures for a valid initiative targeting the 2014 elections, then they would have to be registered with the state and have submitted ballot language that would have been approved by the Secretary of State. Here is the link -->> California Secretary of State

Feel free to provide evidence that such an initiative was in the works.


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

Not only has gay marriage in California been voted down, but advocates recently tried to get it on the ballot again. Seems like there is a pervasive belief that opinion has changed. But they couldn't get enough signatures to qualify for a ballot initiative.

IIRC, the primary organizations choose not to try for a ballot repeal because of the litigation of the Prop 8 case. It wasn't that they couldn't get enough signatures for the ballot, it was a tactical decision.

IIRC they need about 500,000 signatures for a referendum, since Prop 8 had 6,401,482 votes against it getting only about 7% of those people to sign an initiative signature would be any problem.


>>>>

Two weeks ago, the canvassers were at the grocery store trying again to get signatures to qualify for a ballot initiative. It was a tactical decision. Based on public disinterest.

It's in the courts....why bother spending money on a ballot initiative when Prop H8 is being struck down anyways. Pretty much everyone knows that's what's gonna happen.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Homosexual marriage approved by progressive politicians to conjure up votes will never make it any less of a laughable charade then it is now............

 

[bodecea]

Homosexual marriage approved by progressive politicians to conjure up votes will never make it any less of a laughable charade then it is now............

Good thing no one is ever going to MAKE you have a gay marriage, isn't it?

But, I'm sure even YOU can't help but notice that being FOR gay marriage is no longer the kiss of political death.

 

[ima]

Homosexual marriage approved by progressive politicians to conjure up votes will never make it any less of a laughable charade then it is now............

As long as you don't oppose it, that's all that matters. Thanks.

 

[rightwinger]

You might want to be a little more hesitant to claim that the majority of American's are against Same-sex Civil Marriage (SSCM).

1. Poll after poll has documented the shifting position toward acceptance of SSCM.

2. The results at the ballot box during General Elections when Same-sex Civil Marriage has been on the ballot have documented the shifting attitudes. In the early 2000's anti-SSCM initiatives on General Election ballots passed with (IIRC) 23-76% margins of victory. In 2008 & 2009 (CA Prop 8, MA Question 1 respectively) it was chopped to the point where a change of only 2.5% would have been needed to change the outcome. Now in 2012 there were 4 SSCM questions on General Election ballots and all three passed on the SSCM side (3 approving SSCM and 1 electing not to enshrine discrimination in the State Constitution).​

Attitudes have changed greatly in the last decade.



>>>>

gay marriage has been voted down in twice in the liberal state of california. all of the red states are opposed to it. my statement is accurate.

Not only has gay marriage in California been voted down, but advocates recently tried to get it on the ballot again. Seems like there is a pervasive belief that opinion has changed. But they couldn't get enough signatures to qualify for a ballot initiative.

Its not going to matter ...The Supreme Court will strike down Prop 8

 

[sfcalifornia]

The majority of Americans have "flip flopped" on the gay marriage issue, myself included.....you are now the minority

I've known quite a few people who have "evolved" on this issue...usually having to do with having a gay friend or family member. It's the ones that don't evolve you need to worry about.

Yeah right. Everybody "evolved" on this issue because of a gay friend or family member at the same time. The truth is - it's kind of scary how all these people have suddenly "evolved". Propaganda is a very powerful wepon against a weak mind.

It isn't propaganda, it's social acceptance which is turning the tide.

I think deep down, the majority of people in this country have believed for a while that gay couples should get the same marriage benefits as straight couples but it just wasn't acceptable in their circles to say so. Now that more and more people come out and say they support gay marriage benefits, it's easier for everyone else to now vocally agree. Its typical bandwagon mentality. Not many people want to be the first to speak up even though they hold strong opinions on the subject.

 

[Redfish]

I've known quite a few people who have "evolved" on this issue...usually having to do with having a gay friend or family member. It's the ones that don't evolve you need to worry about.

Yeah right. Everybody "evolved" on this issue because of a gay friend or family member at the same time. The truth is - it's kind of scary how all these people have suddenly "evolved". Propaganda is a very powerful wepon against a weak mind.

It isn't propaganda, it's social acceptance which is turning the tide.

I think deep down, the majority of people in this country have believed for a while that gay couples should get the same marriage benefits as straight couples but it just wasn't acceptable in their circles to say so. Now that more and more people come out and say they support gay marriage benefits, it's easier for everyone else to now vocally agree. Its typical bandwagon mentality. Not many people want to be the first to speak up even though they hold strong opinions on the subject.

having equal benefits, yes most people agree. civil unions, yes most people agree.

but its not a marriage, thats where the disagreement rests.