IRS recognizes same-sex mariages in all states

[Redfish]

Are you aware that there were three attempts to amend the Constitution to prohibit interracial marriage? The reason? He was certain the 14th Amendment would be used to legalize interracial marriage.

Ah, bigots never change.

your grasp of history is biased by your sexual orientation.

yes, there was a time when a lot of people were opposed to interracial marriage. That does not make them bigots. There was a time when most people believed that the world was flat, that does not make them idiots.

Interracial marriage between one man and one woman does not equate in any way to a "marriage" of two men or two women. That is a failed analogy--and you know it.

Why is it that liberals are totally intolerant of anyone who may hold an opinion that differs from theirs? Why do you think your opinion is superior to anyone else's? Why are you libs always out to demonize anyone who disagrees with you?

You demand tolerance from others but display total intolerance yourselves. I think its called hypocrisy.

Of course that makes them bigots. It's the very definition of bigotry.

You don't have to be tolerant of the intolerant. Holding an opposing opinion is fine. Wanting to deny equality based on that differing opinion is intolerant.

Here's your "slippery slope"... (from wiki)

In 1871, Representative Andrew King (Democrat of Missouri) was the first politician in Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to make interracial marriage illegal nationwide. King proposed this amendment because he predicted (correctly, as the case of Loving v. Virginia later demonstrated) that the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868 to give equal civil rights to the emancipated ex-slaves (the Freedmen) as part of the process of Reconstruction, would render laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional.

why can't you stay on topic? I am not opposed to interracial marriage. Why bring that into the debate other than to deflect from your failed arguments for gay marriage?

No one wants to deny you equality. Can you have equality without using the word "marriage"? the answer is yes.

But you are not about equality, equality is not your real agenda. You want the government to mandate how others think about gays. You want the government to declare that being gay is a normal human condition and to punish anyone who thinks otherwise.

Thats what pisses me off about you and some other gays. You lie about your real agenda and pretend to be all incensed about equality, when thats not really what you are after. You are after govt mandated thought control.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is not about how folks "feel" about whether gay is normal or not.

This is about the 14th Amendment and folks' civil rights.

 

[Seawytch]

your grasp of history is biased by your sexual orientation.

yes, there was a time when a lot of people were opposed to interracial marriage. That does not make them bigots. There was a time when most people believed that the world was flat, that does not make them idiots.

Interracial marriage between one man and one woman does not equate in any way to a "marriage" of two men or two women. That is a failed analogy--and you know it.

Why is it that liberals are totally intolerant of anyone who may hold an opinion that differs from theirs? Why do you think your opinion is superior to anyone else's? Why are you libs always out to demonize anyone who disagrees with you?

You demand tolerance from others but display total intolerance yourselves. I think its called hypocrisy.

Of course that makes them bigots. It's the very definition of bigotry.

You don't have to be tolerant of the intolerant. Holding an opposing opinion is fine. Wanting to deny equality based on that differing opinion is intolerant.

Here's your "slippery slope"... (from wiki)

In 1871, Representative Andrew King (Democrat of Missouri) was the first politician in Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to make interracial marriage illegal nationwide. King proposed this amendment because he predicted (correctly, as the case of Loving v. Virginia later demonstrated) that the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868 to give equal civil rights to the emancipated ex-slaves (the Freedmen) as part of the process of Reconstruction, would render laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional.

why can't you stay on topic? I am not opposed to interracial marriage. Why bring that into the debate other than to deflect from your failed arguments for gay marriage?

No one wants to deny you equality. Can you have equality without using the word "marriage"? the answer is yes.

But you are not about equality, equality is not your real agenda. You want the government to mandate how others think about gays. You want the government to declare that being gay is a normal human condition and to punish anyone who thinks otherwise.

Thats what pisses me off about you and some other gays. You lie about your real agenda and pretend to be all incensed about equality, when thats not really what you are after. You are after govt mandated thought control.

I've told you time and again...go ahead and change the word associated with civil marriage, granting all couples a civil union...I don't care. It simply must be equal. Saying we get one thing and you get another isn't equality, Fishy.

 

[rightwinger]

your grasp of history is biased by your sexual orientation.

yes, there was a time when a lot of people were opposed to interracial marriage. That does not make them bigots. There was a time when most people believed that the world was flat, that does not make them idiots.

Interracial marriage between one man and one woman does not equate in any way to a "marriage" of two men or two women. That is a failed analogy--and you know it.

Why is it that liberals are totally intolerant of anyone who may hold an opinion that differs from theirs? Why do you think your opinion is superior to anyone else's? Why are you libs always out to demonize anyone who disagrees with you?

You demand tolerance from others but display total intolerance yourselves. I think its called hypocrisy.

Of course that makes them bigots. It's the very definition of bigotry.

You don't have to be tolerant of the intolerant. Holding an opposing opinion is fine. Wanting to deny equality based on that differing opinion is intolerant.

Here's your "slippery slope"... (from wiki)

In 1871, Representative Andrew King (Democrat of Missouri) was the first politician in Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to make interracial marriage illegal nationwide. King proposed this amendment because he predicted (correctly, as the case of Loving v. Virginia later demonstrated) that the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868 to give equal civil rights to the emancipated ex-slaves (the Freedmen) as part of the process of Reconstruction, would render laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional.

why can't you stay on topic? I am not opposed to interracial marriage. Why bring that into the debate other than to deflect from your failed arguments for gay marriage?

No one wants to deny you equality. Can you have equality without using the word "marriage"? the answer is yes.

But you are not about equality, equality is not your real agenda. You want the government to mandate how others think about gays. You want the government to declare that being gay is a normal human condition and to punish anyone who thinks otherwise.

Thats what pisses me off about you and some other gays. You lie about your real agenda and pretend to be all incensed about equality, when thats not really what you are after. You are after govt mandated thought control.

What is the current punishment for thinking gays are not normal?

 

[Redfish]

Of course that makes them bigots. It's the very definition of bigotry.

You don't have to be tolerant of the intolerant. Holding an opposing opinion is fine. Wanting to deny equality based on that differing opinion is intolerant.

Here's your "slippery slope"... (from wiki)

In 1871, Representative Andrew King (Democrat of Missouri) was the first politician in Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to make interracial marriage illegal nationwide. King proposed this amendment because he predicted (correctly, as the case of Loving v. Virginia later demonstrated) that the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868 to give equal civil rights to the emancipated ex-slaves (the Freedmen) as part of the process of Reconstruction, would render laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional.

why can't you stay on topic? I am not opposed to interracial marriage. Why bring that into the debate other than to deflect from your failed arguments for gay marriage?

No one wants to deny you equality. Can you have equality without using the word "marriage"? the answer is yes.

But you are not about equality, equality is not your real agenda. You want the government to mandate how others think about gays. You want the government to declare that being gay is a normal human condition and to punish anyone who thinks otherwise.

Thats what pisses me off about you and some other gays. You lie about your real agenda and pretend to be all incensed about equality, when thats not really what you are after. You are after govt mandated thought control.

What is the current punishment for thinking gays are not normal?

currently none. but under the gay agenda your anti-gay thoughts and words will be punished---------because it hurts their feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings.

 

[boedicca]

I suspect that a great many same sex couples will be rather non-plussed when they discover that the marriage penalty will cause them to OWE taxes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Got some examples, Boedicca?

 

[rightwinger]

why can't you stay on topic? I am not opposed to interracial marriage. Why bring that into the debate other than to deflect from your failed arguments for gay marriage?

No one wants to deny you equality. Can you have equality without using the word "marriage"? the answer is yes.

But you are not about equality, equality is not your real agenda. You want the government to mandate how others think about gays. You want the government to declare that being gay is a normal human condition and to punish anyone who thinks otherwise.

Thats what pisses me off about you and some other gays. You lie about your real agenda and pretend to be all incensed about equality, when thats not really what you are after. You are after govt mandated thought control.

What is the current punishment for thinking gays are not normal?

currently none. but under the gay agenda your anti-gay thoughts and words will be punished---------because it hurts their feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings.

Oh, I see

The government is planning to suspend the first amendment. I must have missed that story

 

[Redfish]

What is the current punishment for thinking gays are not normal?

currently none. but under the gay agenda your anti-gay thoughts and words will be punished---------because it hurts their feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings.

Oh, I see

The government is planning to suspend the first amendment. I must have missed that story

Don't you think that all the policical correctness bullshit is a violation of the first amendment?

the current administration would love to suspend the first amendment, they would love to control the media and its message. They would love to have pravda and politburo in the US.

 

[boedicca]

Got some examples, Boedicca?

Clearly, your income is rather low and you are not married, or you would have first hand experience.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Got some examples, Boedicca?

Clearly, your income is rather low and you are not married, or you would have first hand experience.

In other words, you have not a clue.