Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The fact that you have to ask is even more disturbing......You assume I am like you and use thinks like sex and skin color as a deciding factor in employing people.....That is bigoted. I am not like you and your liberal friends.How is my question to you being bigoted? Are you mentally handicapped?what has whether they are perverted to do with a job? Unlike you I dont use sex as a decider of my work life....Good lord you are bigoted....Is it self hatred?Gratz on that. Did you check if they are gay before hiring them?Thats why I have employeesDon't you have an empty beer cooler to fill?Then dont....No skin off my ass.....By the way douche bag I am married and dont lie to woman not have I ever to get laid. Only weak men lie to get pussy. Now I just beg.
I'll repeat. I'm not gay. I have no "boyfriends." Further, I've never "demanded" anyone see anyone's marriage as normal. Let alone "demanded" that anyone see gay marriage as normal.Hey you are the one demanding people see marriage between you and your boyfriend as normal....Not I.You called me perverted... I'm just clarifying why it is that you think I'm perverted.Or course it isn't perverted. It is how the human race survives.....Are you normally so retarded?Yes or no, dumb ass, is being heterosexual perverted in your dumb ass eyes?If you didn't think homosexualism wasn't perverted why did you have to make sure you told me you were hetro?I'm heterosexual... married 30ish years with 3 kids. Since you think being heterosexual and married is perverted... What's that make you?
No, equal treatment under the law does not mean you get to piss all over people you don't like based on sexual orientation, skin color, or any other bigoted reason you may have to piss on people you don't like.
Incorrect. Paranoid much? All I did was ask you a simple question. That you think my question is accusing you of illegal employment practice, is merely a "projection" on your part.The fact that you have to ask is even more disturbing......You assume I am like you and use thinks like sex and skin color as a deciding factor in employing people.....That is bigoted. I am not like you and your liberal friends.How is my question to you being bigoted? Are you mentally handicapped?what has whether they are perverted to do with a job? Unlike you I dont use sex as a decider of my work life....Good lord you are bigoted....Is it self hatred?Gratz on that. Did you check if they are gay before hiring them?Thats why I have employeesDon't you have an empty beer cooler to fill?
Scared of that little 38 states thingy, aren't you?
Did we need a Constitutional amendment to allow blacks to marry whites?
Who the fuck said you did need permission???? I just wont recognize your perversion as normal or valid..It is a natural right and purely private act; I don't need permission to get married.Who told you you have a right to get married?????????how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?At least you're consistent at being an ignorant, hateful bigot.
Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts. When the state seeks to prohibit citizens from accessing state law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, a compelling government interest, and pursuant to a proper legislative end, they're in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.
The states may not seek to disadvantage a given class of persons simply because of who they are.
you have yet to quote the language in the constitution where the words "gay marriage" are used. Until then, you are just spouting talking points that have no constitutional basis.
At least you're consistent at being an ignorant, hateful bigot.Getting tax breaks and validation for diseased fags butt fucking is a natural right? Based on what?
Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts. When the state seeks to prohibit citizens from accessing state law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, a compelling government interest, and pursuant to a proper legislative end, they're in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.
The states may not seek to disadvantage a given class of persons simply because of who they are.
you have yet to quote the language in the constitution where the words "gay marriage" are used. Until then, you are just spouting talking points that have no constitutional basis.
The Constitution doesn't mention marriage- yet marriage is a constitutional right.
You know this- because the court decisions have been pointed out to you again and again- but you choose to pretend they don't exist(or like Kaz pretend that the courts don't matter).
The decision before the Supreme Court right now is whether or not that constitutional right applies to gay couples just as it applies to straight couples.
What you are relying on is an "interpretation" of the constitution by a few left wing judges with an agenda.
If you really want this settled, you need a constitutional amendment ratified by 38 states saying that marriage consists of two unrelated people who are above the age of majority. Get that and its over.
Scared of that little 38 states thingy, aren't you?
LOL.....I love how wingnuts like you always call judges that disagree with you 'left wing judges with agenda's'...while applauding when you agree with them.
The issue is before the Supreme Court- just as marriage rights have been before the Supreme Court at least 3 other times.
And just like in Zablocki- we don't need a Constitutional Amendment so fathers who owe child support can still enjoy their constitutional right to marry. And just like in Loving- we don't need a Constitutional Amendment so that a mixed race couple can enjoy their constitutional right to marry.
The courts are here to protect all of our constitutional rights- not just the ones you approve of, for people you approve of.
Scared of that little 38 states thingy, aren't you?
Did we need a Constitutional amendment to allow blacks to marry whites?
Blacks were treated differently under the law than whites. Gays were treated exactly like straights, so there is no comparison
At least you're consistent at being an ignorant, hateful bigot.
Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts. When the state seeks to prohibit citizens from accessing state law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, a compelling government interest, and pursuant to a proper legislative end, they're in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.
The states may not seek to disadvantage a given class of persons simply because of who they are.
you have yet to quote the language in the constitution where the words "gay marriage" are used. Until then, you are just spouting talking points that have no constitutional basis.
The Constitution doesn't mention marriage- yet marriage is a constitutional right.
You know this- because the court decisions have been pointed out to you again and again- but you choose to pretend they don't exist(or like Kaz pretend that the courts don't matter).
The decision before the Supreme Court right now is whether or not that constitutional right applies to gay couples just as it applies to straight couples.
What you are relying on is an "interpretation" of the constitution by a few left wing judges with an agenda.
If you really want this settled, you need a constitutional amendment ratified by 38 states saying that marriage consists of two unrelated people who are above the age of majority. Get that and its over.
Scared of that little 38 states thingy, aren't you?
LOL.....I love how wingnuts like you always call judges that disagree with you 'left wing judges with agenda's'...while applauding when you agree with them.
The issue is before the Supreme Court- just as marriage rights have been before the Supreme Court at least 3 other times.
And just like in Zablocki- we don't need a Constitutional Amendment so fathers who owe child support can still enjoy their constitutional right to marry. And just like in Loving- we don't need a Constitutional Amendment so that a mixed race couple can enjoy their constitutional right to marry.
The courts are here to protect all of our constitutional rights- not just the ones you approve of, for people you approve of.
LOL, thats really funny, you post a bunch of bullshit about courts protecting rights, but you limit it to rights that YOU approve of. You are a hypocrit of the highest degree
This thread and issue is indeed the biggest and most important event in Redfish's life.
43 of 46 federal judges agree on Marriage Equality, and SCOTUS will agree next month. The last five state elections agree on Marriage Equality should be the law. The American citizenry in a solid majority want it. The millennials, the largest voting block next year, overwhelmingly want it.
An amendment is not required. No one has ever given a compelling reason why it should be offered.
you have yet to quote the language in the constitution where the words "gay marriage" are used. Until then, you are just spouting talking points that have no constitutional basis.
The Constitution doesn't mention marriage- yet marriage is a constitutional right.
You know this- because the court decisions have been pointed out to you again and again- but you choose to pretend they don't exist(or like Kaz pretend that the courts don't matter).
The decision before the Supreme Court right now is whether or not that constitutional right applies to gay couples just as it applies to straight couples.
What you are relying on is an "interpretation" of the constitution by a few left wing judges with an agenda.
If you really want this settled, you need a constitutional amendment ratified by 38 states saying that marriage consists of two unrelated people who are above the age of majority. Get that and its over.
Scared of that little 38 states thingy, aren't you?
LOL.....I love how wingnuts like you always call judges that disagree with you 'left wing judges with agenda's'...while applauding when you agree with them.
The issue is before the Supreme Court- just as marriage rights have been before the Supreme Court at least 3 other times.
And just like in Zablocki- we don't need a Constitutional Amendment so fathers who owe child support can still enjoy their constitutional right to marry. And just like in Loving- we don't need a Constitutional Amendment so that a mixed race couple can enjoy their constitutional right to marry.
The courts are here to protect all of our constitutional rights- not just the ones you approve of, for people you approve of.
LOL, thats really funny, you post a bunch of bullshit about courts protecting rights, but you limit it to rights that YOU approve of. You are a hypocrit of the highest degree
Show me where I have called the courts 'activists' just because I disagree with their rulings and we can talk. I think that the court was wrong in Citizen's United- but I don't therefore call the court 'right wing judges with an agenda' like you wingnuts on the far right do to judges you disagree with.
You are fine with judges when they rule how you want them to rule- and you call them tyrants when they don't- pure hypocrites.
Scared of that little 38 states thingy, aren't you?
Did we need a Constitutional amendment to allow blacks to marry whites?
Blacks were treated differently under the law than whites. Gays were treated exactly like straights, so there is no comparison
Wrong.
Blacks were treated exactly the same as whites- blacks could marry marry anyone that they wanted- so long as they were black. Whites could marry anyone they wanted- so long as they were white.
Just as men can marry anyone that we want- as long as they are women. And women can marry anyone that they want- as long as they are men.
There was no need for a Constitutional amendment to end bans on mixed race marriages, and there is no need for a Constitutional amendment to end bans on same gender marriages.
Scared of that little 38 states thingy, aren't you?
Did we need a Constitutional amendment to allow blacks to marry whites?
Blacks were treated differently under the law than whites. Gays were treated exactly like straights, so there is no comparison
Wrong.
Blacks were treated exactly the same as whites- blacks could marry marry anyone that they wanted- so long as they were black. Whites could marry anyone they wanted- so long as they were white.
Just as men can marry anyone that we want- as long as they are women. And women can marry anyone that they want- as long as they are men.
There was no need for a Constitutional amendment to end bans on mixed race marriages, and there is no need for a Constitutional amendment to end bans on same gender marriages.
race and gayness are not the same thing. a mixed race man/woman marriage is not the same legally or biologically as a man/man or woman/woman marriage.
I know you guys want it to be so, but its not.
The Constitution doesn't mention marriage- yet marriage is a constitutional right.
You know this- because the court decisions have been pointed out to you again and again- but you choose to pretend they don't exist(or like Kaz pretend that the courts don't matter).
The decision before the Supreme Court right now is whether or not that constitutional right applies to gay couples just as it applies to straight couples.
What you are relying on is an "interpretation" of the constitution by a few left wing judges with an agenda.
If you really want this settled, you need a constitutional amendment ratified by 38 states saying that marriage consists of two unrelated people who are above the age of majority. Get that and its over.
Scared of that little 38 states thingy, aren't you?
LOL.....I love how wingnuts like you always call judges that disagree with you 'left wing judges with agenda's'...while applauding when you agree with them.
The issue is before the Supreme Court- just as marriage rights have been before the Supreme Court at least 3 other times.
And just like in Zablocki- we don't need a Constitutional Amendment so fathers who owe child support can still enjoy their constitutional right to marry. And just like in Loving- we don't need a Constitutional Amendment so that a mixed race couple can enjoy their constitutional right to marry.
The courts are here to protect all of our constitutional rights- not just the ones you approve of, for people you approve of.
LOL, thats really funny, you post a bunch of bullshit about courts protecting rights, but you limit it to rights that YOU approve of. You are a hypocrit of the highest degree
Show me where I have called the courts 'activists' just because I disagree with their rulings and we can talk. I think that the court was wrong in Citizen's United- but I don't therefore call the court 'right wing judges with an agenda' like you wingnuts on the far right do to judges you disagree with.
You are fine with judges when they rule how you want them to rule- and you call them tyrants when they don't- pure hypocrites.
Are you really so naive that you think some federal court districts do not lean left?
This thread and issue is indeed the biggest and most important event in Redfish's life.
43 of 46 federal judges agree on Marriage Equality, and SCOTUS will agree next month. The last five state elections agree on Marriage Equality should be the law. The American citizenry in a solid majority want it. The millennials, the largest voting block next year, overwhelmingly want it.
An amendment is not required. No one has ever given a compelling reason why it should be offered.
We also get your new PC buzzwords-------"marriage equality" instead of "gay marriage". Everyone gets it, your new name is fooling no one..
There was no need for a Constitutional amendment to end bans on mixed race marriages, and there is no need for a Constitutional amendment to end bans on same gender marriages.
So they were the same, but completely different, great argument. Not.Blacks were treated exactly the same as whites- blacks could marry marry ]anyone that they wanted- so long as they were black
