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.
Homosexual couples, if they make the commitment to each other, should have every right to act and enjoy the "benefits" equal to married heterosexual couples. To name a few: hospital visits, inheritance and other marriage benefits including health insurance etc. It is just baffling why do they want to call their commitment to each other "marriage?" Why don't they call it "life partner" or similar expression related to their lifelong commitment to each other? Changing the meaning of the word "marriage" just shows arrogance and an "in your face" attitude.People voted, overwhelmingly in most cases, to define marriage as one man one woman. What right does the judiciary have to overturn that? None.
Well the possibility of "domestic partnerships" and the like was offered but gays refused with the usual whining about second class citizens etc etc.Homosexual couples, if they make the commitment to each other, should have every right to act and enjoy the "benefits" equal to married heterosexual couples. To name a few: hospital visits, inheritance and other marriage benefits including health insurance etc. It is just baffling why do they want to call their commitment to each other "marriage?" Why don't they call it "life partner" or similar expression related to their lifelong commitment to each other? Changing the meaning of the word "marriage" just shows arrogance and an "in your face" attitude.People voted, overwhelmingly in most cases, to define marriage as one man one woman. What right does the judiciary have to overturn that? None.
Because the civil license issued in all 50 states is called a marriage license. If you don't like us getting a marriage license, you should have called it something else. Feel free to change it, but the onus is not on gays to do so.
First off, homosexuals have every right that anyone else in this country has.Thats completely wrong, of course."Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige"
Actually he urges ignorance and hate; ignorance of the law and hate toward gay Americans.
And the notion that this is solely a 'states' rights' issue is completely false, it's an issue solely about animus toward same-sex couples, where measures seeking to deny gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment are devoid of merit.
People voted, overwhelmingly in most cases, to define marriage as one man one woman. What right does the judiciary have to overturn that? None.
Because, as you RWnuts are normally so quick to remind us, a constitutional republic protects the rights of minorities,
against that so-called 'mob rule' you people love to hate.
Well the possibility of "domestic partnerships" and the like was offered but gays refused with the usual whining about second class citizens etc etc.
So you own this debate.
First off, homosexuals have every right that anyone else in this country has.Thats completely wrong, of course."Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige"
Actually he urges ignorance and hate; ignorance of the law and hate toward gay Americans.
And the notion that this is solely a 'states' rights' issue is completely false, it's an issue solely about animus toward same-sex couples, where measures seeking to deny gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment are devoid of merit.
People voted, overwhelmingly in most cases, to define marriage as one man one woman. What right does the judiciary have to overturn that? None.
Because, as you RWnuts are normally so quick to remind us, a constitutional republic protects the rights of minorities,
against that so-called 'mob rule' you people love to hate.
Second, the most basic right is voting for self determination. That is what the Left and the gay lobby want to strip us of.
Well the possibility of "domestic partnerships" and the like was offered but gays refused with the usual whining about second class citizens etc etc.Homosexual couples, if they make the commitment to each other, should have every right to act and enjoy the "benefits" equal to married heterosexual couples. To name a few: hospital visits, inheritance and other marriage benefits including health insurance etc. It is just baffling why do they want to call their commitment to each other "marriage?" Why don't they call it "life partner" or similar expression related to their lifelong commitment to each other? Changing the meaning of the word "marriage" just shows arrogance and an "in your face" attitude.People voted, overwhelmingly in most cases, to define marriage as one man one woman. What right does the judiciary have to overturn that? None.
Because the civil license issued in all 50 states is called a marriage license. If you don't like us getting a marriage license, you should have called it something else. Feel free to change it, but the onus is not on gays to do so.
So you own this debate.
Look, I do not give a rat's ass what instrument you want to play in the great orchestra of humanity. If you want to play the flute that's your choice. You are assuming that I am in favor of the issuance of marriage licenses by the state. It is just another way to take one's money as fee what in reality is just another form of tax. Now, I assume, homosexuals wanted to call their union "marriage" from the get go. Otherwise, they would have lobbied to call their contract of lifelong commitment something else descriptive of it such as "civil union" or "life partner" or whatever is best fit.Homosexual couples, if they make the commitment to each other, should have every right to act and enjoy the "benefits" equal to married heterosexual couples. To name a few: hospital visits, inheritance and other marriage benefits including health insurance etc. It is just baffling why do they want to call their commitment to each other "marriage?" Why don't they call it "life partner" or similar expression related to their lifelong commitment to each other? Changing the meaning of the word "marriage" just shows arrogance and an "in your face" attitude.People voted, overwhelmingly in most cases, to define marriage as one man one woman. What right does the judiciary have to overturn that? None.
Because the civil license issued in all 50 states is called a marriage license. If you don't like us getting a marriage license, you should have called it something else. Feel free to change it, but the onus is not on gays to do so.
Look, I do not give a rat's ass what instrument you want to play in the great orchestra of humanity. If you want to play the flute that's your choice. You are assuming that I am in favor of the issuance of marriage licenses by the state. It is just another way to take one's money as fee what in reality is just another form of tax. Now, I assume, homosexuals wanted to call their union "marriage" from the get go. Otherwise, they would have lobbied to call their contract of lifelong commitment something else descriptive of it such as "civil union" or "life partner" or whatever is best fit.Homosexual couples, if they make the commitment to each other, should have every right to act and enjoy the "benefits" equal to married heterosexual couples. To name a few: hospital visits, inheritance and other marriage benefits including health insurance etc. It is just baffling why do they want to call their commitment to each other "marriage?" Why don't they call it "life partner" or similar expression related to their lifelong commitment to each other? Changing the meaning of the word "marriage" just shows arrogance and an "in your face" attitude.People voted, overwhelmingly in most cases, to define marriage as one man one woman. What right does the judiciary have to overturn that? None.
Because the civil license issued in all 50 states is called a marriage license. If you don't like us getting a marriage license, you should have called it something else. Feel free to change it, but the onus is not on gays to do so.
I have never had any issue with that. I sincerely believe you "should not have" BUT YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT to all the benefits and burdens of heterosexual couples who are contracting lifelong partnerships. I stand up in support to ensure those RIGHTS ARE NOT DENIED but realized in your lives.Look, I do not give a rat's ass what instrument you want to play in the great orchestra of humanity. If you want to play the flute that's your choice. You are assuming that I am in favor of the issuance of marriage licenses by the state. It is just another way to take one's money as fee what in reality is just another form of tax. Now, I assume, homosexuals wanted to call their union "marriage" from the get go. Otherwise, they would have lobbied to call their contract of lifelong commitment something else descriptive of it such as "civil union" or "life partner" or whatever is best fit.Homosexual couples, if they make the commitment to each other, should have every right to act and enjoy the "benefits" equal to married heterosexual couples. To name a few: hospital visits, inheritance and other marriage benefits including health insurance etc. It is just baffling why do they want to call their commitment to each other "marriage?" Why don't they call it "life partner" or similar expression related to their lifelong commitment to each other? Changing the meaning of the word "marriage" just shows arrogance and an "in your face" attitude.People voted, overwhelmingly in most cases, to define marriage as one man one woman. What right does the judiciary have to overturn that? None.
Because the civil license issued in all 50 states is called a marriage license. If you don't like us getting a marriage license, you should have called it something else. Feel free to change it, but the onus is not on gays to do so.
Gays and lesbians want equal access and protections, that's all. You set up this system and we want the same thing ya'll get. Change the name, take away the cash and prizes...whatever. We'll still want the same exact thing you get.
Gays and lesbians want equal access and protections, that's all. You set up this system and we want the same thing ya'll get. Change the name, take away the cash and prizes...whatever. We'll still want the same exact thing you get.
In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.
The UK periodical's summation of that study: Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail OnlineYoung people without a role model of the same gender in their lives
Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..
The states have a vested interest in incentivizing the best formative environment for kids to keep the welfare, prison and mental ward numbers down..Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.
Gays and lesbians want equal access and protections, that's all. You set up this system and we want the same thing ya'll get. Change the name, take away the cash and prizes...whatever. We'll still want the same exact thing you get.
Children, who cannot vote, want a father and a mother in their life. In the civil rights game, you know who trumps who. It's the ones who cannot vote to change their own destiny. That is who the Court will give weight to.
FROM THE PRINCE'S TRUST STUDY: http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf
Page 8 (the left side on the green background)
In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.
Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)
The UK periodical's summation of that study: Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail OnlineYoung people without a role model of the same gender in their lives
Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..
The states have a vested interest in incentivizing the best formative environment for kids to keep the welfare, prison and mental ward numbers down..Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.
If they vote to overturn the overwhelming will of the people they will have stripped away the most basic right of all--the right of self government. Libs are OK with that because at base they are fascists.No bet Rabbi? I say my marriage will be valid in all 50 states when the SCOTUS rules in June. Any takers?
Oh it will. Public momentum is on the side for Gay Marriage. The Supreme Court doesn't take away people's rights. They know they will be on the wrong side of history if they don't rule that Gay Marriage is a protected right.
Thats completely wrong, of course."Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige"
Actually he urges ignorance and hate; ignorance of the law and hate toward gay Americans.
And the notion that this is solely a 'states' rights' issue is completely false, it's an issue solely about animus toward same-sex couples, where measures seeking to deny gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment are devoid of merit.
People voted, overwhelmingly in most cases, to define marriage as one man one woman. What right does the judiciary have to overturn that? None.
The states have a vested interest in incentivizing the best formative environment for kids to keep the welfare, prison and mental ward numbers down..
Wow....since our prison population has done nothing but grow, clearly the states are doing a piss poor job of that.
That has nothing to do with gay marriage of course- because preventing gay marriage doesn't prevent children from being raised by homosexuals- it just ensures that their children will not have married parents.
Homosexual couples, if they make the commitment to each other, should have every right to act and enjoy the "benefits" equal to married heterosexual couples. To name a few: hospital visits, inheritance and other marriage benefits including health insurance etc. It is just baffling why do they want to call their commitment to each other "marriage?" Why don't they call it "life partner" or similar expression related to their lifelong commitment to each other? Changing the meaning of the word "marriage" just shows arrogance and an "in your face" attitude.People voted, overwhelmingly in most cases, to define marriage as one man one woman. What right does the judiciary have to overturn that? None.
No, they're not. That would be an extra right. Currently no one can marry someone of the same sex.First off, homosexuals have every right that anyone else in this country has.Thats completely wrong, of course."Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige"
Actually he urges ignorance and hate; ignorance of the law and hate toward gay Americans.
And the notion that this is solely a 'states' rights' issue is completely false, it's an issue solely about animus toward same-sex couples, where measures seeking to deny gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment are devoid of merit.
People voted, overwhelmingly in most cases, to define marriage as one man one woman. What right does the judiciary have to overturn that? None.
Because, as you RWnuts are normally so quick to remind us, a constitutional republic protects the rights of minorities,
against that so-called 'mob rule' you people love to hate.
Second, the most basic right is voting for self determination. That is what the Left and the gay lobby want to strip us of.
No homosexuals do not have the same rights. They are entitled to the right to marry according to their sexual orientation.
No they want to pretend men are women and vice versa and build on those fantasies. They currently have the same protections anyone else does.Look, I do not give a rat's ass what instrument you want to play in the great orchestra of humanity. If you want to play the flute that's your choice. You are assuming that I am in favor of the issuance of marriage licenses by the state. It is just another way to take one's money as fee what in reality is just another form of tax. Now, I assume, homosexuals wanted to call their union "marriage" from the get go. Otherwise, they would have lobbied to call their contract of lifelong commitment something else descriptive of it such as "civil union" or "life partner" or whatever is best fit.Homosexual couples, if they make the commitment to each other, should have every right to act and enjoy the "benefits" equal to married heterosexual couples. To name a few: hospital visits, inheritance and other marriage benefits including health insurance etc. It is just baffling why do they want to call their commitment to each other "marriage?" Why don't they call it "life partner" or similar expression related to their lifelong commitment to each other? Changing the meaning of the word "marriage" just shows arrogance and an "in your face" attitude.People voted, overwhelmingly in most cases, to define marriage as one man one woman. What right does the judiciary have to overturn that? None.
Because the civil license issued in all 50 states is called a marriage license. If you don't like us getting a marriage license, you should have called it something else. Feel free to change it, but the onus is not on gays to do so.
Gays and lesbians want equal access and protections, that's all. You set up this system and we want the same thing ya'll get. Change the name, take away the cash and prizes...whatever. We'll still want the same exact thing you get.
Well the possibility of "domestic partnerships" and the like was offered but gays refused with the usual whining about second class citizens etc etc.Homosexual couples, if they make the commitment to each other, should have every right to act and enjoy the "benefits" equal to married heterosexual couples. To name a few: hospital visits, inheritance and other marriage benefits including health insurance etc. It is just baffling why do they want to call their commitment to each other "marriage?" Why don't they call it "life partner" or similar expression related to their lifelong commitment to each other? Changing the meaning of the word "marriage" just shows arrogance and an "in your face" attitude.People voted, overwhelmingly in most cases, to define marriage as one man one woman. What right does the judiciary have to overturn that? None.
Because the civil license issued in all 50 states is called a marriage license. If you don't like us getting a marriage license, you should have called it something else. Feel free to change it, but the onus is not on gays to do so.
So you own this debate.
No they want to pretend men are women and vice versa and build on those fantasies. They currently have the same protections anyone else does.Look, I do not give a rat's ass what instrument you want to play in the great orchestra of humanity. If you want to play the flute that's your choice. You are assuming that I am in favor of the issuance of marriage licenses by the state. It is just another way to take one's money as fee what in reality is just another form of tax. Now, I assume, homosexuals wanted to call their union "marriage" from the get go. Otherwise, they would have lobbied to call their contract of lifelong commitment something else descriptive of it such as "civil union" or "life partner" or whatever is best fit.Homosexual couples, if they make the commitment to each other, should have every right to act and enjoy the "benefits" equal to married heterosexual couples. To name a few: hospital visits, inheritance and other marriage benefits including health insurance etc. It is just baffling why do they want to call their commitment to each other "marriage?" Why don't they call it "life partner" or similar expression related to their lifelong commitment to each other? Changing the meaning of the word "marriage" just shows arrogance and an "in your face" attitude.People voted, overwhelmingly in most cases, to define marriage as one man one woman. What right does the judiciary have to overturn that? None.
Because the civil license issued in all 50 states is called a marriage license. If you don't like us getting a marriage license, you should have called it something else. Feel free to change it, but the onus is not on gays to do so.
Gays and lesbians want equal access and protections, that's all. You set up this system and we want the same thing ya'll get. Change the name, take away the cash and prizes...whatever. We'll still want the same exact thing you get.
