Louisiana Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

[Redfish]

being opposed to calling a gay union a marriage is not being anti-gay. Many gays share that belief and are perfectly comfortable with civil unions and mutual support contracts.

Those unions should have the exact same rights and benefits as man/woman marriages.

But, at the risk to being repetitive, equality is not what the gay agenda is about.

However you said that if the majority were in favor of gay marriage you would be too.

The question is what difference does it make to you whether a gay person can marry?

Yes, if the people of a state vote to allow gay marriage, I will accept that as the will of the people. If the people vote not to allow it, will you and wytch accept that as the will of the people?

it has to be a two way street, or its no street at all.

As to why it matters to me. I am concerned with the future of our society. I personally believe that gay marriage is bad for society and will lead to all other forms of perverted "marriage"

Thats what I believe------------and no matter what you or anyone else says, I have the right to believe that. I respect your rights to believe whatever you want, why don't you respect mine?

 

[Redfish]

Redfish "Gay marriage does not represent a majority view. If it does sometime in the future, I will accept the will of the majority."


55% of people support Gay Marriage according to Gallup Poll. 59% of registered voted according to Washington Post/ABC News Poll.

how many of the 330,000,000 americans were polled in that one? 1000? 800?

"pay me to do a poll and I will get you any result that you want" James Carville.

 

[Redfish]

Do any of the anti gay folks really think that marriage equality isn't an eventuality? Do you really think you're going to win in court or public opinion?

deep down I'd say no. but on the surface they talk a good game.

Where have the anti gay folks "talked a good game"? Many of their arguments are openly laughed at in court. Where's this "A" game you're seeing?

being opposed to calling a gay union a marriage is not being anti-gay. Many gays share that belief and are perfectly comfortable with civil unions and mutual support contracts.

Those unions should have the exact same rights and benefits as man/woman marriages.

But, at the risk to being repetitive, equality is not what the gay agenda is about.

So you believe, "Those unions should have the exact same rights and benefits as man/woman marriages". If that's the case, then this argument is about semantics.

It always has been about semantics. The gay agenda insists on the word "marriage" because they believe that calling a gay union a marriage forces societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition and the all kids can just choose which way they want to go.

This has never been about equality with them. Anyone paying attention knows that.

 

[Redfish]

Redfish "Gay marriage does not represent a majority view. If it does sometime in the future, I will accept the will of the majority."


55% of people support Gay Marriage according to Gallup Poll. 59% of registered voted according to Washington Post/ABC News Poll.

I should have said that when a majority of americans vote to accept it, I will accept that as the will of the people. We do not decide these things by polls.

 

[rightwinger]

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 3

the senate was not in recess when it did it. thats why SCOTUS ruled against him

the pres is not perfect..

first thing you have said that makes sense.

ALL OF WHAT i say makes sense.
it's not the left or the democrats who expect him to be perfect it's the right that does...
besides it's the repubs that vowed to block and hinder him in every way possible.
that's about as un american as it gets.

Did the dems work with Bush? This partisan shit started with Clinton. Reagan and O'Neill knew how to work together and get things done. No one since has, although clinton and newt came close.

Why do you continue with the same lies?

Yes the Dems worked with Bush

After 9-11 he got whatever legislation he wanted. He played the 9-11 card for all it was worth. During the economic collapse, Bush got TARP and stimulus out of the Dems. When Obama asked for the same urgent aid, 100% of Republicans voted him down

 

[Flopper]

Redfish "Gay marriage does not represent a majority view. If it does sometime in the future, I will accept the will of the majority."


55% of people support Gay Marriage according to Gallup Poll. 59% of registered voted according to Washington Post/ABC News Poll.

how many of the 330,000,000 americans were polled in that one? 1000? 800?

"pay me to do a poll and I will get you any result that you want" James Carville.

Gallop polls are one of the most accurate polls because the way in which polling is done. Gallop uses random dialing of both land-line and cell phones. The size of the sample is usually about 1,000, however the number of calls placed can be a lot greater because the sample must represent the targeted audience. The sample is then tested by varying the sample size to determine the margin of error. Then, the results are adjusted to compensate for variances in demographics between the sample and the target audience. Finally, the poll is compared to other statistical poll as a reasonableness test.

No poll is perfect but Gallop uses tested and accepted polling methods which have proved to be reliable. The most accurate polls are those that are repeated over and over such as the Gallop's gay marriage polls because samples never contain the same respondents.

The least reliable polls are those that do not use statistical methods to assure an accurate cross section such as call-in polls, street polls, and internet polls

 

[Flopper]

Do any of the anti gay folks really think that marriage equality isn't an eventuality? Do you really think you're going to win in court or public opinion?

deep down I'd say no. but on the surface they talk a good game.

Where have the anti gay folks "talked a good game"? Many of their arguments are openly laughed at in court. Where's this "A" game you're seeing?

being opposed to calling a gay union a marriage is not being anti-gay. Many gays share that belief and are perfectly comfortable with civil unions and mutual support contracts.

Those unions should have the exact same rights and benefits as man/woman marriages.

But, at the risk to being repetitive, equality is not what the gay agenda is about.

So you believe, "Those unions should have the exact same rights and benefits as man/woman marriages". If that's the case, then this argument is about semantics.

It always has been about semantics. The gay agenda insists on the word "marriage" because they believe that calling a gay union a marriage forces societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition and the all kids can just choose which way they want to go.

This has never been about equality with them. Anyone paying attention knows that.

Since we both agree civil unions should have the exact same rights and benefits as man/woman marriage and the argument has always been about semantics, then why don't we just change the wording in law from "marriage" to "civil union" in all state and federal law? Marriage would mean a religious contract. Civil unions would be the legal contract.

Marriage under man's law and marriage under God's law have always been different so why use the same terminology for both?
.

 

[dcraelin]

Redfish "Gay marriage does not represent a majority view. If it does sometime in the future, I will accept the will of the majority."
55% of people support Gay Marriage according to Gallup Poll. 59% of registered voted according to Washington Post/ABC News Poll.

We all know how manipulated polls can be......the California prop 8 vote is the latest true poll demonstrating where the nation is on the issue.

Using that reasoning (i.e. the last General Election Ballot results are the last "true poll") - it passed on the ballot in Maine, Washington, and Maryland and adding a discriminatory amendment failed in Minnesota.
Oh ya, that was 4 States in 2012 - 4 years after Prop 8.
>>>>

I am not familiar with those votes....but probably all together they did not have the population count of the California vote......nor did they likely have the turnout percentage.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

deep down I'd say no. but on the surface they talk a good game.

Where have the anti gay folks "talked a good game"? Many of their arguments are openly laughed at in court. Where's this "A" game you're seeing?

being opposed to calling a gay union a marriage is not being anti-gay. Many gays share that belief and are perfectly comfortable with civil unions and mutual support contracts.

Those unions should have the exact same rights and benefits as man/woman marriages.

But, at the risk to being repetitive, equality is not what the gay agenda is about.

So you believe, "Those unions should have the exact same rights and benefits as man/woman marriages". If that's the case, then this argument is about semantics.

It always has been about semantics. The gay agenda insists on the word "marriage" because they believe that calling a gay union a marriage forces societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition and the all kids can just choose which way they want to go.

This has never been about equality with them. Anyone paying attention knows that.

Since we both agree civil unions should have the exact same rights and benefits as man/woman marriage and the argument has always been about semantics, then why don't we just change the wording in law from "marriage" to "civil union" in all state and federal law? Marriage would mean a religious contract. Civil unions would be the legal contract.

Marriage under man's law and marriage under God's law have always been different so why use the same terminology for both?
.

Because it's not about semantics.

Marriage co-exists as both legal and religious, perceived as co-equal by society, and afforded the same societal deference.

Whether married by a member of the clergy or a representative of the state is irrelevant, both are equal gateways to the legal entity that is marriage contract law, where to seek to designate the latter as something other than marriage is just as repugnant to the Constitution.

There is only one marriage law, where two equal, consenting, and adult partners enter into a contract of commitment recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

 

[Flopper]

Where have the anti gay folks "talked a good game"? Many of their arguments are openly laughed at in court. Where's this "A" game you're seeing?

being opposed to calling a gay union a marriage is not being anti-gay. Many gays share that belief and are perfectly comfortable with civil unions and mutual support contracts.

Those unions should have the exact same rights and benefits as man/woman marriages.

But, at the risk to being repetitive, equality is not what the gay agenda is about.

So you believe, "Those unions should have the exact same rights and benefits as man/woman marriages". If that's the case, then this argument is about semantics.

It always has been about semantics. The gay agenda insists on the word "marriage" because they believe that calling a gay union a marriage forces societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition and the all kids can just choose which way they want to go.

This has never been about equality with them. Anyone paying attention knows that.

Since we both agree civil unions should have the exact same rights and benefits as man/woman marriage and the argument has always been about semantics, then why don't we just change the wording in law from "marriage" to "civil union" in all state and federal law? Marriage would mean a religious contract. Civil unions would be the legal contract.

Marriage under man's law and marriage under God's law have always been different so why use the same terminology for both?
.

Because it's not about semantics.

Marriage co-exists as both legal and religious, perceived as co-equal by society, and afforded the same societal deference.

Whether married by a member of the clergy or a representative of the state is irrelevant, both are equal gateways to the legal entity that is marriage contract law, where to seek to designate the latter as something other than marriage is just as repugnant to the Constitution.

There is only one marriage law, where two equal, consenting, and adult partners enter into a contract of commitment recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

I understand your point but a marriage in the church is essential a religious contract based on religious doctrine, love, commitment, profession of faith, rituals, etc. Depending on the church, if you are married in the church, you're married in eyes of God with or without a marriage licence. A civil marriage is simply a legal contract with of course no requirement for a religious marriage.

We have traditionally used the same term to refer to both civil and religious marriages even thou they have different requirements, responsibilities, and rights. They are certainly not the same so why should use the same term when referring to them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Redfish "Gay marriage does not represent a majority view. If it does sometime in the future, I will accept the will of the majority."
55% of people support Gay Marriage according to Gallup Poll. 59% of registered voted according to Washington Post/ABC News Poll.

We all know how manipulated polls can be......the California prop 8 vote is the latest true poll demonstrating where the nation is on the issue.

Using that reasoning (i.e. the last General Election Ballot results are the last "true poll") - it passed on the ballot in Maine, Washington, and Maryland and adding a discriminatory amendment failed in Minnesota.
Oh ya, that was 4 States in 2012 - 4 years after Prop 8.
>>>>

I am not familiar with those votes....but probably all together they did not have the population count of the California vote......nor did they likely have the turnout percentage.

7 million voted against proposition 8, 6.4 million voted for. Voter turn out was 80%. So 7 of 17 million voted it down.

Maine had 370,000 to 334,000 in favor.

Washington 1.6 million to 1.4 in favor

Maryland 1.3 million to 1.2 million.

So yes, three states had less voters than California, and the combined result would be less, however these happened later, and potentially California would vote differently in the present day.

But then, Bush won the election without the majority of votes, or even more votes than Gore. So..... It happens.
Polls put California much higher than they did back in 2008.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Redfish "Gay marriage does not represent a majority view. If it does sometime in the future, I will accept the will of the majority."


55% of people support Gay Marriage according to Gallup Poll. 59% of registered voted according to Washington Post/ABC News Poll.

how many of the 330,000,000 americans were polled in that one? 1000? 800?

"pay me to do a poll and I will get you any result that you want" James Carville.

Polls usually take a sample of society, and they've got it down to an art form. With the Scottish referendum which ended 55%-45%

Opinion polling for the Scottish independence referendum 2014 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You have 50-45, 48-43, 49-45, 50-45, 47-49

This is all with a percentage of uncertain voters. So, generally they got it quite close.

It's never going to be exact, it can't be, but it can be very close.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Redfish "Gay marriage does not represent a majority view. If it does sometime in the future, I will accept the will of the majority."


55% of people support Gay Marriage according to Gallup Poll. 59% of registered voted according to Washington Post/ABC News Poll.

I should have said that when a majority of americans vote to accept it, I will accept that as the will of the people. We do not decide these things by polls.

But you didn't say that, you're only changing it now because you've seen it doesn't fit your views. You're trying to sound as accepting as possible without having to accept.

Did you not support Bush's presidency then?

 

[frigidweirdo]

It always has been about semantics. The gay agenda insists on the word "marriage" because they believe that calling a gay union a marriage forces societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition and the all kids can just choose which way they want to go.

This has never been about equality with them. Anyone paying attention knows that.

Really? Or maybe they just want to be equal and don't want to be treated like second class citizens in a country which has a Bill or Rights preventing this.

Kids don't choose. Kids either are or aren't. I've see people before and after coming out, and everyone knew BEFORE that they were gay, but they chose not to acknowledge it, even to the point of pretending they were doing girls.

 

[Seawytch]

Do any of the anti gay folks really think that marriage equality isn't an eventuality? Do you really think you're going to win in court or public opinion?

deep down I'd say no. but on the surface they talk a good game.

Where have the anti gay folks "talked a good game"? Many of their arguments are openly laughed at in court. Where's this "A" game you're seeing?

being opposed to calling a gay union a marriage is not being anti-gay. Many gays share that belief and are perfectly comfortable with civil unions and mutual support contracts.

Those unions should have the exact same rights and benefits as man/woman marriages.

But, at the risk to being repetitive, equality is not what the gay agenda is about.

So you believe, "Those unions should have the exact same rights and benefits as man/woman marriages". If that's the case, then this argument is about semantics.

It always has been about semantics. The gay agenda insists on the word "marriage" because they believe that calling a gay union a marriage forces societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition and the all kids can just choose which way they want to go.

This has never been about equality with them. Anyone paying attention knows that.

Fishy, why do you insist on lying thread after thread? You've been busted on this more times than anyone can count. YOU are the one that cares about what it is called. YOU are the one that doesn't want gays to be on equal footing with you. We don't give a fig what it is called as long as it is equal. Stop lying.

 

[Seawytch]

Redfish "Gay marriage does not represent a majority view. If it does sometime in the future, I will accept the will of the majority."
55% of people support Gay Marriage according to Gallup Poll. 59% of registered voted according to Washington Post/ABC News Poll.

We all know how manipulated polls can be......the California prop 8 vote is the latest true poll demonstrating where the nation is on the issue.

Using that reasoning (i.e. the last General Election Ballot results are the last "true poll") - it passed on the ballot in Maine, Washington, and Maryland and adding a discriminatory amendment failed in Minnesota.
Oh ya, that was 4 States in 2012 - 4 years after Prop 8.
>>>>

I am not familiar with those votes....but probably all together they did not have the population count of the California vote......nor did they likely have the turnout percentage.

Prop 8 would not pass in California today. Polls show Californians strongly support marriage equality. That's probably one of the reasons we aren't supposed to vote on someone else's civil rights.

Imagine if we had been allowed to vote on interracial marriage. The SCOTUS ruled on Loving in 1967...

 

[frigidweirdo]

Redfish "Gay marriage does not represent a majority view. If it does sometime in the future, I will accept the will of the majority."
55% of people support Gay Marriage according to Gallup Poll. 59% of registered voted according to Washington Post/ABC News Poll.

We all know how manipulated polls can be......the California prop 8 vote is the latest true poll demonstrating where the nation is on the issue.

Using that reasoning (i.e. the last General Election Ballot results are the last "true poll") - it passed on the ballot in Maine, Washington, and Maryland and adding a discriminatory amendment failed in Minnesota.
Oh ya, that was 4 States in 2012 - 4 years after Prop 8.
>>>>

I am not familiar with those votes....but probably all together they did not have the population count of the California vote......nor did they likely have the turnout percentage.

Prop 8 would not pass in California today. Polls show Californians strongly support marriage equality. That's probably one of the reasons we aren't supposed to vote on someone else's civil rights.

Imagine if we had been allowed to vote on interracial marriage. The SCOTUS ruled on Loving in 1967...

It is worrying when a lot of people don't have much concept of what rights are and what they do and how they should be.

Everyone worries about their own rights, the ones they want, and anyone else can, well.......

 

[dcraelin]

Redfish "Gay marriage does not represent a majority view. If it does sometime in the future, I will accept the will of the majority."
55% of people support Gay Marriage according to Gallup Poll. 59% of registered voted according to Washington Post/ABC News Poll.

We all know how manipulated polls can be......the California prop 8 vote is the latest true poll demonstrating where the nation is on the issue.

Using that reasoning (i.e. the last General Election Ballot results are the last "true poll") - it passed on the ballot in Maine, Washington, and Maryland and adding a discriminatory amendment failed in Minnesota.
Oh ya, that was 4 States in 2012 - 4 years after Prop 8.
>>>>

I am not familiar with those votes....but probably all together they did not have the population count of the California vote......nor did they likely have the turnout percentage.

7 million voted against proposition 8, 6.4 million voted for. Voter turn out was 80%. So 7 of 17 million voted it down.

Maine had 370,000 to 334,000 in favor.

Washington 1.6 million to 1.4 in favor

Maryland 1.3 million to 1.2 million.

So yes, three states had less voters than California, and the combined result would be less, however these happened later, and potentially California would vote differently in the present day.

But then, Bush won the election without the majority of votes, or even more votes than Gore. So..... It happens.
Polls put California much higher than they did back in 2008.

Well you may have just mistyped the top part ...prop 8 passed,...... so the 7 million was for it..... I take it. The pro gay marriage side is
using the sympathy factor very effectively...but I think once people examine the issue closer they will/would reject gay marriage tho they might be in favor of most aspects of civil unions.

 

[dcraelin]

Redfish "Gay marriage does not represent a majority view. If it does sometime in the future, I will accept the will of the majority."
55% of people support Gay Marriage according to Gallup Poll. 59% of registered voted according to Washington Post/ABC News Poll.

We all know how manipulated polls can be......the California prop 8 vote is the latest true poll demonstrating where the nation is on the issue.

Using that reasoning (i.e. the last General Election Ballot results are the last "true poll") - it passed on the ballot in Maine, Washington, and Maryland and adding a discriminatory amendment failed in Minnesota.
Oh ya, that was 4 States in 2012 - 4 years after Prop 8.
>>>>

I am not familiar with those votes....but probably all together they did not have the population count of the California vote......nor did they likely have the turnout percentage.

Prop 8 would not pass in California today. Polls show Californians strongly support marriage equality. That's probably one of the reasons we aren't supposed to vote on someone else's civil rights.

Imagine if we had been allowed to vote on interracial marriage. The SCOTUS ruled on Loving in 1967...

As I've said numerous times before, The issue of interracial marriage was in effect decided by the large majority opinnon expressed in the 13th and 15th amendments.

 

[dcraelin]

It is worrying when a lot of people don't have much concept of what rights are and what they do and how they should be.

Everyone worries about their own rights, the ones they want, and anyone else can, well.......

I agree with Jefferson, the only sure guardian of the rights of man is the will of the majority........History has shown reliance on the wisdom of courts is foolish.