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.
History, precedent, the fact that one is only a cosmetic difference between partners and the other is a biological difference.
If people want to allow it via legislative action or referendum I am all for it, but the courts have no play in this game.
it's amazing how easily people support tyranny when it gets them what they want.
You are a fascist tool.
Guy, you have no problem with laws when they protect your rights and privileges, you just don't like it when those people get the same treatment.
If Mr. Wifebeater doesn't want to deal with the icky gays... he has a remedy. Don't be in a business where you might encounter an icky gay person.
For loving it was the right move, but SSM was something not even considered 30 years ago. It's a NEW concept, not a modification of an old established one.
History, precedent, the fact that one is only a cosmetic difference between partners and the other is a biological difference.
Okay, except through most of "history" and "precedent", women were considered property of a marriage, and black folks were property of white folks. So that really doesn't get you anywhere.
If people want to allow it via legislative action or referendum I am all for it, but the courts have no play in this game.
That happens to be your opinion. It's also wrong. The COurts have a function of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
As usual, Mary, you don't know about what you are talking. Equal protection and due process are involved in this issue.
Marty simply rejects the authority of Article III.and changes were made to that via legislation and changing views. We also had to have a civil fucking war to get over the blacks as property thing. The courts enforce the constitution, not whatever they feel is just.History, precedent, the fact that one is only a cosmetic difference between partners and the other is a biological difference.
Okay, except through most of "history" and "precedent", women were considered property of a marriage, and black folks were property of white folks. So that really doesn't get you anywhere.
If people want to allow it via legislative action or referendum I am all for it, but the courts have no play in this game.
That happens to be your opinion. It's also wrong. The COurts have a function of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
For loving it was the right move, but SSM was something not even considered 30 years ago. It's a NEW concept, not a modification of an old established one.
Except there wasn't a pre-loving scenario where black men were banging white women. In fact, it was usually a good way to get yourself a necktie party.
So, no, it's really exactly the same thing.
Marty simply rejects the authority of Article III.and changes were made to that via legislation and changing views. We also had to have a civil fucking war to get over the blacks as property thing. The courts enforce the constitution, not whatever they feel is just.History, precedent, the fact that one is only a cosmetic difference between partners and the other is a biological difference.
Okay, except through most of "history" and "precedent", women were considered property of a marriage, and black folks were property of white folks. So that really doesn't get you anywhere.
If people want to allow it via legislative action or referendum I am all for it, but the courts have no play in this game.
That happens to be your opinion. It's also wrong. The COurts have a function of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Being cheated implies paying for something and not receiving what you paid for.
If I took time off of my day to go down to your shop after you promised me that you would provide a service, only to have your homophobic husband scream Bible Verses at my mother, that's pretty much cheating me.
Race is an immutable characteristic. Sexual orientation is a behavior. We have all kinds of limitations on behavior.
The courts have said differently .Sexual orientation is also an immutable characteristic. Your uninformed opinion means nothing
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Another horseshit red herring to avoid an intelligent discussion of topic which is legal rights of gay couple and efforts to take away their rights. First it was privatizing marriage, then it was single rights, and now this.What about the bi-sexuals? Why should a bi man be able to marry a woman and a man. Never saw a good argument against it. The slippery slope has been set by tyrannical authoritarians of the court so it makes no sense to pretend marriage is meaningful to the state. It is whatever an activist group says it is. Time to step out.
That is rejecting the authority of Article III, Marty.Marty simply rejects the authority of Article III.and changes were made to that via legislation and changing views. We also had to have a civil fucking war to get over the blacks as property thing. The courts enforce the constitution, not whatever they feel is just.History, precedent, the fact that one is only a cosmetic difference between partners and the other is a biological difference.
Okay, except through most of "history" and "precedent", women were considered property of a marriage, and black folks were property of white folks. So that really doesn't get you anywhere.
If people want to allow it via legislative action or referendum I am all for it, but the courts have no play in this game.
That happens to be your opinion. It's also wrong. The COurts have a function of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Nope. I just think the Courts have overstepped their bounds.
Wipe the foam off your lips and calm down. Single rights? You can't follow the discussion. I said all marriage should be privatized and you only see gays. We shouldn't need to petition a court to decide for us, that's the whole goddamn point. You've provide NO argument against anything I've said, just defensive knee jerk reactions.Another horseshit red herring to avoid an intelligent discussion of topic which is legal rights of gay couple and efforts to take away their rights. First it was privatizing marriage, then it was single rights, and now this.What about the bi-sexuals? Why should a bi man be able to marry a woman and a man. Never saw a good argument against it. The slippery slope has been set by tyrannical authoritarians of the court so it makes no sense to pretend marriage is meaningful to the state. It is whatever an activist group says it is. Time to step out.
If anyone wants to marry more than one person, or a flock of sheep for that matter, they are free to petition the courts or purse legislation and try to make a case for it just as gays did for marriage. But it's a separate issue with different legal and social implications
Read Justice Kennedy's majority opinion . Then maybe you can write your own dissent calling on your vast legal knowlgeMarty simply rejects the authority of Article III.and changes were made to that via legislation and changing views. We also had to have a civil fucking war to get over the blacks as property thing. The courts enforce the constitution, not whatever they feel is just.History, precedent, the fact that one is only a cosmetic difference between partners and the other is a biological difference.
Okay, except through most of "history" and "precedent", women were considered property of a marriage, and black folks were property of white folks. So that really doesn't get you anywhere.
If people want to allow it via legislative action or referendum I am all for it, but the courts have no play in this game.
That happens to be your opinion. It's also wrong. The COurts have a function of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Nope. I just think the Courts have overstepped their bounds.
Wipe the foam off your lips and calm down. Single rights? You can't follow the discussion. I said all marriage should be privatized and you only see gays. We shouldn't need to petition a court to decide for us, that's the whole goddamn point. You've provide NO argument against anything I've said, just defensive knee jerk reactions.Another horseshit red herring to avoid an intelligent discussion of topic which is legal rights of gay couple and efforts to take away their rights. First it was privatizing marriage, then it was single rights, and now this.What about the bi-sexuals? Why should a bi man be able to marry a woman and a man. Never saw a good argument against it. The slippery slope has been set by tyrannical authoritarians of the court so it makes no sense to pretend marriage is meaningful to the state. It is whatever an activist group says it is. Time to step out.
If anyone wants to marry more than one person, or a flock of sheep for that matter, they are free to petition the courts or purse legislation and try to make a case for it just as gays did for marriage. But it's a separate issue with different legal and social implications
I enjoy upsetting you
You're playing with yourself. You don't have the intellect, you are dick with a keyboard. Nothing more.Wipe the foam off your lips and calm down. Single rights? You can't follow the discussion. I said all marriage should be privatized and you only see gays. We shouldn't need to petition a court to decide for us, that's the whole goddamn point. You've provide NO argument against anything I've said, just defensive knee jerk reactions.Another horseshit red herring to avoid an intelligent discussion of topic which is legal rights of gay couple and efforts to take away their rights. First it was privatizing marriage, then it was single rights, and now this.What about the bi-sexuals? Why should a bi man be able to marry a woman and a man. Never saw a good argument against it. The slippery slope has been set by tyrannical authoritarians of the court so it makes no sense to pretend marriage is meaningful to the state. It is whatever an activist group says it is. Time to step out.
If anyone wants to marry more than one person, or a flock of sheep for that matter, they are free to petition the courts or purse legislation and try to make a case for it just as gays did for marriage. But it's a separate issue with different legal and social implications
Being cheated implies paying for something and not receiving what you paid for.
If I took time off of my day to go down to your shop after you promised me that you would provide a service, only to have your homophobic husband scream Bible Verses at my mother, that's pretty much cheating me.
No, it's you being an idiot. You can call to see what services are offered ahead of time or email them. Ever heard of email?
So you call a head and when you get there, they don't like the way you look, or walk, or talk, and all of a sudden they don't have what you want even though you just saw someone leave with one. Now you are humiliated, and inconvenienced. And you think that's OK?Being cheated implies paying for something and not receiving what you paid for.
If I took time off of my day to go down to your shop after you promised me that you would provide a service, only to have your homophobic husband scream Bible Verses at my mother, that's pretty much cheating me.
No, it's you being an idiot. You can call to see what services are offered ahead of time or email them. Ever heard of email?
That is rejecting the authority of Article III, Marty.Marty simply rejects the authority of Article III.and changes were made to that via legislation and changing views. We also had to have a civil fucking war to get over the blacks as property thing. The courts enforce the constitution, not whatever they feel is just.History, precedent, the fact that one is only a cosmetic difference between partners and the other is a biological difference.
Okay, except through most of "history" and "precedent", women were considered property of a marriage, and black folks were property of white folks. So that really doesn't get you anywhere.
If people want to allow it via legislative action or referendum I am all for it, but the courts have no play in this game.
That happens to be your opinion. It's also wrong. The COurts have a function of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Nope. I just think the Courts have overstepped their bounds.
