Mississippi & Louisiana Join Refusal to Honor Same Sex "Marriage"

[Syriusly]

You love bigotry so much. It's creepy.

how does pointing out your lies make me a bigot? The black people who worked for me certainly would not call me a bigot, neither would the gays who worked for me or my gay relatives.

you know nothing about me. being opposed to calling a gay union a marriage does not make one a bigot.

There is no unbigoted reason to deny gays the right to marry, therefore it has to be bigotry.

only in your small mind.

Name ONE.

one what? small mind? I already named yours.


if you are talking about reasons to not call a gay union a marriage here are a few:

biology
anatomy
history
tradition
religion
precedent
reproduction

And none of those are 'reasons'- they are just failed arguments.

 

[Redfish]

the rulings last week by the SC do not follow the constitution. They decided those cases based on politics, not the law. They should all be impeached.

And since you have no fucking clue what the constitution states or what the hundreds of Supreme Court decisions addressing the 14th Amendment provide, your opinion is useless.

if it were just me, you might have a point. But its not. There are many constitutional scholars who have spoken up against these rulings.

But one more time, please quote the language from the 14th amendment where the words "gay marriage" are found.

No, there are not many who have. Those words do not appear there, you absolutely moronic fool. The words Liberty and Equal Protection of the Laws do. That you are too fucking stupid to understand the scope of those words is your burden.

do you think the authors of the constitution anticipated gay marriage when they wrote those words? of course not, thats why this argument has been shot down by many constitutional scholars on both sides of the aisle.

and if the insults continue, you will be reported.

The authors of the Constitution did not anticipate women voting, blacks voting, and all sorts of things when they wrote the Constitution.

Luckily the Constitution still covers everyone.

thats why they made provisions for constitutional amendments. Seriously, the best way to solve this forever would be to process and ratify a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage is defined at a union of two people, period.

 

[Seawytch]

No. We want laws that follow the constitution. That is the only side.

the rulings last week by the SC do not follow the constitution. They decided those cases based on politics, not the law. They should all be impeached.

And since you have no fucking clue what the constitution states or what the hundreds of Supreme Court decisions addressing the 14th Amendment provide, your opinion is useless.

if it were just me, you might have a point. But its not. There are many constitutional scholars who have spoken up against these rulings.

But one more time, please quote the language from the 14th amendment where the words "gay marriage" are found.

No, there are not many who have. Those words do not appear there, you absolutely moronic fool. The words Liberty and Equal Protection of the Laws do. That you are too fucking stupid to understand the scope of those words is your burden.

do you think the authors of the constitution anticipated gay marriage when they wrote those words? of course not, thats why this argument has been shot down by many constitutional scholars on both sides of the aisle.

and if the insults continue, you will be reported.

.

Are you so fricken stupid that you can't see what is wrong with that?

Are you reporting yourself?

 

[Syriusly]

And since you have no fucking clue what the constitution states or what the hundreds of Supreme Court decisions addressing the 14th Amendment provide, your opinion is useless.

if it were just me, you might have a point. But its not. There are many constitutional scholars who have spoken up against these rulings.

But one more time, please quote the language from the 14th amendment where the words "gay marriage" are found.

No, there are not many who have. Those words do not appear there, you absolutely moronic fool. The words Liberty and Equal Protection of the Laws do. That you are too fucking stupid to understand the scope of those words is your burden.

do you think the authors of the constitution anticipated gay marriage when they wrote those words? of course not, thats why this argument has been shot down by many constitutional scholars on both sides of the aisle.

and if the insults continue, you will be reported.

The authors of the Constitution did not anticipate women voting, blacks voting, and all sorts of things when they wrote the Constitution.

Luckily the Constitution still covers everyone.

thats why they made provisions for constitutional amendments. Seriously, the best way to solve this forever would be to process and ratify a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage is defined at a union of two people, period.

Or not.

Since the issue has been resolved to my satisfaction.

We didn't need a constitutional Amendment to overturn mixed race marriage bans- we don't need an amendment to overturn gay marriage bans.

 

[Redfish]

total horseshit. a baker can refuse to bake a rebel flag cake but he can't refuse to bake a gay wedding cake.

Are you so fricken stupid that you can't see what is wrong with that?

No person is forced to be involved in any wedding.

But, if you as a business, sell product or services for weddings, you are obligated to follow business laws- which do not care what religion you are.

Christians are not exempt from business laws- they have to follow them like everyone else

Speaking of stupid......

Redfish 4/29/15
I have made my last post on a gay thread. I hope many of you will follow suit. Let the court do its job and live with the rulings

bullshit, bakers and florists have been sued for refusing to participate in gay weddings. Are you living in a cave?

One Baker and One Florist who happen to live in one of the few states that actually ban discrimination against gays. You should be happy to know that in most of the Country gay people can be fired for being gay, evicted for being gay and denied services for being gay.

so can straight people be denied service --------- for no shirt, no shoes, or no reason at all. Its called freedom, something that seems a foreign concept to liberals of today

I look forward to the Conservative campaign to end the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and telling America that no one deserves protection against discrimination based upon their race, religion, national origin or gender.

Should help the Republicans in amazing ways.

first, no one has proposed or suggested something that stupid
second, the civil rights was passed by republicans while dems tried to fillibuster it.

 

[Redfish]

if it were just me, you might have a point. But its not. There are many constitutional scholars who have spoken up against these rulings.

But one more time, please quote the language from the 14th amendment where the words "gay marriage" are found.

No, there are not many who have. Those words do not appear there, you absolutely moronic fool. The words Liberty and Equal Protection of the Laws do. That you are too fucking stupid to understand the scope of those words is your burden.

do you think the authors of the constitution anticipated gay marriage when they wrote those words? of course not, thats why this argument has been shot down by many constitutional scholars on both sides of the aisle.

and if the insults continue, you will be reported.

The authors of the Constitution did not anticipate women voting, blacks voting, and all sorts of things when they wrote the Constitution.

Luckily the Constitution still covers everyone.

thats why they made provisions for constitutional amendments. Seriously, the best way to solve this forever would be to process and ratify a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage is defined at a union of two people, period.

Or not.

Since the issue has been resolved to my satisfaction.

We didn't need a constitutional Amendment to overturn mixed race marriage bans- we don't need an amendment to overturn gay marriage bans.

well then, get ready for all forms of multiple person marriage, the precedent is set, they will use the exact same arguments that you have successfully used.

 

[paddymurphy]

And since you have no fucking clue what the constitution states or what the hundreds of Supreme Court decisions addressing the 14th Amendment provide, your opinion is useless.

if it were just me, you might have a point. But its not. There are many constitutional scholars who have spoken up against these rulings.

But one more time, please quote the language from the 14th amendment where the words "gay marriage" are found.

No, there are not many who have. Those words do not appear there, you absolutely moronic fool. The words Liberty and Equal Protection of the Laws do. That you are too fucking stupid to understand the scope of those words is your burden.

do you think the authors of the constitution anticipated gay marriage when they wrote those words? of course not, thats why this argument has been shot down by many constitutional scholars on both sides of the aisle.

and if the insults continue, you will be reported.

The authors of the Constitution did not anticipate women voting, blacks voting, and all sorts of things when they wrote the Constitution.

Luckily the Constitution still covers everyone.

thats why they made provisions for constitutional amendments. Seriously, the best way to solve this forever would be to process and ratify a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage is defined at a union of two people, period.

No. The way to do it was to apply the 14th Amendment. That sure worked, didn't it?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The number of people who are against mixed raced marriage so much they would ban it via government action is tiny enough that we could call the matter "settled". Even if people don't like it, most of them don't want to do anything about it except sneer at it and maybe disown their kids if one of them ever enters into one.

For abortion, you have a sizable portion of our country that would LOVE to overturn Roe v. Wade (including ironically, Roe).

A guy walks up to the beautiful blonde and asks her- "Would you have sex with me for 1,000,000 dollars?"
She hesitates and thinks about it a moment and says- "well okay"
"Would you have sex with me for $20.00?"
The woman errupts with outrage- and screams "What do you take me for?"
The man answers- "We already established that, we are just haggling on the price now.

So your "settled" is just a matter of the arguable size of the minority opinion- which just coincidentally coincides with your opinion.

abortion and gay marriage are best handled by the states so you can move rather than have the majority viewpoint shoved down your throat. American is supposed to be about freedom, not mob rule.

How is either someone's abortion being shoved down your throat? Or someone's marriage?

How does some other State banning abortion or banning same sex marriage affect you if you don't live in that State?

How does a law letting businesses refuse to serve blacks affect you if you're not black?

where there are legitimate differences of opinion a free country does not have to find one opinion and force it down everyone's throat.

 

[Redfish]

total horseshit. a baker can refuse to bake a rebel flag cake but he can't refuse to bake a gay wedding cake.

Are you so fricken stupid that you can't see what is wrong with that?

No person is forced to be involved in any wedding.

But, if you as a business, sell product or services for weddings, you are obligated to follow business laws- which do not care what religion you are.

Christians are not exempt from business laws- they have to follow them like everyone else

Speaking of stupid......

Redfish 4/29/15
I have made my last post on a gay thread. I hope many of you will follow suit. Let the court do its job and live with the rulings

bullshit, bakers and florists have been sued for refusing to participate in gay weddings. Are you living in a cave?

One Baker and One Florist who happen to live in one of the few states that actually ban discrimination against gays. You should be happy to know that in most of the Country gay people can be fired for being gay, evicted for being gay and denied services for being gay.

so can straight people be denied service --------- for no shirt, no shoes, or no reason at all. Its called freedom, something that seems a foreign concept to liberals of today

They cannot be denied because of race; they cannot be denied because of religion; they cannot be denied because of ethnicity; they cannot be denied because of gender and in those few states with laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, a straight couple cannot be denied because they are gay. How is you wanting to deny gay people the ability to marry consistent with your love of freedom?

I have said many times that I want gay couples to have all of the rights and benefits of man/woman married couples.

civil unions would have solved the issue, but no, the gay agenda had to insist on the word 'marriage'.

face it, this is not about equal rights, its about using government mandates to force societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.

until you admit the true agenda, this will continue.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You love bigotry so much. It's creepy.

how does pointing out your lies make me a bigot? The black people who worked for me certainly would not call me a bigot, neither would the gays who worked for me or my gay relatives.

you know nothing about me. being opposed to calling a gay union a marriage does not make one a bigot.

There is no unbigoted reason to deny gays the right to marry, therefore it has to be bigotry.

only in your small mind.

Name ONE.

one what? small mind? I already named yours.


if you are talking about reasons to not call a gay union a marriage here are a few:

biology
anatomy
history
tradition
religion
precedent
reproduction

Not letting women vote was a tradition for a very long time.

Religion is irrelevant since we have a secular government.

There is no precedent that is meaningful.

Biology, anatomy, and reproduction are irrelevant.

 

[paddymurphy]

No, there are not many who have. Those words do not appear there, you absolutely moronic fool. The words Liberty and Equal Protection of the Laws do. That you are too fucking stupid to understand the scope of those words is your burden.

do you think the authors of the constitution anticipated gay marriage when they wrote those words? of course not, thats why this argument has been shot down by many constitutional scholars on both sides of the aisle.

and if the insults continue, you will be reported.

The authors of the Constitution did not anticipate women voting, blacks voting, and all sorts of things when they wrote the Constitution.

Luckily the Constitution still covers everyone.

thats why they made provisions for constitutional amendments. Seriously, the best way to solve this forever would be to process and ratify a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage is defined at a union of two people, period.

Or not.

Since the issue has been resolved to my satisfaction.

We didn't need a constitutional Amendment to overturn mixed race marriage bans- we don't need an amendment to overturn gay marriage bans.

well then, get ready for all forms of multiple person marriage, the precedent is set, they will use the exact same arguments that you have successfully used.

No, they will not. If they do, they will most likely lose. If they don't, how does that effect you? You afraid your wife will try to bring another husband or to into the mix? You never know, you might like that.

 

[Redfish]

if it were just me, you might have a point. But its not. There are many constitutional scholars who have spoken up against these rulings.

But one more time, please quote the language from the 14th amendment where the words "gay marriage" are found.

No, there are not many who have. Those words do not appear there, you absolutely moronic fool. The words Liberty and Equal Protection of the Laws do. That you are too fucking stupid to understand the scope of those words is your burden.

do you think the authors of the constitution anticipated gay marriage when they wrote those words? of course not, thats why this argument has been shot down by many constitutional scholars on both sides of the aisle.

and if the insults continue, you will be reported.

The authors of the Constitution did not anticipate women voting, blacks voting, and all sorts of things when they wrote the Constitution.

Luckily the Constitution still covers everyone.

thats why they made provisions for constitutional amendments. Seriously, the best way to solve this forever would be to process and ratify a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage is defined at a union of two people, period.

No. The way to do it was to apply the 14th Amendment. That sure worked, didn't it?

for now, the problem is that a future SC could overturn that decision, if you get an amendment it prevents that as well as any kinds of multiple person marriage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No person is forced to be involved in any wedding.

But, if you as a business, sell product or services for weddings, you are obligated to follow business laws- which do not care what religion you are.

Christians are not exempt from business laws- they have to follow them like everyone else

Speaking of stupid......

Redfish 4/29/15
I have made my last post on a gay thread. I hope many of you will follow suit. Let the court do its job and live with the rulings

bullshit, bakers and florists have been sued for refusing to participate in gay weddings. Are you living in a cave?

One Baker and One Florist who happen to live in one of the few states that actually ban discrimination against gays. You should be happy to know that in most of the Country gay people can be fired for being gay, evicted for being gay and denied services for being gay.

so can straight people be denied service --------- for no shirt, no shoes, or no reason at all. Its called freedom, something that seems a foreign concept to liberals of today

They cannot be denied because of race; they cannot be denied because of religion; they cannot be denied because of ethnicity; they cannot be denied because of gender and in those few states with laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, a straight couple cannot be denied because they are gay. How is you wanting to deny gay people the ability to marry consistent with your love of freedom?

I have said many times that I want gay couples to have all of the rights and benefits of man/woman married couples.

civil unions would have solved the issue, but no, the gay agenda had to insist on the word 'marriage'.

face it, this is not about equal rights, its about using government mandates to force societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.

until you admit the true agenda, this will continue.

When you concede all of the argument except the use of the word 'marriage', you have by your own reasoning lost the argument.

 

[paddymurphy]

No, there are not many who have. Those words do not appear there, you absolutely moronic fool. The words Liberty and Equal Protection of the Laws do. That you are too fucking stupid to understand the scope of those words is your burden.

do you think the authors of the constitution anticipated gay marriage when they wrote those words? of course not, thats why this argument has been shot down by many constitutional scholars on both sides of the aisle.

and if the insults continue, you will be reported.

The authors of the Constitution did not anticipate women voting, blacks voting, and all sorts of things when they wrote the Constitution.

Luckily the Constitution still covers everyone.

thats why they made provisions for constitutional amendments. Seriously, the best way to solve this forever would be to process and ratify a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage is defined at a union of two people, period.

No. The way to do it was to apply the 14th Amendment. That sure worked, didn't it?

for now, the problem is that a future SC could overturn that decision, if you get an amendment it prevents that as well as any kinds of multiple person marriage.

No need to amend the constitution to satisfy the bigotry of folks like you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Rabbi is a libertarian, thus mentally ill and emotionally unable to learn. Laugh at him and let it go.

 

[Redfish]

do you think the authors of the constitution anticipated gay marriage when they wrote those words? of course not, thats why this argument has been shot down by many constitutional scholars on both sides of the aisle.

and if the insults continue, you will be reported.

The authors of the Constitution did not anticipate women voting, blacks voting, and all sorts of things when they wrote the Constitution.

Luckily the Constitution still covers everyone.

thats why they made provisions for constitutional amendments. Seriously, the best way to solve this forever would be to process and ratify a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage is defined at a union of two people, period.

Or not.

Since the issue has been resolved to my satisfaction.

We didn't need a constitutional Amendment to overturn mixed race marriage bans- we don't need an amendment to overturn gay marriage bans.

well then, get ready for all forms of multiple person marriage, the precedent is set, they will use the exact same arguments that you have successfully used.

No, they will not. If they do, they will most likely lose. If they don't, how does that effect you? You afraid your wife will try to bring another husband or to into the mix? You never know, you might like that.

don't be foolish. act like an adult.

they will say that their civil rights are being denied based on who they love and want to commit to, just as the gays did. they will used the gay marriage ruling as a valid legal precedent.

they will call you a bigot for not wanting to approve their marriages.

its coming, the ACLU is already working on it.

 

[Redfish]

do you think the authors of the constitution anticipated gay marriage when they wrote those words? of course not, thats why this argument has been shot down by many constitutional scholars on both sides of the aisle.

and if the insults continue, you will be reported.

The authors of the Constitution did not anticipate women voting, blacks voting, and all sorts of things when they wrote the Constitution.

Luckily the Constitution still covers everyone.

thats why they made provisions for constitutional amendments. Seriously, the best way to solve this forever would be to process and ratify a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage is defined at a union of two people, period.

No. The way to do it was to apply the 14th Amendment. That sure worked, didn't it?

for now, the problem is that a future SC could overturn that decision, if you get an amendment it prevents that as well as any kinds of multiple person marriage.

No need to amend the constitution to satisfy the bigotry of folks like you.

I am not a bigot. I have given you a solution that would secure your beliefs forever in the USA. Are you afraid that a constitutional amendment would fail?

 

[paddymurphy]

The authors of the Constitution did not anticipate women voting, blacks voting, and all sorts of things when they wrote the Constitution.

Luckily the Constitution still covers everyone.

thats why they made provisions for constitutional amendments. Seriously, the best way to solve this forever would be to process and ratify a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage is defined at a union of two people, period.

Or not.

Since the issue has been resolved to my satisfaction.

We didn't need a constitutional Amendment to overturn mixed race marriage bans- we don't need an amendment to overturn gay marriage bans.

well then, get ready for all forms of multiple person marriage, the precedent is set, they will use the exact same arguments that you have successfully used.

No, they will not. If they do, they will most likely lose. If they don't, how does that effect you? You afraid your wife will try to bring another husband or to into the mix? You never know, you might like that.

don't be foolish. act like an adult.

they will say that their civil rights are being denied based on who the love and want to commit to, just as the gays did. they will used the gay marriage ruling as a valid legal precedent.

they will call you a bigot for not wanting to approve their marriages.

its coming, the ACLU is already working on it.

Why do you think you have the right to dictate to folks who want a plural marriage that they cannot?

 

[Syriusly]

No person is forced to be involved in any wedding.

But, if you as a business, sell product or services for weddings, you are obligated to follow business laws- which do not care what religion you are.

Christians are not exempt from business laws- they have to follow them like everyone else

Speaking of stupid......

Redfish 4/29/15
I have made my last post on a gay thread. I hope many of you will follow suit. Let the court do its job and live with the rulings

bullshit, bakers and florists have been sued for refusing to participate in gay weddings. Are you living in a cave?

One Baker and One Florist who happen to live in one of the few states that actually ban discrimination against gays. You should be happy to know that in most of the Country gay people can be fired for being gay, evicted for being gay and denied services for being gay.

so can straight people be denied service --------- for no shirt, no shoes, or no reason at all. Its called freedom, something that seems a foreign concept to liberals of today

I look forward to the Conservative campaign to end the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and telling America that no one deserves protection against discrimination based upon their race, religion, national origin or gender.

Should help the Republicans in amazing ways.

first, no one has proposed or suggested something that stupid
second, the civil rights was passed by republicans while dems tried to fillibuster it.

So you are against PA laws- such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act- but you don't want to end them- well as consistent as anything you have ever posted.

And the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed by Democrats- with Republican support- with Southern opposition- every Democratic and Republican Senator from the South.

 

[Syriusly]

The authors of the Constitution did not anticipate women voting, blacks voting, and all sorts of things when they wrote the Constitution.

Luckily the Constitution still covers everyone.

thats why they made provisions for constitutional amendments. Seriously, the best way to solve this forever would be to process and ratify a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage is defined at a union of two people, period.

No. The way to do it was to apply the 14th Amendment. That sure worked, didn't it?

for now, the problem is that a future SC could overturn that decision, if you get an amendment it prevents that as well as any kinds of multiple person marriage.

No need to amend the constitution to satisfy the bigotry of folks like you.

I am not a bigot. I have given you a solution that would secure your beliefs forever in the USA. Are you afraid that a constitutional amendment would fail?

We didn't need a Constitutional Amendment to 'secure' mixed race marriage rights forever.

And we don't need one for same gender marriage rights.