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

[rightwinger]

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.

You can't unbreak an egg

A future court will not overturn same sex marriage

 

[bendog]

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.

nope, that was you who lost, the only thing that matters to you on the left is the word 'marriage'. it was never about equality or discrimination. and you fricken well know it.

Oh bullshit! The instant states started offering civil unions to gay couples the social cons in quite a few states banned them and refused to recognize them from other states. It was too close to marriage for their liking. That is when the gay marriage movement picked up steam and went into overdrive.

Yeah, but some in the GLBT wouldn't settle for anything but full "marriage" equality. There were some clergy and lay people (like me) who don't like discrimination and just wanted churches and the clergy out of the business of signing off on a civil document giving a couple economic rights.

 

[bendog]

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.

Assuming you are against plural marriages- if you don't have an argument on why you oppose plural marriages today- then you didn't have one on Thursday.

Either you have an argument- or you don't- do you have one?

Why not be tolerant and inclusive and let Mississippi exercise its long standing religious rights rather the subject it too the whims of a judge 1000 miles away.

Hey now. In Mississippi there's a federal court stay that has to do with an entirely different case. I assume the 5th cir will release it shortly.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

nope, that was you who lost, the only thing that matters to you on the left is the word 'marriage'. it was never about equality or discrimination. and you fricken well know it.

Oh bullshit! The instant states started offering civil unions to gay couples the social cons in quite a few states banned them and refused to recognize them from other states. It was too close to marriage for their liking. That is when the gay marriage movement picked up steam and went into overdrive.

but why did gays want marriage anyway when gays don't generally behave in marriages the way straights do or even see it the same way?.

 

[bendog]

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.

nope, that was you who lost, the only thing that matters to you on the left is the word 'marriage'. it was never about equality or discrimination. and you fricken well know it.

Oh bullshit! The instant states started offering civil unions to gay couples the social cons in quite a few states banned them and refused to recognize them from other states. It was too close to marriage for their liking. That is when the gay marriage movement picked up steam and went into overdrive.

but why did gays want marriage anyway when gays don't generally behave in marriages the way straights do or even see it the same way?.

I don't see how same sex marriages are much different than mine. I would agree than nokid marriages are different, but not less or more better, and gays have kids too. That is, the two gay guys across the street don't seem much different from me and Mrs Dog ... except we have a kid. They'd have been good parents, but they're pushing 60 now.

I think GLBT folks want to be treated equally. In a purely cultural/religious matter, I don't see SSM are exactly the same, because the cultural role of the woman and male are historically engrained ... for better and worst? But, in any church that sanctions SS couplings, I would expect GLBT folks to press for one ceremony that fits all. Not that I'm terribly happy. I'm not torn with hatred, disgust and loathing though. LOL

 

[Syriusly]

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.

nope, that was you who lost, the only thing that matters to you on the left is the word 'marriage'. it was never about equality or discrimination. and you fricken well know it.

Oh bullshit! The instant states started offering civil unions to gay couples the social cons in quite a few states banned them and refused to recognize them from other states. It was too close to marriage for their liking. That is when the gay marriage movement picked up steam and went into overdrive.

but why did gays want marriage anyway when gays don't generally behave in marriages the way straights do or even see it the same way?.

I am not gay- but as a man who has been married for over 20 years to my wife- I believe that they want the exact same thing my wife and I wanted when we got married- and I think there is no reason to treat them differently.

 

[mdk]

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.

nope, that was you who lost, the only thing that matters to you on the left is the word 'marriage'. it was never about equality or discrimination. and you fricken well know it.

Oh bullshit! The instant states started offering civil unions to gay couples the social cons in quite a few states banned them and refused to recognize them from other states. It was too close to marriage for their liking. That is when the gay marriage movement picked up steam and went into overdrive.

Yeah, but some in the GLBT wouldn't settle for anything but full "marriage" equality. There were some clergy and lay people (like me) who don't like discrimination and just wanted churches and the clergy out of the business of signing off on a civil document giving a couple economic rights.

While that is correct, plenty were just fine with civil unions. It also would have split the gay community into those cool with civil unions and those wanting full marriage. That infighting would have hindered the marriage equality movement. The social cons overplayed their hand when they banned civil unions.

 

[mdk]

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.

nope, that was you who lost, the only thing that matters to you on the left is the word 'marriage'. it was never about equality or discrimination. and you fricken well know it.

Oh bullshit! The instant states started offering civil unions to gay couples the social cons in quite a few states banned them and refused to recognize them from other states. It was too close to marriage for their liking. That is when the gay marriage movement picked up steam and went into overdrive.

but why did gays want marriage anyway when gays don't generally behave in marriages the way straights do or even see it the same way?.

In what way don't they behave or see marriage in the same way?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

nope, that was you who lost, the only thing that matters to you on the left is the word 'marriage'. it was never about equality or discrimination. and you fricken well know it.

Oh bullshit! The instant states started offering civil unions to gay couples the social cons in quite a few states banned them and refused to recognize them from other states. It was too close to marriage for their liking. That is when the gay marriage movement picked up steam and went into overdrive.

but why did gays want marriage anyway when gays don't generally behave in marriages the way straights do or even see it the same way?.

I am not gay- but as a man who has been married for over 20 years to my wife- I believe that they want the exact same thing my wife and I wanted when we got married- and I think there is no reason to treat them differently.

usually heteros want kids, commitment, longevity, monogamy while gays don't.
the male in nature has 100's of partners but marriage to a woman stops that. When you have 2 men in a relationship nature usually takes its course and men do what men do.

So in theory gay marriages will degrade the concept of marriage still further. The liberal's have been perfecting love, marriage, and family since the 1960's. They won't be sure they have succeeded until 95% of black kids and 80% of white kids are born into broken or never formed homes.

 

[mdk]

nope, that was you who lost, the only thing that matters to you on the left is the word 'marriage'. it was never about equality or discrimination. and you fricken well know it.

Oh bullshit! The instant states started offering civil unions to gay couples the social cons in quite a few states banned them and refused to recognize them from other states. It was too close to marriage for their liking. That is when the gay marriage movement picked up steam and went into overdrive.

but why did gays want marriage anyway when gays don't generally behave in marriages the way straights do or even see it the same way?.

I am not gay- but as a man who has been married for over 20 years to my wife- I believe that they want the exact same thing my wife and I wanted when we got married- and I think there is no reason to treat them differently.

usually heteros want kids, commitment, longevity, monogamy while gays don't.
the male in nature has 100's of partners but marriage to a woman stops that. When you have 2 men in a relationship nature usually takes its course and men do what men do.

Gay folks that are married want all that as well, so much so they spent years fighting for it. Whomever told you otherwise is a fool. I tell you this as a person whom has been with my husband for 14 years. I am friends with 6 other gay couples all of whom are married, monogamous, and have been together for years. Some even with children.

 

[Syriusly]

nope, that was you who lost, the only thing that matters to you on the left is the word 'marriage'. it was never about equality or discrimination. and you fricken well know it.

Oh bullshit! The instant states started offering civil unions to gay couples the social cons in quite a few states banned them and refused to recognize them from other states. It was too close to marriage for their liking. That is when the gay marriage movement picked up steam and went into overdrive.

but why did gays want marriage anyway when gays don't generally behave in marriages the way straights do or even see it the same way?.

I am not gay- but as a man who has been married for over 20 years to my wife- I believe that they want the exact same thing my wife and I wanted when we got married- and I think there is no reason to treat them differently.

usually heteros want kids, commitment, longevity, monogamy while gays don't.
the male in nature has 100's of partners but marriage to a woman stops that. When you have 2 men in a relationship nature usually takes its course and men do what men do.

So in theory gay marriages will degrade the concept of marriage still further. The liberal's have been perfecting love, marriage, and family since the 1960's. They won't be sure they have succeeded until 95% of black kids and 80% of white kids are born into broken or never formed homes.

Well you are making lots of assumptions here.

And among them is that homosexuals who want to get married do not want kids, commitment, longevity, or monogamy.

Read the cases of any of the plaintiff's suing to get married- it will give you some incite as to why they wanted to get married.

Or read the story of the plaintiff in the DOMA case- and her partner.

Your theory- based upon nothing but crap pulled out of your ass- is that allowing 2 men to be married will somehow hurt my marriage- and others.

My theory is- if your marriage is harmed by gay marriage- the problem is with your marriage.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Well you are making lots of assumptions here.

dear why do you think they are assumptions rather than facts based on statistical research? Do you think before you write??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. I am friends with 6 other gay couples.

dear, please let me know the next time the pollsters predict the next president based on a sample size of 6!!

You want to believe so you lie to yourself. Those who followed Hitler Stalin and Mao were they same way. Like you they knew the truth in their hearts!!

 

[mdk]

. I am friends with 6 other gay couples.

dear, please let me know the next time the pollsters predict the next president based on a sample size of 6!!

You want to believe so you lie to yourself. Those who followed Hitler Stalin and Mao were they same way. Like you they knew the truth in their hearts!!

Well your bullshit level just escalated. It was foolish of me to believe you could have a real discussion.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. I am friends with 6 other gay couples.

dear, please let me know the next time the pollsters predict the next president based on a sample size of 6!!

You want to believe so you lie to yourself. Those who followed Hitler Stalin and Mao were they same way. Like you they knew the truth in their hearts!!

Well your bullshit level just escalated. It was foolish of me to believe you could have a real discussion.

dear, you said the truth was based on evidence from just your 6 friends.
How smart does that make you?

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Your side was all for banning Civil Unions like they did in a lot of those marriage amendments from a decade ago like the one in my State:

"Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."​

It was your side that wouldn't accept Civil Unions at the time. They've only become an acceptable compromise not that marriage equality has become a reality.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

Well you are making lots of assumptions here.

dear why do you think they are assumptions rather than facts based on statistical research? Do you think before you write??

Because you wrote nothing but your assumptions- and provided no facts based upon statistical research.

Like I said- you want to find out why homosexual couples want to get married- read the stories of the gay couples who sued for their right to marry.

Or you can just continue to create your own fantasies.

 

[Syriusly]

. I am friends with 6 other gay couples.

dear, please let me know the next time the pollsters predict the next president based on a sample size of 6!!

You want to believe so you lie to yourself. Those who followed Hitler Stalin and Mao were they same way. Like you they knew the truth in their hearts!!

As opposed to your 'sample size' of zero........

LOL

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

Your side was all for banning Civil Unions like that did in a lot of those marriage amendments from a decade ago like the one in my State:

"Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."​

It was your side that wouldn't accept Civil Unions at the time. They've only become an acceptable compromise not that marriage equality has become a reality.

. I am friends with 6 other gay couples.

dear, please let me know the next time the pollsters predict the next president based on a sample size of 6!!

You want to believe so you lie to yourself. Those who followed Hitler Stalin and Mao were they same way. Like you they knew the truth in their hearts!!

As opposed to your 'sample size' of zero........

LOL

In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."[

 

[WorldWatcher]

an amendment would prevent a reversal. thats all I am saying. I'm trying to help you.

A Federal Marriage Amendment wouldn't pass now.

10, 20 years ago (late 90's early 2000's) a possibility, but actually social conservatives got DOMA passed which took the pressure off of a marriage amendment needing to be passed.

At the end of the day DOMA actually helped marriage equality by undermining the need for a marriage amendment.


>>>>