Redfish
Diamond Member
- Jan 29, 2013
- 48,220
- 10,694
Being opposed to it does not mean you see it as a "danger". nice spin attempt, but once again you FAIL.
Rubio expressed his beliefs, if you disagree with him, don't vote for him.
A politician who has the guts to take a stand and stand by his principles is to be admired, not denigrated.
Remember how both HRC and obozo were against gay marriage when they thought it was the politically safe position? Its called hypocrisy or pandering, and the dims do it constantly.
Rubio said it was a danger, and you said most Americans agreed with him. You're an idiot.
most do agree with him. the voters of california voted against it twice.
But, lets settle it. Lets let the people vote as they did in Ireland. Then its over one way or the other.
There's currently 60% support for legal same sex marriage in the US. That's the same as Ireland's was going into that landslide.
We don't have national referendums. We have a Supreme Court.
Let the Right pass its Marriage Amendment to the Constitution if they can. There's your 'referendum'.
The SC can rule on whether state laws banning gay marriage are constitutional. It cannot decree that gay marriage is constitutional. Do you understand the difference?
There is no material difference. It can rule that same sex marriage is constitutionally protected and that same sex couples are entitled to the same marriage rights that states offer to opposite sex couples.
Wrong, there is a huge difference. The SC court cannot create law as you want them to.