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.
The difference is that you are not referring to writing new law to accommodate for technology that did not exist 100 years ago. You are talking about changing existing law in order to support your continued discrimination that certainly did exist 100 years ago.There were never laws against SSM until about 20 or 30 years ago. Therefore, SSM is legal and constitutional and any effort to deny a right to any couple that is not committing a crime is in and of itself unconstitutional.
There were never laws against flying jet airliners without certification in 1825.
What's your point?
My point was that conservatives love to make things illegal that shouldn't be illegal. Big government lovers all.There were never laws against SSM until about 20 or 30 years ago. Therefore, SSM is legal and constitutional and any effort to deny a right to any couple that is not committing a crime is in and of itself unconstitutional.
There were never laws against flying jet airliners without certification in 1825.
What's your point?
Yes, the constitution. Obviously you don't believe the constitution. Sad.My point was that conservatives love to make things illegal that shouldn't be illegal. Big government lovers all.There were never laws against SSM until about 20 or 30 years ago. Therefore, SSM is legal and constitutional and any effort to deny a right to any couple that is not committing a crime is in and of itself unconstitutional.
There were never laws against flying jet airliners without certification in 1825.
What's your point?
Shouldn't be illegal based on what, what you believe?
Why?My point was that conservatives love to make things illegal that shouldn't be illegal. Big government lovers all.There were never laws against SSM until about 20 or 30 years ago. Therefore, SSM is legal and constitutional and any effort to deny a right to any couple that is not committing a crime is in and of itself unconstitutional.
There were never laws against flying jet airliners without certification in 1825.
What's your point?
This should be illegal
Nuff for me
Why?My point was that conservatives love to make things illegal that shouldn't be illegal. Big government lovers all.There were never laws against SSM until about 20 or 30 years ago. Therefore, SSM is legal and constitutional and any effort to deny a right to any couple that is not committing a crime is in and of itself unconstitutional.
There were never laws against flying jet airliners without certification in 1825.
What's your point?
This should be illegal
Nuff for me
Yes, the constitution. Obviously you don't believe the constitution. Sad.My point was that conservatives love to make things illegal that shouldn't be illegal. Big government lovers all.There were never laws against SSM until about 20 or 30 years ago. Therefore, SSM is legal and constitutional and any effort to deny a right to any couple that is not committing a crime is in and of itself unconstitutional.
There were never laws against flying jet airliners without certification in 1825.
What's your point?
Shouldn't be illegal based on what, what you believe?
I can't speak for Luddly, but I have said repeatedly, "yes". However, I find it rather amusing that not one single person has come forward to actually demand the "right" to marry a close relative, or to engage in polygamy. The only people who seem inordinately interested in peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that right. Someone really needs to tell me why that is...Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.
Should I take your support for what you call “marriage equality” to mean you believe close relatives, even a brother and sister, can get married? Or someone having multiple spouses? Be careful how you answer. It will determine whether you really support equality or an agenda for two homos.
Since polygamous marriages actually exist, your statement that no one has is wrong.Getting the government to recognize that right is not a battle that needs to be fought without someone to fight it on behalf of. I would still like one of you to explain why the only people who seem inordinately interested in the government recognizing peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose the government recognizing someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that recognition.Here in the United States? Really? Would you care to support that with references? The right does exist.
Exercising a right and the right being in place aren't the same thing. If you think they are, you would have to claim that every same sex couple will get married.
I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.
I can't speak for Luddly, but I have said repeatedly, "yes". However, I find it rather amusing that not one single person has come forward to actually demand the "right" to marry a close relative, or to engage in polygamy. The only people who seem inordinately interested in peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that right. Someone really needs to tell me why that is...Should I take your support for what you call “marriage equality” to mean you believe close relatives, even a brother and sister, can get married? Or someone having multiple spouses? Be careful how you answer. It will determine whether you really support equality or an agenda for two homos.
Since polygamous marriages actually exist, your statement that no one has is wrong.Getting the government to recognize that right is not a battle that needs to be fought without someone to fight it on behalf of. I would still like one of you to explain why the only people who seem inordinately interested in the government recognizing peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose the government recognizing someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that recognition.Here in the United States? Really? Would you care to support that with references? The right does exist.
Exercising a right and the right being in place aren't the same thing. If you think they are, you would have to claim that every same sex couple will get married.
I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.
No hypocrisy there, only with you. Two people getting married and their rights are protected by the Constitution. Polygamy is not.
Conservative5, leave it to the courts and the legislatures, because your feelings mean nothing in law.
Stating that something is a practice, and that it has been codified by law, are two very different things. What state is it that you live in, again? I mean, you can make whatever claims you want about what "your state" has always had codified into law, so long as you keep your state anonymous, so that your claims cannot be verified.It does now. I'll guarantee it didn't until a bunch of homophobic old white guys ran off to their state legislature to have the definition changed.Change can be easily limited.The same sex argument, so the supporters say, is about equality. They argue that consenting adults that want to marry should be able to marry. However, pose to them types of marriages they don’t agree with and they suddenly find plenty of excuses as to why equality of marriage shouldn’t exist in those cases. Hypocrites.
Because bestiality etc are not constitutional, which I know you believe, yet you get mad when folks agree with you about that.
Simplify marriage laws by allowing marriage between 2 adults.
What anti gay marriage folks never grasp is the concept that restricting marriage to one man and one woman, is adding to existing laws that don't mention the possibility that gay folks would enter into one. Gay marriage bans actually change the legal definition of marriage.
My State's laws say marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. That means the homos that want to make it otherwise are wanting to redefine the legal definition of where rules related to marriage should exist.
You can guarantee it? That requires proof and proof involves more than you saying you can guarantee it.
Actually the practice of a man and woman only is nothing new in my State. You would know if you actually looked rather than running your mouth about what you think you can guarantee.
Change can be easily limited.Think Jake.Dead wrong. You can have your own opinions but not your own definitions.
The definitions have been changed to suit your agenda already
The same sex argument, so the supporters say, is about equality. They argue that consenting adults that want to marry should be able to marry. However, pose to them types of marriages they don’t agree with and they suddenly find plenty of excuses as to why equality of marriage shouldn’t exist in those cases. Hypocrites.
Because bestiality etc are not constitutional, which I know you believe, yet you get mad when folks agree with you about that.
Simplify marriage laws by allowing marriage between 2 adults.
What anti gay marriage folks never grasp is the concept that restricting marriage to one man and one woman, is adding to existing laws that don't mention the possibility that gay folks would enter into one. Gay marriage bans actually change the legal definition of marriage.
My State's laws say marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. That means the homos that want to make it otherwise are wanting to redefine the legal definition of where rules related to marriage should exist.
Yes. I mean you moralistic zealots, who feel you have the right to demand, by altering the the law, that people behave according to your personal moral beliefs.What people applied for has nothing to do with how the law was written. The fact is that the law was written with no such restriction. You are not arguing the definition of the law, or the words; you are arguing the actions of the people. Those are two very different things. Guess what? Interracial couples didn't apply for marriage licenses before 50 years ago. However, when the law was attempted to be changed so that there were racial limitations, the people attempting to change the meaning of the words were told, "Sorry, just because no one did it before, doesn't mean that the words don't mean what they mean".Change can be easily limited.The same sex argument, so the supporters say, is about equality. They argue that consenting adults that want to marry should be able to marry. However, pose to them types of marriages they don’t agree with and they suddenly find plenty of excuses as to why equality of marriage shouldn’t exist in those cases. Hypocrites.
Because bestiality etc are not constitutional, which I know you believe, yet you get mad when folks agree with you about that.
Simplify marriage laws by allowing marriage between 2 adults.
What anti gay marriage folks never grasp is the concept that restricting marriage to one man and one woman, is adding to existing laws that don't mention the possibility that gay folks would enter into one. Gay marriage bans actually change the legal definition of marriage.
Would you please stop re-writing history to suit your agenda. Marriage in this Country has always been between a man and a woman. There are no examples of same sex people applying for marriage licenses AS same sex couples prior to the past 20 years.
Same here. Just because no one did it before doesn't mean that the words do not mean what they mean. Thus adding a limiting phrase, in order to alter the definition was something you guys did. The rest of us just want the definition changed back to what it was before your meddling.
You guys? Do you mean those of us that support the normal version of marriage not two homos trying to make it as if what they want comes anywhere close to it.
They are equal under the constitution so the "coupling" bullshit is just that. Bullshit.Why?My point was that conservatives love to make things illegal that shouldn't be illegal. Big government lovers all.There were never laws against SSM until about 20 or 30 years ago. Therefore, SSM is legal and constitutional and any effort to deny a right to any couple that is not committing a crime is in and of itself unconstitutional.
There were never laws against flying jet airliners without certification in 1825.
What's your point?
This should be illegal
Nuff for me
The two demographic groups are nowhere close to being equal by biology. The law cannot change this TRUTH.
Yes. I mean you moralistic zealots, who feel you have the right to demand, by altering the the law, that people behave according to your personal moral beliefs.What people applied for has nothing to do with how the law was written. The fact is that the law was written with no such restriction. You are not arguing the definition of the law, or the words; you are arguing the actions of the people. Those are two very different things. Guess what? Interracial couples didn't apply for marriage licenses before 50 years ago. However, when the law was attempted to be changed so that there were racial limitations, the people attempting to change the meaning of the words were told, "Sorry, just because no one did it before, doesn't mean that the words don't mean what they mean".Change can be easily limited.Because bestiality etc are not constitutional, which I know you believe, yet you get mad when folks agree with you about that.
Simplify marriage laws by allowing marriage between 2 adults.
What anti gay marriage folks never grasp is the concept that restricting marriage to one man and one woman, is adding to existing laws that don't mention the possibility that gay folks would enter into one. Gay marriage bans actually change the legal definition of marriage.
Would you please stop re-writing history to suit your agenda. Marriage in this Country has always been between a man and a woman. There are no examples of same sex people applying for marriage licenses AS same sex couples prior to the past 20 years.
Same here. Just because no one did it before doesn't mean that the words do not mean what they mean. Thus adding a limiting phrase, in order to alter the definition was something you guys did. The rest of us just want the definition changed back to what it was before your meddling.
You guys? Do you mean those of us that support the normal version of marriage not two homos trying to make it as if what they want comes anywhere close to it.
No you don't see marriage in the constitution. The constitution protects all of our rights, whether the rights are enumerated or not. If you grant a right to two legal adults of the opposite sex then constitutionally you must grant the same right to two legal adults of the same sex.Yes, the constitution. Obviously you don't believe the constitution. Sad.My point was that conservatives love to make things illegal that shouldn't be illegal. Big government lovers all.There were never laws against SSM until about 20 or 30 years ago. Therefore, SSM is legal and constitutional and any effort to deny a right to any couple that is not committing a crime is in and of itself unconstitutional.
There were never laws against flying jet airliners without certification in 1825.
What's your point?
Shouldn't be illegal based on what, what you believe?
I've yet to see the word marriage in the Constitution. It is sad that you think it does.
They are equal under the constitution so the "coupling" bullshit is just that. Bullshit.Why?My point was that conservatives love to make things illegal that shouldn't be illegal. Big government lovers all.There were never laws against flying jet airliners without certification in 1825.
What's your point?
This should be illegal
Nuff for me
The two demographic groups are nowhere close to being equal by biology. The law cannot change this TRUTH.
No you don't see marriage in the constitution. The constitution protects all of our rights, whether the rights are enumerated or not. If you grant a right to two legal adults of the opposite sex then constitutionally you must grant the same right to two legal adults of the same sex.Yes, the constitution. Obviously you don't believe the constitution. Sad.My point was that conservatives love to make things illegal that shouldn't be illegal. Big government lovers all.There were never laws against flying jet airliners without certification in 1825.
What's your point?
Shouldn't be illegal based on what, what you believe?
I've yet to see the word marriage in the Constitution. It is sad that you think it does.
This isn't rocket science, just basic constitutional law.
A look at history and the whole "traditional marriage" argument falls apart.
Not to mention that government has no place in our private lives.
MYOB
They are equal under the constitution so the "coupling" bullshit is just that. Bullshit.Why?My point was that conservatives love to make things illegal that shouldn't be illegal. Big government lovers all.
This should be illegal
Nuff for me
The two demographic groups are nowhere close to being equal by biology. The law cannot change this TRUTH.
If they ain't equal in biology, ain't no law going to change that
You are denying biology, a sure sign of delusion.
