Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage bans

[Syriusly]

Why are right wingers so obsessed about other people's private lives?

It's actually quite the opposite, we don't care about your private life, to include queer activities. Homos are free to be in any gay marriage ceremonies they want, nothing is stopping them and no one has ever proposed stopping them. Just don't ask us to condone such behavior and reward it with state recognition and entitlements that go with it.

We are not asking you to condone anything.

Just that a same gender couple be treated legally exactly the same as my wife and I are when it comes to marriage law.

 

[Syriusly]

Theoretically they could although Federal interstate highways might be a problem.

But again that isn't the faulty logic with you claim.

The correct comparison would be saying we will honor Drivers License from other State for visitors if they are white (or male, or Christian) but not for blacks (or females, or Jews). You seem to be missing the point that the States are attempting to recognize some but not other certificates based on gender of the individuals involved.

BTW - Every State that I know of - and I don't claim it is all - requires people to get a new Drivers License within some time-frame if they change their residence to that State. Here in Virginia it's 60-days. After that Virginia no longer recognizes the Out-of-State license as permanent authorization to operate a motor vehicle. 60-days after changing residence an individual operating a motor vehicle is breaking Virginia law.

[Disclaimer: There is an exception in the law for active duty military personnel stationed in the State and who maintain a permanent place of residence on file outside the State. Which is why it was legal for me to use my New York license for 4-years after getting stationed here. Once I retired I had to get a VA license.]


>>>>

BS, there is no gender or race bias in denying gay marriage, they can marry just like every one else, the fact that they chose not to is their decision. Like I said before gays have been engaging in traditional marriage forever.

When the law says that Bill (a male) can marry Joan (a female) but that Joan (a female) cannot marry Jane (a female) that the laws are not written in terms of gender?


>>>>

Nope, because any female is free to marry any male, if the female choses not to marry a male, well, that's on her.

Virginia used the same logic in the Loving case noting that blacks would marry other blacks and white could marry other whites, the decision was on them and so no discrimination occurred.

Didn't work then either.

Not saying black = gay, just pointing out the logic is faulty and didn't fly the last time it was used.



>>>>

That might be, but there is no comparison between race and gender, males and females of different races are still biologically compatible, where two of the same gender are not. Children raised in a household with both biological parents are proven to do better in life, so there is nothing to gain for the society in raising children in a gay household.

Well since we make no connection between marriage and raising children- why is that an issue to you?

Gay parents are already raising children- both as single parents and as joint parents- preventing the joint parents from marrying only ensures that their children don't have married parents.

What does society gain if children are raised in two parent households who happen to be gay versus a single parent household- financial security- two parent homes- all other things being equal- have more financial security than single parent homes- meaning their children are less likely to go hungry and less likely to need government assistance.

 

[Skylar]

The US Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether states can ban gay marriage under the Constitution. The landmark civil rights and cultural decision is scheduled to arrive by the end of June.
In a court order on Friday, justices announced they would hear cases from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, all four of which have banned gay marriage within their states. In total, 14 states still have gay marriage bans on the books.
Hearings regarding the case will begin in April, the Supreme Court said. Justices will need to rule not only on whether state bans are constitutional, but also on whether states have to recognize same-sex marriages that were legally performed in other states.
Opponents of gay marriage urged the court to uphold the bans and allow states to make their own decisions on the matter.
People are looking forward for the bright future where they will be able to ban this perversion. The US Supreme Court may support their willing. Do you agree that it will be better if we have some states without gays' "traditions and culture" ( some antigay states)???

I think you are delusional.

The Supreme Court punted in 2013 on this issue, but it was pretty clear from their statements that they were inclined to uphold marriage equality if push came to shove.

Now gay marriage is the law in 36 states. Generally, the court doesn't buck the tide of public opinion.

Most of those states have faghadist marriage because of court orders, if the supremes vote the right way and leave marriage to the states those orders will be nullified.

Do you belive that the most of Americans don't support gay marriage in the states? Does it mean that homophobia will survive and live in the USA? I suppose that people have the right to decide what is normal and legal an what is not.

Most everywhere gay marriage was put up to a vote it has been defeated, even in liberal California. A society has a right to decide what is or is not acceptable social norms. Gays have had the right and have been getting married for ever under the traditional definition. So there was no discrimination. There are only two genders, male and female, gays were always afforded the rights of their gender. Now they want to be treated special because of a lifestyle choice and most Americans aren't buying it. Call it anything you want, I call it reality.

The last three states to vote on gay marriage voted for it.

Same gender couples want to be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are legally married.

And that is the reality.

Is there anyone who thinks that if put to a vote today, California wouldn't affirm gay marriage in a heart beat? For those under 40 in this state, support is nearly 80%. Even among the seniors, its roughly half.

Public sentiment swung toward gay marriage starting in about 2011. And hasn't shown any sign of slowing. With year over year polls typically setting a new record each time its measured.

I strongly suspect that support for gay marriage will continue to climb as the sheer attrition of time counters consistent opposition of gay marriage by seniors with inevitable dirt naps.

 

[Syriusly]

that those lower courts you think made "gay marriage" "the law of the land now", did so in violation of federal law and the dominance of Windsor 2013 until the High Court Itself and Itself only says differently. Gay marraige is NOT the law of the land now outside any state that acted itself to ratify it. If a state forbid it in the past and has not changed that position itself, gay marriage is not legal there. Lower courts may not "overrule/overturn from underneath"...no matter how sure they think they are predicting the future..

Meanwhile in some 36 states and the District of Columbia, everyone is ignoring Silhouettes bizarre interpretation of the law and getting married.

 

[OKTexas]

The US Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether states can ban gay marriage under the Constitution. The landmark civil rights and cultural decision is scheduled to arrive by the end of June.
In a court order on Friday, justices announced they would hear cases from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, all four of which have banned gay marriage within their states. In total, 14 states still have gay marriage bans on the books.
Hearings regarding the case will begin in April, the Supreme Court said. Justices will need to rule not only on whether state bans are constitutional, but also on whether states have to recognize same-sex marriages that were legally performed in other states.
Opponents of gay marriage urged the court to uphold the bans and allow states to make their own decisions on the matter.
People are looking forward for the bright future where they will be able to ban this perversion. The US Supreme Court may support their willing. Do you agree that it will be better if we have some states without gays' "traditions and culture" ( some antigay states)???

I think you are delusional.

The Supreme Court punted in 2013 on this issue, but it was pretty clear from their statements that they were inclined to uphold marriage equality if push came to shove.

Now gay marriage is the law in 36 states. Generally, the court doesn't buck the tide of public opinion.

Most of those states have faghadist marriage because of court orders, if the supremes vote the right way and leave marriage to the states those orders will be nullified.

Do you belive that the most of Americans don't support gay marriage in the states? Does it mean that homophobia will survive and live in the USA? I suppose that people have the right to decide what is normal and legal an what is not.

Most everywhere gay marriage was put up to a vote it has been defeated, even in liberal California. A society has a right to decide what is or is not acceptable social norms. Gays have had the right and have been getting married for ever under the traditional definition. So there was no discrimination. There are only two genders, male and female, gays were always afforded the rights of their gender. Now they want to be treated special because of a lifestyle choice and most Americans aren't buying it. Call it anything you want, I call it reality.

The last three states to vote on gay marriage voted for it.

Same gender couples want to be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are legally married.

And that is the reality.

Great, States should be allowed to make their own decision on the subject instead of judicial imposition. The States were intended to be independent laboratories with a right to experiment how they wish, not have the feds forcing them to comply with standards with which they disagree. If you want to enter into a gay marriage you are free to move to States that allow it, you have no right to force it on other states that don't. This country was always intended to have standards driven from the bottom up, not the top down.

 

[Syriusly]

And that is the reality.

Great, States should be allowed to make their own decision on the subject instead of judicial imposition. The States were intended to be independent laboratories with a right to experiment how they wish, not have the feds forcing them to comply with standards with which they disagree. If you want to enter into a gay marriage you are free to move to States that allow it, you have no right to force it on other states that don't. This country was always intended to have standards driven from the bottom up, not the top down.[/QUOTE]

You are about 40 years late to be making that argument. The Supreme Court has been ruling on state marriage laws for over 40 years- telling states that they cannot prohibit marriage between mixed race couples, or prohibit marriage because someone owes child support or even because the person is a prisoner.

Gay couples have the Constitutional right to file suit to have their rights protected- as all Americans do- regardless of how much you think we should not have that right.

We decided a long time ago that the Constitution trumps state laws. The only disagreement is exactly what the Supreme Court will be deciding- and that is the role of the Supreme Court.

 

[OKTexas]

BS, there is no gender or race bias in denying gay marriage, they can marry just like every one else, the fact that they chose not to is their decision. Like I said before gays have been engaging in traditional marriage forever.

When the law says that Bill (a male) can marry Joan (a female) but that Joan (a female) cannot marry Jane (a female) that the laws are not written in terms of gender?


>>>>

Nope, because any female is free to marry any male, if the female choses not to marry a male, well, that's on her.

Virginia used the same logic in the Loving case noting that blacks would marry other blacks and white could marry other whites, the decision was on them and so no discrimination occurred.

Didn't work then either.

Not saying black = gay, just pointing out the logic is faulty and didn't fly the last time it was used.



>>>>

That might be, but there is no comparison between race and gender, males and females of different races are still biologically compatible, where two of the same gender are not. Children raised in a household with both biological parents are proven to do better in life, so there is nothing to gain for the society in raising children in a gay household.

Well since we make no connection between marriage and raising children- why is that an issue to you?

Gay parents are already raising children- both as single parents and as joint parents- preventing the joint parents from marrying only ensures that their children don't have married parents.

What does society gain if children are raised in two parent households who happen to be gay versus a single parent household- financial security- two parent homes- all other things being equal- have more financial security than single parent homes- meaning their children are less likely to go hungry and less likely to need government assistance.

And not having roll models of both genders increase the likelihood of social problems, drug use and criminal behavior. The break down of the traditional family in this country has contributed to many of our problems and that is not debatable, it is fact.

 

[OKTexas]

And that is the reality.

Great, States should be allowed to make their own decision on the subject instead of judicial imposition. The States were intended to be independent laboratories with a right to experiment how they wish, not have the feds forcing them to comply with standards with which they disagree. If you want to enter into a gay marriage you are free to move to States that allow it, you have no right to force it on other states that don't. This country was always intended to have standards driven from the bottom up, not the top down.

You are about 40 years late to be making that argument. The Supreme Court has been ruling on state marriage laws for over 40 years- telling states that they cannot prohibit marriage between mixed race couples, or prohibit marriage because someone owes child support or even because the person is a prisoner.

Gay couples have the Constitutional right to file suit to have their rights protected- as all Americans do- regardless of how much you think we should not have that right.

We decided a long time ago that the Constitution trumps state laws. The only disagreement is exactly what the Supreme Court will be deciding- and that is the role of the Supreme Court.[/QUOTE]

The fact that the feds have been overstepping their authority doesn't make it right, doesn't matter how long they've been doing it or how often.

 

[Syriusly]

And that is the reality.

Great, States should be allowed to make their own decision on the subject instead of judicial imposition. The States were intended to be independent laboratories with a right to experiment how they wish, not have the feds forcing them to comply with standards with which they disagree. If you want to enter into a gay marriage you are free to move to States that allow it, you have no right to force it on other states that don't. This country was always intended to have standards driven from the bottom up, not the top down.

You are about 40 years late to be making that argument. The Supreme Court has been ruling on state marriage laws for over 40 years- telling states that they cannot prohibit marriage between mixed race couples, or prohibit marriage because someone owes child support or even because the person is a prisoner.

Gay couples have the Constitutional right to file suit to have their rights protected- as all Americans do- regardless of how much you think we should not have that right.

We decided a long time ago that the Constitution trumps state laws. The only disagreement is exactly what the Supreme Court will be deciding- and that is the role of the Supreme Court.

The fact that the feds have been overstepping their authority doesn't make it right, doesn't matter how long they've been doing it or how often.[/QUOTE]

The fact that you think something is a fact doesn't make it so.

Gay couples have the Constitutional right to file suit to have their rights protected- as all Americans do- regardless of how much you think we should not have that right.

We decided a long time ago that the Constitution trumps state laws. The only disagreement is exactly what the Supreme Court will be deciding- and that is the role of the Supreme Court

 

[Syriusly]

When the law says that Bill (a male) can marry Joan (a female) but that Joan (a female) cannot marry Jane (a female) that the laws are not written in terms of gender?


>>>>

Nope, because any female is free to marry any male, if the female choses not to marry a male, well, that's on her.

Virginia used the same logic in the Loving case noting that blacks would marry other blacks and white could marry other whites, the decision was on them and so no discrimination occurred.

Didn't work then either.

Not saying black = gay, just pointing out the logic is faulty and didn't fly the last time it was used.



>>>>

That might be, but there is no comparison between race and gender, males and females of different races are still biologically compatible, where two of the same gender are not. Children raised in a household with both biological parents are proven to do better in life, so there is nothing to gain for the society in raising children in a gay household.

Well since we make no connection between marriage and raising children- why is that an issue to you?

Gay parents are already raising children- both as single parents and as joint parents- preventing the joint parents from marrying only ensures that their children don't have married parents.

What does society gain if children are raised in two parent households who happen to be gay versus a single parent household- financial security- two parent homes- all other things being equal- have more financial security than single parent homes- meaning their children are less likely to go hungry and less likely to need government assistance.

And not having roll models of both genders increase the likelihood of social problems, drug use and criminal behavior. The break down of the traditional family in this country has contributed to many of our problems and that is not debatable, it is fact.

And like I said

Gay parents are already raising children- both as single parents and as joint parents- preventing the joint parents from marrying only ensures that their children don't have married parents.

What does society gain if children are raised in two parent households who happen to be gay versus a single parent household- financial security- two parent homes- all other things being equal- have more financial security than single parent homes- meaning their children are less likely to go hungry and less likely to need government assistance

All your argument against gay marriage is arguing is that for gay couples that have children, those children do not deserve to have married parents.

 

[OKTexas]

Nope, because any female is free to marry any male, if the female choses not to marry a male, well, that's on her.

Virginia used the same logic in the Loving case noting that blacks would marry other blacks and white could marry other whites, the decision was on them and so no discrimination occurred.

Didn't work then either.

Not saying black = gay, just pointing out the logic is faulty and didn't fly the last time it was used.



>>>>

That might be, but there is no comparison between race and gender, males and females of different races are still biologically compatible, where two of the same gender are not. Children raised in a household with both biological parents are proven to do better in life, so there is nothing to gain for the society in raising children in a gay household.

Well since we make no connection between marriage and raising children- why is that an issue to you?

Gay parents are already raising children- both as single parents and as joint parents- preventing the joint parents from marrying only ensures that their children don't have married parents.

What does society gain if children are raised in two parent households who happen to be gay versus a single parent household- financial security- two parent homes- all other things being equal- have more financial security than single parent homes- meaning their children are less likely to go hungry and less likely to need government assistance.

And not having roll models of both genders increase the likelihood of social problems, drug use and criminal behavior. The break down of the traditional family in this country has contributed to many of our problems and that is not debatable, it is fact.

And like I said

Gay parents are already raising children- both as single parents and as joint parents- preventing the joint parents from marrying only ensures that their children don't have married parents.

What does society gain if children are raised in two parent households who happen to be gay versus a single parent household- financial security- two parent homes- all other things being equal- have more financial security than single parent homes- meaning their children are less likely to go hungry and less likely to need government assistance

All your argument against gay marriage is arguing is that for gay couples that have children, those children do not deserve to have married parents.

Married or not, gay parents don't provide dual gender roll models, it's really no different that being raised in a single parent household. Additional financial security is great, but it doesn't change the reality of dysfunctional kids.

 

[Syriusly]

Virginia used the same logic in the Loving case noting that blacks would marry other blacks and white could marry other whites, the decision was on them and so no discrimination occurred.

Didn't work then either.

Not saying black = gay, just pointing out the logic is faulty and didn't fly the last time it was used.



>>>>

That might be, but there is no comparison between race and gender, males and females of different races are still biologically compatible, where two of the same gender are not. Children raised in a household with both biological parents are proven to do better in life, so there is nothing to gain for the society in raising children in a gay household.

Well since we make no connection between marriage and raising children- why is that an issue to you?

Gay parents are already raising children- both as single parents and as joint parents- preventing the joint parents from marrying only ensures that their children don't have married parents.

What does society gain if children are raised in two parent households who happen to be gay versus a single parent household- financial security- two parent homes- all other things being equal- have more financial security than single parent homes- meaning their children are less likely to go hungry and less likely to need government assistance.

And not having roll models of both genders increase the likelihood of social problems, drug use and criminal behavior. The break down of the traditional family in this country has contributed to many of our problems and that is not debatable, it is fact.

And like I said

Gay parents are already raising children- both as single parents and as joint parents- preventing the joint parents from marrying only ensures that their children don't have married parents.

What does society gain if children are raised in two parent households who happen to be gay versus a single parent household- financial security- two parent homes- all other things being equal- have more financial security than single parent homes- meaning their children are less likely to go hungry and less likely to need government assistance

All your argument against gay marriage is arguing is that for gay couples that have children, those children do not deserve to have married parents.

Married or not, gay parents don't provide dual gender roll models do, it's really no different that being raised in a single parent household. Additional financial security is great, but it doesn't change the reality of dysfunctional kids.

So- your argument is that gay parents don't provide dual gender role models- so that part is no different than single parents- and while you acknowledge the financial security is 'great'- you also don't believe those children deserve financial security.
y.

 

[OKTexas]

That might be, but there is no comparison between race and gender, males and females of different races are still biologically compatible, where two of the same gender are not. Children raised in a household with both biological parents are proven to do better in life, so there is nothing to gain for the society in raising children in a gay household.

Well since we make no connection between marriage and raising children- why is that an issue to you?

Gay parents are already raising children- both as single parents and as joint parents- preventing the joint parents from marrying only ensures that their children don't have married parents.

What does society gain if children are raised in two parent households who happen to be gay versus a single parent household- financial security- two parent homes- all other things being equal- have more financial security than single parent homes- meaning their children are less likely to go hungry and less likely to need government assistance.

And not having roll models of both genders increase the likelihood of social problems, drug use and criminal behavior. The break down of the traditional family in this country has contributed to many of our problems and that is not debatable, it is fact.

And like I said

Gay parents are already raising children- both as single parents and as joint parents- preventing the joint parents from marrying only ensures that their children don't have married parents.

What does society gain if children are raised in two parent households who happen to be gay versus a single parent household- financial security- two parent homes- all other things being equal- have more financial security than single parent homes- meaning their children are less likely to go hungry and less likely to need government assistance

All your argument against gay marriage is arguing is that for gay couples that have children, those children do not deserve to have married parents.

Married or not, gay parents don't provide dual gender roll models do, it's really no different that being raised in a single parent household. Additional financial security is great, but it doesn't change the reality of dysfunctional kids.

So- your argument is that gay parents don't provide dual gender role models- so that part is no different than single parents- and while you acknowledge the financial security is 'great'- you also don't believe those children deserve financial security.
y.

Yep all kids deserve financial security, they also deserve the be raised in an environment that is proven to be the best for their social development and that is a dual gender household. I decided not to have children because of how this country was turning to the left, people like you affirm the correctness of my decision every day.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

OKTEXAS SAID:

“Married or not, gay parents don't provide dual gender roll models do, it's really no different that being raised in a single parent household. Additional financial security is great, but it doesn't change the reality of dysfunctional kids.”

Because this is subjective opinion on your part, devoid of objective documentation or evidence, and given the fact that children who are raised by single parents, where those children grow to be healthly, normal adults, this argument fails as justification to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying.

 

[OKTexas]

OKTEXAS SAID:

“Married or not, gay parents don't provide dual gender roll models do, it's really no different that being raised in a single parent household. Additional financial security is great, but it doesn't change the reality of dysfunctional kids.”

Because this is subjective opinion on your part, devoid of objective documentation or evidence, and given the fact that children who are raised by single parents, where those children grow to be healthly, normal adults, this argument fails as justification to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying.

Sure some beat the odds, but I have seen first hand within my own family what happens to children raised in gay households, 4 out of 5 wound up on drugs, two in jail. The decline of traditional families are the root of many of this countries problems and you lefties keep wanting to pervert the concept. You are the reason for the decay that has been sweeping this country and what is truly pathetic, your proud of it.

 

[Syriusly]

Well since we make no connection between marriage and raising children- why is that an issue to you?

Gay parents are already raising children- both as single parents and as joint parents- preventing the joint parents from marrying only ensures that their children don't have married parents.

What does society gain if children are raised in two parent households who happen to be gay versus a single parent household- financial security- two parent homes- all other things being equal- have more financial security than single parent homes- meaning their children are less likely to go hungry and less likely to need government assistance.

And not having roll models of both genders increase the likelihood of social problems, drug use and criminal behavior. The break down of the traditional family in this country has contributed to many of our problems and that is not debatable, it is fact.

And like I said

Gay parents are already raising children- both as single parents and as joint parents- preventing the joint parents from marrying only ensures that their children don't have married parents.

What does society gain if children are raised in two parent households who happen to be gay versus a single parent household- financial security- two parent homes- all other things being equal- have more financial security than single parent homes- meaning their children are less likely to go hungry and less likely to need government assistance

All your argument against gay marriage is arguing is that for gay couples that have children, those children do not deserve to have married parents.

Married or not, gay parents don't provide dual gender roll models do, it's really no different that being raised in a single parent household. Additional financial security is great, but it doesn't change the reality of dysfunctional kids.

So- your argument is that gay parents don't provide dual gender role models- so that part is no different than single parents- and while you acknowledge the financial security is 'great'- you also don't believe those children deserve financial security.
y.

Yep all kids deserve financial security, they also deserve the be raised in an environment that is proven to be the best for their social development and that is a dual gender household. I decided not to have children because of how this country was turning to the left, people like you affirm the correctness of my decision every day.

Well I applaud you on your decision. Millions and millions of heterosexuals have decided otherwise and have children and then either never marry or divorce, leaving one parent to do all of the parenting.

My wife and I have been been married over 20 years, and love being parents. As a parent, I applaud anyone who volunteers to step up to the plate and attempt to do a good job as a parent. And after watching single parents struggle- I think that all things being equal- two parents are always better than 1.

 

[thanatos144]

This issue is a canard. It is a ruse to used to usurp more power from us the people. Homosexuals who support such actions are damn fools for giving up there own power for something as small as the illusion that people will think them normal. Why do so many ignorantly give up thier power for selfish childish reasons?

You mean why should people give up the right of people like you to treat them like shit?

Frankly, I have to ask, why does gay marriage effect your life at all.

Look facist the truth is if the people in certain states wanted homosexual marriage it woud have won in the election. It didnt. Forcing it on those who dont want it is not how this country is founded. Now like all tragic abuses of power little fasict fucks like you use this to make a less free country. Trust me brown shirt when your socialist paradise comes about your stupid ass will be living in abject poverty hoping the overseers dont kill you because your not bowing deep enough.

Let me rephrase what you said- so we can put it in perspective:

"Look facist the truth is if the people in certain states wanted mixed-race marriage it woud have won in the election. It didnt. Forcing it on those who dont want it is not how this country is founded. Now like all tragic abuses of power little fasict fucks like you use this to make a less free country. Trust me brown shirt when your socialist paradise comes about your stupid ass will be living in abject poverty hoping the overseers dont kill you because your not bowing deep enough"

Swapping out just one word puts your rant in perspective.

Or maybe you really think forcing states to allow mixed race marriages was 'fascism' also?

And finally- what is it with Conservatives and foul language? Is it just a general lack of education and/or vocabulary?

Being gay is not like being black.

 

[thanatos144]

I think you are delusional.

The Supreme Court punted in 2013 on this issue, but it was pretty clear from their statements that they were inclined to uphold marriage equality if push came to shove.

Now gay marriage is the law in 36 states. Generally, the court doesn't buck the tide of public opinion.

Most of those states have faghadist marriage because of court orders, if the supremes vote the right way and leave marriage to the states those orders will be nullified.

Do you belive that the most of Americans don't support gay marriage in the states? Does it mean that homophobia will survive and live in the USA? I suppose that people have the right to decide what is normal and legal an what is not.

Most everywhere gay marriage was put up to a vote it has been defeated, even in liberal California. A society has a right to decide what is or is not acceptable social norms. Gays have had the right and have been getting married for ever under the traditional definition. So there was no discrimination. There are only two genders, male and female, gays were always afforded the rights of their gender. Now they want to be treated special because of a lifestyle choice and most Americans aren't buying it. Call it anything you want, I call it reality.

The last three states to vote on gay marriage voted for it.

Same gender couples want to be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are legally married.

And that is the reality.

Is there anyone who thinks that if put to a vote today, California wouldn't affirm gay marriage in a heart beat? For those under 40 in this state, support is nearly 80%. Even among the seniors, its roughly half.

Public sentiment swung toward gay marriage starting in about 2011. And hasn't shown any sign of slowing. With year over year polls typically setting a new record each time its measured.

I strongly suspect that support for gay marriage will continue to climb as the sheer attrition of time counters consistent opposition of gay marriage by seniors with inevitable dirt naps.

It would lose.

 

[Syriusly]

OKTEXAS SAID:

“Married or not, gay parents don't provide dual gender roll models do, it's really no different that being raised in a single parent household. Additional financial security is great, but it doesn't change the reality of dysfunctional kids.”

Because this is subjective opinion on your part, devoid of objective documentation or evidence, and given the fact that children who are raised by single parents, where those children grow to be healthly, normal adults, this argument fails as justification to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying.

Sure some beat the odds, but I have seen first hand within my own family what happens to children raised in gay households, 4 out of 5 wound up on drugs, two in jail. The decline of traditional families are the root of many of this countries problems and you lefties keep wanting to pervert the concept. You are the reason for the decay that has been sweeping this country and what is truly pathetic, your proud of it.

You mean we are responsible for the 'decay' which is the steady decline in violent crime? Or maybe you think we are responsible for Conservative states having among the highest divorce rates in the country?

 

[Syriusly]

This issue is a canard. It is a ruse to used to usurp more power from us the people. Homosexuals who support such actions are damn fools for giving up there own power for something as small as the illusion that people will think them normal. Why do so many ignorantly give up thier power for selfish childish reasons?

You mean why should people give up the right of people like you to treat them like shit?

Frankly, I have to ask, why does gay marriage effect your life at all.

Look facist the truth is if the people in certain states wanted homosexual marriage it woud have won in the election. It didnt. Forcing it on those who dont want it is not how this country is founded. Now like all tragic abuses of power little fasict fucks like you use this to make a less free country. Trust me brown shirt when your socialist paradise comes about your stupid ass will be living in abject poverty hoping the overseers dont kill you because your not bowing deep enough.

Let me rephrase what you said- so we can put it in perspective:

"Look facist the truth is if the people in certain states wanted mixed-race marriage it woud have won in the election. It didnt. Forcing it on those who dont want it is not how this country is founded. Now like all tragic abuses of power little fasict fucks like you use this to make a less free country. Trust me brown shirt when your socialist paradise comes about your stupid ass will be living in abject poverty hoping the overseers dont kill you because your not bowing deep enough"

Swapping out just one word puts your rant in perspective.

Or maybe you really think forcing states to allow mixed race marriages was 'fascism' also?

And finally- what is it with Conservatives and foul language? Is it just a general lack of education and/or vocabulary?

Being gay is not like being black.

Wow- really? All I did was replace one word- and black was not one of the words

Let me rephrase what you said- so we can put it in perspective:

"Look facist the truth is if the people in certain states wanted mixed-race marriage it woud have won in the election. It didnt. Forcing it on those who dont want it is not how this country is founded. Now like all tragic abuses of power little fasict fucks like you use this to make a less free country. Trust me brown shirt when your socialist paradise comes about your stupid ass will be living in abject poverty hoping the overseers dont kill you because your not bowing deep enough"

Swapping out just one word puts your rant in perspective.

Or maybe you really think forcing states to allow mixed race marriages was 'fascism' also?

And finally- what is it with Conservatives and foul language? Is it just a general lack of education and/or vocabulary?