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.
Homosexuality isn't a race, religion or gender. Relationships between people are what we are discussing here. Try to focus.is that the court's ruling didn't change what marriage was, it ruled that the government cannot treat races seperately.No-its realitySilly argument. The point was the state cannot have men treated differently based on the race. Marriage is a state legality and the government cannot tax people and treat them differently. That doesn't men gender no longer matters. How could it?No more than we needed a constitutional amendment to recognize the legality of mixed race marriages.
That is exactly the question the Supreme Court is deciding on this year. And whatever the Supreme Court decides will be binding.
No more than we needed a constitutional amendment to recognize the legality of mixed race marriages.
That is exactly the question the Supreme Court is deciding on this year. And whatever the Supreme Court decides will be binding.
And back to my point- "no more than we needed a constitutional amendment to recognize the legality of mixed race marriage"
States said "no marriage between a black man and a white woman"- Supreme Court said such a ban was unconstitutional as marriage is a right
States said "no marriage between a man and a man"- Supreme Court will rule on whether such a ban is unconsitutional or whether such bans violate American's rights.
Whether the issue is race or sexual preference or gender- the Supreme Court can rule on whether marriage bans are constitutional or not.
Are weapons permits treated like Marriage Licenses and vice versa?
Yes, my weapons license doesn't allow me to carry in commiefornia. Even though the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution clearly says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.".
Nothing in the COTUS mentions marriage. Yet I have to tolerate the bigotry of commiefornians against my right to carry in their state so I stay out of it.
I see your liberal nature will never understand the idea: being gay is unnatural and abnormal. You will never have a child and this is awful.
Moreover it is disgusting and provokes children to think over the possibility to become a homosexual.
I am happy that the Church is against all this gays' movement.
As of yet they don't have the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness that Heterosexuals have. But it's getting closer to that eventuality. Face it, people who enjoy being racist, homophobic, stone throwers are quickly becoming the ones who are being ostracized by nearly all of society outside of Radical Muslim terrorist cells and KKK meetings. The reign of religious zealots in demonzing blacks, gays, women etc. is coming to an end.Equal protection of the laws is.They want equal rights, tard.wrong, they want minority rule.
they HAVE equal rights. gay marriage is NOT a right.
what protections under the laws are gays not allowed to have?
All the legal protections extended to married people.what protections under the laws are gays not allowed to have?
If you want to buttfuck, stay in commiefornia.
More and more evidence that the real motive behind those opposed to same sex marriage is a ban on gay sex.
Wrong. The correct answer is no, marriage licenses are not treated the same as weapons permits. All weapons permits are treated the same though. If a gay person had a weapons permit in your state, theirs would not be treated differently in California than yours is.
Marriage has been declared a fundamental right. In order to deny a fundamental right, you must be able to demonstrate (using a reasonable standard) that there is a demonstrable harm in allowing it. You can't.
Marriage has been declared a fundamental right.
AMENDMENT 1.5--- Anyone can marry anything they want and other people's religious beliefs are null and void if it conflicts with someone else's deviance.
Why is it SO IMPORTANT to you if people recognize your lifestyle? Why do they even need to know? Why does THAT define you? Why can't YOU ACCEPT that some people believe it's wrong, and not shove their nose into it?
I personally DON'T FUCKING CARE. I am sick of hearing about it. I'm sick of hearing about business owners bankrupted because they didn't want to deal with gay weddings. That's just as wrong as the proverbial closet faggots jumping out of pickup trucks and beating up the openly gay kid.
I'm sorry, but gays account for less that %4 of the population. I don't believe the issue demands the attention with the country going bankrupt, cities engulfed in riots every few months, the border wide open, and assholes who take 10 minutes to get a drive thru fast food order done.
You're an 11B?
What is wrong with being being gay exactly.
It creates a "moral hazard" for the Right?
You're an 11B?
How did you know I was from 11B? Maybe you were one of my partners during a "patrol" outside base.
some on the left may subscribe to this historical point of view that may apply to our form of federal government; did the Romans really have to care what the natives were doing as long as the domestic Tranquility and security of a free State were not at issue.What is wrong with being being gay exactly.
It creates a "moral hazard" for the Right?
Fortunately the left has no morals, so being gay is only wrong if you're a republicrat.
That's how I understand it anyway, since I've been called a faggot by so many bed wetting democrooks.
Wrong. The correct answer is no, marriage licenses are not treated the same as weapons permits. All weapons permits are treated the same though. If a gay person had a weapons permit in your state, theirs would not be treated differently in California than yours is.
Marriage has been declared a fundamental right. In order to deny a fundamental right, you must be able to demonstrate (using a reasonable standard) that there is a demonstrable harm in allowing it. You can't.
Hate to break it to you, but I'm right.
My CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT and my weapons license isn't recognized in commiefornia. So I stay out of that God forsaken hell hole of utter lunacy.
Your marriage license isn't recognized in TX[/COLOR] (as far as I know) or FL (according to you).
There is NO right to any sort of relationaship, marriage, wedding, orgy, or anything else even mentioned in the COTUS.
You say:
]Marriage has been declared a fundamental right.
I ask:
By whom? Where did that right come from? Where is it written? Is there a 1.5 Amendment that says:
AMENDMENT 1.5--- Anyone can marry anything they want and other people's religious beliefs are null and void if it conflicts with someone else's deviance.
Why is it SO IMPORTANT to you if people recognize your lifestyle? Why do they even need to know? Why does THAT define you? Why can't YOU ACCEPT that some people believe it's wrong, and not shove their nose into it?
I personally DON'T FUCKING CARE. I am sick of hearing about it. I'm sick of hearing about business owners bankrupted because they didn't want to deal with gay weddings. That's just as wrong as the proverbial closet faggots jumping out of pickup trucks and beating up the openly gay kid.
[/QUOTE]I'm sorry, but gays account for less that %4 of the population. I don't believe the issue demands the attention with the country going bankrupt, cities engulfed in riots every few months, the border wide open, and assholes who take 10 minutes to get a drive thru fast food order done.
Homosexuality isn't a race, religion or gender. Relationships between people are what we are discussing here. Try to focus.is that the court's ruling didn't change what marriage was, it ruled that the government cannot treat races seperately.No-its realitySilly argument. The point was the state cannot have men treated differently based on the race. Marriage is a state legality and the government cannot tax people and treat them differently. That doesn't men gender no longer matters. How could it?No more than we needed a constitutional amendment to recognize the legality of mixed race marriages.
That is exactly the question the Supreme Court is deciding on this year. And whatever the Supreme Court decides will be binding.
No more than we needed a constitutional amendment to recognize the legality of mixed race marriages.
That is exactly the question the Supreme Court is deciding on this year. And whatever the Supreme Court decides will be binding.
And back to my point- "no more than we needed a constitutional amendment to recognize the legality of mixed race marriage"
States said "no marriage between a black man and a white woman"- Supreme Court said such a ban was unconstitutional as marriage is a right
States said "no marriage between a man and a man"- Supreme Court will rule on whether such a ban is unconsitutional or whether such bans violate American's rights.
Whether the issue is race or sexual preference or gender- the Supreme Court can rule on whether marriage bans are constitutional or not.
The states have always defined marriage and you can't offer up an explanation of what or where the bloodlines should be drawn for like gender marriages. For obvious reasons.
Except the Constitution covers race, religion, gender. All people are equal. All relationships are not.Homosexuality isn't a race, religion or gender. Relationships between people are what we are discussing here. Try to focus.is that the court's ruling didn't change what marriage was, it ruled that the government cannot treat races seperately.No-its realitySilly argument. The point was the state cannot have men treated differently based on the race. Marriage is a state legality and the government cannot tax people and treat them differently. That doesn't men gender no longer matters. How could it?
No more than we needed a constitutional amendment to recognize the legality of mixed race marriages.
That is exactly the question the Supreme Court is deciding on this year. And whatever the Supreme Court decides will be binding.
And back to my point- "no more than we needed a constitutional amendment to recognize the legality of mixed race marriage"
States said "no marriage between a black man and a white woman"- Supreme Court said such a ban was unconstitutional as marriage is a right
States said "no marriage between a man and a man"- Supreme Court will rule on whether such a ban is unconsitutional or whether such bans violate American's rights.
Whether the issue is race or sexual preference or gender- the Supreme Court can rule on whether marriage bans are constitutional or not.
The states have always defined marriage and you can't offer up an explanation of what or where the bloodlines should be drawn for like gender marriages. For obvious reasons.
Homosexuality is not race
Race is not religion
Religion is not gender
Gender is not homosexuality.
Glad we cleared that up.
Whether the issue is race or sexual preference or gender- the Supreme Court can rule on whether marriage bans are constitutional or no
As of yet they don't have the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness that Heterosexuals have. But it's getting closer to that eventuality. Face it, people who enjoy being racist, homophobic, stone throwers are quickly becoming the ones who are being ostracized by nearly all of society outside of Radical Muslim terrorist cells and KKK meetings. The reign of religious zealots in demonzing blacks, gays, women etc. is coming to an end.Equal protection of the laws is.They want equal rights, tard.
they HAVE equal rights. gay marriage is NOT a right.
what protections under the laws are gays not allowed to have?
Gays have every right that straights have. .
Except the Constitution covers race, religion, gender. All people are equal. All relationships are not.Homosexuality isn't a race, religion or gender. Relationships between people are what we are discussing here. Try to focus.is that the court's ruling didn't change what marriage was, it ruled that the government cannot treat races seperately.No-its reality
No more than we needed a constitutional amendment to recognize the legality of mixed race marriages.
That is exactly the question the Supreme Court is deciding on this year. And whatever the Supreme Court decides will be binding.
And back to my point- "no more than we needed a constitutional amendment to recognize the legality of mixed race marriage"
States said "no marriage between a black man and a white woman"- Supreme Court said such a ban was unconstitutional as marriage is a right
States said "no marriage between a man and a man"- Supreme Court will rule on whether such a ban is unconsitutional or whether such bans violate American's rights.
Whether the issue is race or sexual preference or gender- the Supreme Court can rule on whether marriage bans are constitutional or not.
The states have always defined marriage and you can't offer up an explanation of what or where the bloodlines should be drawn for like gender marriages. For obvious reasons.
Homosexuality is not race
Race is not religion
Religion is not gender
Gender is not homosexuality.
Glad we cleared that up.
Whether the issue is race or sexual preference or gender- the Supreme Court can rule on whether marriage bans are constitutional or no
You're a bigot and a liar. No one is mandating you do anything. What they want is for you to get your jack boot off their necks.As of yet they don't have the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness that Heterosexuals have. But it's getting closer to that eventuality. Face it, people who enjoy being racist, homophobic, stone throwers are quickly becoming the ones who are being ostracized by nearly all of society outside of Radical Muslim terrorist cells and KKK meetings. The reign of religious zealots in demonzing blacks, gays, women etc. is coming to an end.Equal protection of the laws is.They want equal rights, tard.
they HAVE equal rights. gay marriage is NOT a right.
what protections under the laws are gays not allowed to have?
Gays have every right that straights have. The constitution guarantees the PURSUIT of happiness, it does not guarantee that you will find it. It is not bigoted to believe that homosexuality is an abnormal human condition. Gay marriage is an oxymoron to a majority of human beings on planet earth.
What you are asking for is for the government to mandate societal acceptance of gay marriage in spite of the beliefs of a majority of americans. You want to legislate beliefs and legislate revisions to human biology.
The bigotry here is coming from the left. It is you who are intolerant----intolerant of any beliefs but yours.
And finallly, race and sexual deviancy are two completely different things.
As of yet they don't have the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness that Heterosexuals have. But it's getting closer to that eventuality. Face it, people who enjoy being racist, homophobic, stone throwers are quickly becoming the ones who are being ostracized by nearly all of society outside of Radical Muslim terrorist cells and KKK meetings. The reign of religious zealots in demonzing blacks, gays, women etc. is coming to an end.Equal protection of the laws is.they HAVE equal rights. gay marriage is NOT a right.
what protections under the laws are gays not allowed to have?
Gays have every right that straights have. .
Well why is the Supreme Court even hearing this case today?
Oh thats right because a couple dozen judges disagree with you.
And the Supreme Court is going to decide whether or not a gay persons 14th Ammendment guarantees of equal protection before the law are being violated by not being allowed to marry the person of their choice.
You're a bigot and a liar. No one is mandating you do anything. What they want is for you to get your jack boot off their necks.As of yet they don't have the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness that Heterosexuals have. But it's getting closer to that eventuality. Face it, people who enjoy being racist, homophobic, stone throwers are quickly becoming the ones who are being ostracized by nearly all of society outside of Radical Muslim terrorist cells and KKK meetings. The reign of religious zealots in demonzing blacks, gays, women etc. is coming to an end.Equal protection of the laws is.they HAVE equal rights. gay marriage is NOT a right.
what protections under the laws are gays not allowed to have?
Gays have every right that straights have. The constitution guarantees the PURSUIT of happiness, it does not guarantee that you will find it. It is not bigoted to believe that homosexuality is an abnormal human condition. Gay marriage is an oxymoron to a majority of human beings on planet earth.
What you are asking for is for the government to mandate societal acceptance of gay marriage in spite of the beliefs of a majority of americans. You want to legislate beliefs and legislate revisions to human biology.
The bigotry here is coming from the left. It is you who are intolerant----intolerant of any beliefs but yours.
And finallly, race and sexual deviancy are two completely different things.
