Why can't gays accept civil unions and just be done with it?

[PJC]

And when a state amends its constitution, which was the case with Proposition 8, eliminating the legislative option, same-sex couples, or any other adversely effective group, have no other recourse than to seek remedy in the courts.

Again, this was all avoidable.

Now that's funny. The people must be kept out of making laws, that's a role for the government. So if the people in a State vote for a referendum recognizing gay marriage and you were on the bench, you'd strike it down as Unconstitutional! Bull, it's the result you want by whatever method you can get it.

Logic, don't try it at home liberals. When used in correctly, it blows up in your face. Which for you is every time you try to use it.

“If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations... And that the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of history... To remedy the dangers attendant upon the arbitrary use of power, checks, however multiplied, will scarcely avail without an explicit admission some limitation of the right of the majority to excercise sovereign authority over the individual citizen... In popular governments [democracies], minorities [individuals] constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies.”

John Adams.

Clearly, conservatives are some of the very worst at attempting logic; they constantly use fallacies which they magically proclaim as "logic", but which is far from it.

 

[PJC]

Now that's funny. The people must be kept out of making laws, that's a role for the government. So if the people in a State vote for a referendum recognizing gay marriage and you were on the bench, you'd strike it down as Unconstitutional! Bull, it's the result you want by whatever method you can get it.

Logic, don't try it at home liberals. When used in correctly, it blows up in your face. Which for you is every time you try to use it.

How would a referendum granting marriage equality violate the 14th Amendment?

The reason Prop 8 has been found unconstitutional is because it took away rights already granted. (one of the 18K)

I mixed it up with the proposition 8 regarding property taxes.

Gay marriage and the 14th amendment have nothing to do with each other. Gays are treated exactly under the law the same as straights.

Miscegenation and the 14th amendment have nothing to do with each other. Blacks are treated exactly under the law the same as Whites.

That argument was shot down in flames by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I have to laugh that we have a "hippy" posting from afuckingstan. Well, I almost feel that land needs hippies...

Hell it might make it better.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.

Why can't you drop your ridiculous prejudices? Especially when it has absolutely ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, 0.00% impact on you and your life.

Why?

Maybe we should let them marry. As long as it doesn't effect me.


Of course everything that's a adult should be able to marry.

 

[ScienceRocks]

How would a referendum granting marriage equality violate the 14th Amendment?

The reason Prop 8 has been found unconstitutional is because it took away rights already granted. (one of the 18K)

I mixed it up with the proposition 8 regarding property taxes.

Gay marriage and the 14th amendment have nothing to do with each other. Gays are treated exactly under the law the same as straights.

Miscegenation and the 14th amendment have nothing to do with each other. Blacks are treated exactly under the law the same as Whites.

That argument was shot down in flames by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional.

With the level of dead beats and disease. Who sane would want too?

 

[PJC]

I mixed it up with the proposition 8 regarding property taxes.

Gay marriage and the 14th amendment have nothing to do with each other. Gays are treated exactly under the law the same as straights.

“Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.”

Proposition 8 “unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”

These are the rulings that will stand if the SCOTUS doesn't hear Prop 8...Unconstitutional.

Regardless of the issue, the idea that government can overrule the people as "Unconstitutional" demonstrates that neither you nor the California courts know what a Constitution is.

Regardless of your erroneous assumption of what you think it demonstrates; the author of our Constitution himself: James Madison, stated:
“A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

You’re saying that the statement made by James Madison, The Father of the US Constitution, demonstrates that he does not “know what a Constitution is.”

I’ll keep that in mind.

 

[PJC]

Dear Liberals,

I guess I must be a pretty mean person for wanting to stand up for traditional marriage. I must be hateful or bigoted. For all of my life I was taught that marriage was between a man and woman. Now I'm at a crossroads. Do I let my morality take hold? Do I stick to my values? Or do I succumb to the growing national consensus that agrees with same sex marriages?

I feel like I am one of a dying breed of people. One day, I may be only one of a few that hold the beliefs I do... It's scary, living your entire life thinking you're right... Then having almost all of your countrymen side against you. I have been told that I should be guided by the law and not by my own morals, and that the scriptures of my faith should be no longer the basis for the law.

It's very disconcerting people. I fear that one day I will be seen as an outcast for what I believe in, or for wanting to stand up what I believe in. Things that not long ago were encouraged in this country. I cannot recognize my country anymore.

I am extremely worried. I don't want to be mean.. I don't want to be hateful.. But I don't want to let go values I hold dear. Is there something so wrong about that?

you are not alone, you are part of the majority. The minority is supported by the very vocal idiots in hollywood and the left wing media.

We should never give up on our principles.

surely you're not claiming that the majority is in favor of prohibiting gay marriage, are you?

If so, prove it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Yay, let's legalize gay marriage and pot in all 50 states. We can fuck and smoke!

 

[PJC]

Dear Liberals,

I guess I must be a pretty mean person for wanting to stand up for traditional marriage. I must be hateful or bigoted. For all of my life I was taught that marriage was between a man and woman. Now I'm at a crossroads. Do I let my morality take hold? Do I stick to my values? Or do I succumb to the growing national consensus that agrees with same sex marriages?

The bible was used as justification of both slavery and anti miscegenation laws. Would you, today, consider them bigots? Would you have advised those that believed it to stick by their values?

I feel like I am one of a dying breed of people. One day, I may be only one of a few that hold the beliefs I do... It's scary, living your entire life thinking you're right... Then having almost all of your countrymen side against you. I have been told that I should be guided by the law and not by my own morals, and that the scriptures of my faith should be no longer the basis for the law.

It's very disconcerting people. I fear that one day I will be seen as an outcast for what I believe in, or for wanting to stand up what I believe in. Things that not long ago were encouraged in this country. I cannot recognize my country anymore.

I am extremely worried. I don't want to be mean.. I don't want to be hateful.. But I don't want to let go values I hold dear. Is there something so wrong about that?

Your scripture was never the basis for this country's law.

Hello, reality calls once again saying, you should read both Testaments of The Bible before commenting! Those who used the Bible for such things misconstrued it. That is not tolerable. But then you would stereotype me because of it. Interesting.

Read this. You're absolutely wrong. It held great sway on our law.

The Framework of Law: The Bible in Legal History

The Bible and Government - Faith Facts

Research the 1st Amendment.

 

[PJC]

you are not alone, you are part of the majority. The minority is supported by the very vocal idiots in hollywood and the left wing media.

We should never give up on our principles.

Society has been shifting, that is a reality. All you have to do is look at the voting results of the early 2000's where anti-marriage equality referendums passed by 23%76% margins of victory in general elections, by 2008/2009 that margin had decreased to a point where only a 2.5% shift would have changed the outcome, then in 2012 there were 4 initiatives in the general ballot and all were won by same-sex Civil Marriage supporters (3 approving it outright, 1 defeat of an anti-marriage equality amendment). Then of course there are multiple national polls documenting the trend going back many years that show society is more accepting of homosexual relationships.

You of course are free to hold out that the "majority" are opposed to marriage equality, but the facts do not support you.
>>>>

you are correct, the culture, ethics, and morals that made this country great are being gradually destroyed by leftists.
Why does anyone think that is a positive development?

(Sigh) Yet another one who's claiming a moral destruction/decline.

Let’s hear from our ancestors how our moral values have been destroyed and declined:

“We live in a decaying age. Young people no longer respect their parents. They are rude and impatient. They frequently inhabit taverns and have no self control."
Inscription, 6000 year-old Egyptian tomb

"When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly disrespectful and impatient of restraint".
Hesiod, 8th century BC

"What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?"
Plato, 4th Century BC

"The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint... As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress."
Attributed to Peter the Hermit, AD 1274

The press covered a report from a British Government committee which had been set up to "examine the causes of the present notorious immorality and profaneness."
British Press, April 1738

Hordes of teens and pre-teens ran wild in American city streets, dodging authorities, "gnawing away at the foundations of society".
Commentator, 1800s

New York City recorded more than 200 gang wars fought largely by adolescent boys.
New York City, 1850

Warning of the menace of "hooligans" and of a "dramatic increase in disorderly behaviour"; "organised terrorism in the streets".
The Times in England, 1898.

"Juvenile delinquency has increased at an alarming rate and is eating at the heart of America"
US juvenile court judge, 1946

“you are correct, the culture, ethics, and morals that made this country great are being gradually destroyed by leftists.
Why does anyone think that is a positive development?”
Internet forum poster, 2013

Do you have any quantifiable evidence that we are less moral today than we were 50 years ago?

 

[Seawytch]

I mixed it up with the proposition 8 regarding property taxes.

Gay marriage and the 14th amendment have nothing to do with each other. Gays are treated exactly under the law the same as straights.

“Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.”

Proposition 8 “unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”

These are the rulings that will stand if the SCOTUS doesn't hear Prop 8...Unconstitutional.

Regardless of the issue, the idea that government can overrule the people as "Unconstitutional" demonstrates that neither you nor the California courts know what a Constitution is.

Really? So if the state of California decided to have a referendum banning handguns, you'd be okay with that?

 

[kaz]

And when a state amends its constitution, which was the case with Proposition 8, eliminating the legislative option, same-sex couples, or any other adversely effective group, have no other recourse than to seek remedy in the courts.

Again, this was all avoidable.

Now that's funny. The people must be kept out of making laws, that's a role for the government. So if the people in a State vote for a referendum recognizing gay marriage and you were on the bench, you'd strike it down as Unconstitutional! Bull, it's the result you want by whatever method you can get it.

Logic, don't try it at home liberals. When used in correctly, it blows up in your face. Which for you is every time you try to use it.

“If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations... And that the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of history... To remedy the dangers attendant upon the arbitrary use of power, checks, however multiplied, will scarcely avail without an explicit admission some limitation of the right of the majority to excercise sovereign authority over the individual citizen... In popular governments [democracies], minorities [individuals] constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies.”

John Adams.

Clearly, conservatives are some of the very worst at attempting logic; they constantly use fallacies which they magically proclaim as "logic", but which is far from it.

John Adams solution to the problem was to be a republic, not to have government take decision making away from the people. To use John Adams, who I'm descended from by the way, as a justification for government controlling the people is clueless and calling that logic even more so.

 

[Seawytch]

Dear Liberals,

I guess I must be a pretty mean person for wanting to stand up for traditional marriage. I must be hateful or bigoted. For all of my life I was taught that marriage was between a man and woman. Now I'm at a crossroads. Do I let my morality take hold? Do I stick to my values? Or do I succumb to the growing national consensus that agrees with same sex marriages?

The bible was used as justification of both slavery and anti miscegenation laws. Would you, today, consider them bigots? Would you have advised those that believed it to stick by their values?

I feel like I am one of a dying breed of people. One day, I may be only one of a few that hold the beliefs I do... It's scary, living your entire life thinking you're right... Then having almost all of your countrymen side against you. I have been told that I should be guided by the law and not by my own morals, and that the scriptures of my faith should be no longer the basis for the law.

It's very disconcerting people. I fear that one day I will be seen as an outcast for what I believe in, or for wanting to stand up what I believe in. Things that not long ago were encouraged in this country. I cannot recognize my country anymore.

I am extremely worried. I don't want to be mean.. I don't want to be hateful.. But I don't want to let go values I hold dear. Is there something so wrong about that?

Your scripture was never the basis for this country's law.

Hello, reality calls once again saying, you should read both Testaments of The Bible before commenting! Those who used the Bible for such things misconstrued it. That is not tolerable. But then you would stereotype me because of it. Interesting.

The bible was used for justification of slavery and they didn't feel they were misconstruing it any more than you do. Were they bigots or weren't they? A judge used his religion in his ruling against interracial marriage laws stating that god did not mean for the races to mix. Were they bigots for being guided by their religion and morals or not?

 

[kaz]

How would a referendum granting marriage equality violate the 14th Amendment?

The reason Prop 8 has been found unconstitutional is because it took away rights already granted. (one of the 18K)

I mixed it up with the proposition 8 regarding property taxes.

Gay marriage and the 14th amendment have nothing to do with each other. Gays are treated exactly under the law the same as straights.

Miscegenation and the 14th amendment have nothing to do with each other. Blacks are treated exactly under the law the same as Whites.

That argument was shot down in flames by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional.

Not sure what you're blathering about. Blacks were not treated the same as whites, that is what the 14th amendment was for. Forced segregation, separate facilities and so forth. If Steve is like me in every way except he was black in the South during the 50s, the law applied to him differently. That was a slam dunk violation of the 14th amendment.

Gays are treated the same as straights. Same laws treated the same way. If Steve is exactly the same as me except he's gay, he can still marry exactly the same people I can. If you don't like that, there's a solution. The legislature, that's what it's for.

That you'd say oh, you're against gay marriage so you're for Jim Crow laws is asinine. If you want to have serious conversations with anyone but yourself knock off that crap.

 

[kaz]

“Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.”

Proposition 8 “unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”

These are the rulings that will stand if the SCOTUS doesn't hear Prop 8...Unconstitutional.

Regardless of the issue, the idea that government can overrule the people as "Unconstitutional" demonstrates that neither you nor the California courts know what a Constitution is.

Regardless of your erroneous assumption of what you think it demonstrates; the author of our Constitution himself: James Madison, stated:
“A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

You’re saying that the statement made by James Madison, The Father of the US Constitution, demonstrates that he does not “know what a Constitution is.”

I’ll keep that in mind.

You're arguing a non-sequitor. Madison again was not arguing that government can overrule the people in any way, shape or form. By "pure democracy" he was referring to why we are a republic, not a democracy. But Madison and Adams totally did not believe that government could simply reject the will of the people. If you want to read their quotes, read their quotes on their severe distrust of government.

Your second flaw is that California by the way in a republic state is a component of the whole, Madison would have totally supported the people's ability to make their own laws. You're misapplying the Federal government with State rights, something Adams and Madison both strongly believed in.

Power divided is power checked.

 

[kaz]

“Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.”

Proposition 8 “unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”

These are the rulings that will stand if the SCOTUS doesn't hear Prop 8...Unconstitutional.

Regardless of the issue, the idea that government can overrule the people as "Unconstitutional" demonstrates that neither you nor the California courts know what a Constitution is.

Really? So if the state of California decided to have a referendum banning handguns, you'd be okay with that?

There are actually two questions in that.

Constitutional protections apply to State and Local government? The Constitution doesn't say it does, but the Supreme Court does. I'm not sure I have a clear answer. I would like them to apply, but I would like them to have said that. Or going forward to pass an actual amendment saying that.

However, given we assume it does apply, the 2nd Amendment would prohibit that. The Constitution says nothing about government recognizing gay marriage. If States tried to pass laws sending gays to certain schools or forcing them to drink at different fountains, then that would be a violation of the Constitution.

The 14th amendment Constitution says you cannot treat groups by law differently than other groups. It does not say you have to give them what they want if they want different things than other groups.

 

[Seawytch]

Regardless of the issue, the idea that government can overrule the people as "Unconstitutional" demonstrates that neither you nor the California courts know what a Constitution is.

Really? So if the state of California decided to have a referendum banning handguns, you'd be okay with that?

There are actually two questions in that.

Constitutional protections apply to State and Local government? The Constitution doesn't say it does, but the Supreme Court does. I'm not sure I have a clear answer. I would like them to apply, but I would like them to have said that. Or going forward to pass an actual amendment saying that.

However, given we assume it does apply, the 2nd Amendment would prohibit that. The Constitution says nothing about government recognizing gay marriage. If States tried to pass laws sending gays to certain schools or forcing them to drink at different fountains, then that would be a violation of the Constitution.

The 14th amendment Constitution says you cannot treat groups by law differently than other groups. It does not say you have to give them what they want if they want different things than other groups.

A right is a right. The SCOTUS has declared marriage a fundamental right on at least three occasions. Just because it is not expressly written in the Constitution does not mean it is not a right.

Of course gays and lesbians are treated differently. We cannot marry the non familial consenting adult of our choice. That is being treated differently whether you want to see it or not.

 

[kaz]

Really? So if the state of California decided to have a referendum banning handguns, you'd be okay with that?

There are actually two questions in that.

Constitutional protections apply to State and Local government? The Constitution doesn't say it does, but the Supreme Court does. I'm not sure I have a clear answer. I would like them to apply, but I would like them to have said that. Or going forward to pass an actual amendment saying that.

However, given we assume it does apply, the 2nd Amendment would prohibit that. The Constitution says nothing about government recognizing gay marriage. If States tried to pass laws sending gays to certain schools or forcing them to drink at different fountains, then that would be a violation of the Constitution.

The 14th amendment Constitution says you cannot treat groups by law differently than other groups. It does not say you have to give them what they want if they want different things than other groups.

A right is a right. The SCOTUS has declared marriage a fundamental right on at least three occasions. Just because it is not expressly written in the Constitution does not mean it is not a right.

Of course gays and lesbians are treated differently. We cannot marry the non familial consenting adult of our choice. That is being treated differently whether you want to see it or not.

Actually straights can't enter in to same sex marriages either. Stop being so lazy and get the law changed the right way. By convincing people.

Single people married the person of their choice as well, no one. Your standard isn't even consistent, and there are no variables in the Constitution. The law is the law, it applies to everyone the same way.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Regardless of the issue, the idea that government can overrule the people as "Unconstitutional" demonstrates that neither you nor the California courts know what a Constitution is.

Really? So if the state of California decided to have a referendum banning handguns, you'd be okay with that?

There are actually two questions in that.

Constitutional protections apply to State and Local government? The Constitution doesn't say it does, but the Supreme Court does. I'm not sure I have a clear answer. I would like them to apply, but I would like them to have said that. Or going forward to pass an actual amendment saying that.

Actually the Constitution does say it. The 14th Amendment says...

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

However, given we assume it does apply, the 2nd Amendment would prohibit that. The Constitution says nothing about government recognizing gay marriage. If States tried to pass laws sending gays to certain schools or forcing them to drink at different fountains, then that would be a violation of the Constitution.

The Constitution does say that citizens cannot be denied due process and equal treatment under the law.

The 14th amendment Constitution says you cannot treat groups by law differently than other groups. It does not say you have to give them what they want if they want different things than other groups.

Marriage equality doesn't give them different things from other groups, it gives them the same thing.


>>>>

 

[PJC]

Still, no comment for

Here’s your comment:

1. Allowing "civil unions" or REDEFINING marriage will bankrupt this nation, monetarily, if the benefits stand as they are. People that can legally give their gov't benefits to another (partner) will circumvent the laws for inheritance (so much for taxing the rich). SS benefits will be passed on to young adults that have chosen to play the system by legally joining their elderly benefactor (their does not have to be a "loving", intimate relationship). Same sex relatives will legally join to avoid inheritance taxes, and to scam social security benefits. Incest laws do not apply to same sex "couples".

People that can legally give their gov’t benefits to another (partner) can circumvent the laws for inheritance right now . SS benefits can currently be passed on to young adults that have chosen to play the system by legally joining their elderly benefactor (their currently does not have to be a “loving” intimate relationship). Claiming that same sex relatives will legally join is a presumption based solely upon a slippery slope fallacy.

2. Legally joining people for any other reason than "marriage" (in the traditional sense) will morally bankrupt this country. To avoid the above (see 1.), the gov't will either have to appoint witness panels (to verify the "union" was completed), or it will have to eliminate the benefits of marriage. That will hurt millions and millions of "children" that are dependent on married parents supporting them in a loving relationship where one parent is supported by the other during child-bearing and child-raising years. The benefits of the supporting spouse will not legally go to the other. People will become even more deceptive to get the benefits and support that is needed to raise a family, or families will simply not exist anymore. Children will be turned over to the "state" to be raised in a cold, unloving, calculating atmosphere where the gov't will be almighty and people will be part of the "collective" (so much for individuals).

I don’t think it will morally bankrupt this country any more so than when we allowed blacks the right to vote, any more so than when we allowed women the right to vote, any more so than when we got rid of jim crow laws, any more so than when miscegenation laws were declared unconstitutional. The rest of your paragraph here is an argument to the future fallacy and has no basis in reality. Show where your claims have occurred in any countries that currently allow same sex marriage. Does the govt currently have to appoint witness panels (to verify the “union” was completed) for opposite sex marriages of convenience? Your claim that it’ll “hurt millions and millions of children” is an appeal to emotion (many groups use this similar fallacy for their propaganda as well.) It doesn’t work because it is a lie. The rest of your predictions are also nonsense and utter hogwash.

Homosexuals are fully aware that their behavior is not "traditional" in any sense. Just like people that choose to have children out of wedlock, and raise those children on their own or in a "loving" relationship with a person they "choose" not to marry. I cannot understand how such a tiny percentage of the population wants to DESTROY the entire population, by demanding they are given "additional" privileges for choices that can be demonstrated to be immoral and unhealthy. In this country, you have a right to live within the laws as you please. You do not have a right to force a change onto society that will destroy the nation, and leave the "children" hopeless and bankrupt. Another sad testament in this country of personal "greed" over what is "best" for the community and country.

Marriage is not all that “traditional” in the first place. Research the history of marriage. Your claim that gays wand to destroy marriage is also a lie. Have you talked with Gays? Have they told you they want to destroy marriage? If so, how many of them have told you this? Or are you simply psychic and know millions of peoples’ wants? Your idea of immorality is not everyone’s. My idea of it is that prejudice and intolerance are immoral, but I am not fool enough to assume that everyone must feel the same as I do. No one is forcing a change onto society. Gay marriage will not destroy the nation, children will not be left hopeless and bankrupt. Your claims are preposterous hooey.

And greed has nothing to do with gays wanting to be married. Did you get married out of greed?

So much for these people "caring about the children"....

so you’re assuming that gays do not care for children…because of your ridiculously fallacious and irrational fallacy of appeal to emotion? (“Oh mercy me…what of the children!?” Gasp!) The Taliban, HIG and Haqqani Network use the same melodramatic bullshit.

There’s your comment.