- Joined
- Jan 19, 2014
- Messages
- 14,826
- Reaction score
- 2,015
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
IT's unlawful to be a thief. Gays steal everything they want.
BTW those signatures are Humans.
what have they taken from any one?
IT's unlawful to be a thief. Gays steal everything they want.
BTW those signatures are Humans.
IT's unlawful to be a thief. Gays steal everything they want.
BTW those signatures are Humans.
Bigot of the 50's-60's: Like I said many times I could care less what inter-racial couples do in the privacy of their bedrooms and if they want to hook up I am for giving them the same benefits as straights and I think gov. recognition of their hookups in Civil Unions would do the job.. I just don't want the sacrament of Holy Matrimony desecrated and to that end I will fight to my last breath
Bigot of today: Like I said many times I could care less what gays do in the privacy of their bedrooms and if they want to hook up I am for giving them the same benefits as straights and I think gov. recognition of their hookups in Civil Unions would do the job.. I just don't want the sacrament of Holy Matrimony desecrated and to that end I will fight to my last breath.
Bigots are always bigots...they just change a word here and there.
Same lame arugment....same inane attempt to make bigot a bad word.
Same lame arugment....same inane attempt to make bigot a bad word.
Like I said many times I could care less what gays do in the privacy of their bedrooms and if they want to hook up I am for giving them the same benefits as straights and I think gov. recognition of their hookups in Civil Unions would do the job.. I just don't want the sacrament of Holy Matrimony desecrated and to that end I will fight to my last breath.
The bottom line is individual states have voted over and over again to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and left wing activist judges in most cases have over ruled the will of the people and that is just wrong no matter what liberals say.
Like I said many times I could care less what gays do in the privacy of their bedrooms and if they want to hook up I am for giving them the same benefits as straights and I think gov. recognition of their hookups in Civil Unions would do the job.. I just don't want the sacrament of Holy Matrimony desecrated and to that end I will fight to my last breath.
IT's unlawful to be a thief. Gays steal everything they want.
BTW those signatures are Humans.
I don't know why any state would need to answer that. It should be enough that most people living there believe that allowing partners of the same sex to marry each other would be a socially destructive policy, just as they believe allowing incestuous or polygamous marriages would be.
I don't think you have a firm grasp of the term 'enemy'. I was a grunt and I'd never live in enemy territory- hunt there but not grow old there. I live in Oklahoma, not a real liberal state to say the least and I don't consider my neighbors 'the enemy'. They are just under a shallow spell cast by shammers poising as religious leaders...
You're right, that issue shouldn't have been brought up, it'ss not a right for Gays to have.
IT's unlawful to be a thief. Gays steal everything they want.
BTW those signatures are Humans.
Same lame arugment....same inane attempt to make bigot a bad word.
IT's unlawful to be a thief. Gays steal everything they want.
BTW those signatures are Humans.
How is it enough for them to just 'believe' it? For the discrimination to have any legal base at all it should have evidence of that social destructiveness. None has been shown in decades of gays living together. None has been shown for their raising of children. None has been shown in the years (more than a decade now) that SSM has been legal?
So how is an unfounded belief enough to base any law or discrimination on?
You've got it backwards. In rational basis review, the law being challenged is presumed constitutional. The party challenging it has the burden of showing that is is not rationally related to any legitimate government purpose.
Take public nudity as an example. If a state law prohibits it, or allows it only in a few specified places, is it denying nudists the equal protection of the laws in violation of the 14th Amendment? If some nudists' rights group sued, would the state, to justify its law, have to produce evidence that allowing public nudity is an unwise, socially destructive policy? Would it have to refute evidence presented by the nudists that its view was unfounded, because public nudity has never been shown to have harmed anyone where it was practiced?
Of course not. Ordinary rational basis review would apply, because there is no fundamental right to go nude in public, nor do laws that discriminate against nudists create a suspect classification. The nudist group wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning.
What bigotry! How terribly cruel and unfair! What about their rights to live as wonderful, loving people who mean no harm to anyone, free from oppression? Why doesn't the Supreme Court Do something!!??
Maybe next we'll see nudists recognized as a new victim group, trying like the others, no doubt, to trade on the imagery of the black civil rights movement. I can picture them marching--in the snow, maybe, to symbolize the suffering they've endured all these years. "We shall overcome some day-ay-ay-ay-ay . . ."
Already done. it provides a more stable environment in which to raise children and provides more legal protections and benefits for those children. All these benefit society/the state.
Ha ha awesome. Have that discussion going on right now with Hamster Budha in this thread:http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-inconceivable-now-appears-inevitable-37.html
Starts with post 367.
Sorry, that one doesnt work either.
what have they taken from any one?
of course bigots don't want to believe that bigotry is a bad word. That would not surprise anyone. .A bigot is a bigot is a bigot.....only a word or two changes.
Are fighting to your last breath to prevent adulterers from remarrying? Fornicators from marrying? Are you fighting to end divorce in the US? All those things desecrate marriage. No? Why not?
It's not a bad word...it'simply a difference of opinion.
You misconstrue. I am largely indifferent to SSM; I know it is probably inevitable; I have no interest in "stalling for spite".
The problem I have is letting an appellate court set aside a provision in my home State's Constitution, in such an indirect fashion, without clear word from SCOTUS. If a Fed appellate court can set aside any provision of any State's Constitution at will, then the States may as well close their governments down and quit pretending there is any government other than the Fed.
South Carolina needs to say "**** you, until we hear from SCOTUS our state Constitution stands as we wrote it". Feds don't like it, well the SCOTUS can nut up and render a decision. They owe us that much before setting aside something enumerated in our state Constitution.
notquiteright;1063853813[B said:]I don't think you have a firm grasp of the term 'enemy'.[/B] I was a grunt and I'd never live in enemy territory- hunt there but not grow old there. I live in Oklahoma, not a real liberal state to say the least and I don't consider my neighbors 'the enemy'. They are just under a shallow spell cast by shammers poising as religious leaders...
Are fighting to your last breath to prevent adulterers from remarrying? Fornicators from marrying? Are you fighting to end divorce in the US? All those things desecrate marriage. No? Why not?