The voters in those states has not legalized gay marriage. Activist judges had allow their attempts to make it illegal. It's not the same thing. The voters don't want it.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Anti-Gay cake jerk gets told to take a hike.
- Thread starter PaintMyHouse
- Start date
orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
The voters in those states has not legalized gay marriage. Activist judges had allow their attempts to make it illegal. It's not the same thing. The voters don't want it.I don't think that Bisexuality is a choice any more than homosexuality, heterosexuality or transsexuality is.
So I guess a bi should be able to marry both a man and a woman?
Silly. Bigomy is illegal. Perhaps you are confused as to what it means to be bisexual.
Not confused at all, who are we to deprive them the ability to marry the ones they love? Courts have already proven laws mean nothing.Silly. Bigomy is illegal. Perhaps you are confused as to what it means to be bisexual.
Gay marriage is illegal in most of states. It doesn't stop gays to demand to get married. If definition of marriage could be changed for gays and therefore become legal, whats preventing government to change the definition again if there is "popular demand" for it?
If you don't like living in a democratic republic, may I suggest you find some other place to live?
That's not my argument. You said bigamy is illegal. I counter that gay marriage is illegal in most states.
Most states? You have that backwards. 37 states have legalized gay marriage. It is illegal in only 13 states.
Are you suggesting that courts in 26 states have made unlawful court orders? Because if that is your argument, you should post it on a conspiracy theory web site because, damn.
37 States with Legal Gay Marriage and 13 States with Same-Sex Marriage Bans - Gay Marriage - ProCon.org
26 by Court Decision
Alabama* (Feb. 9, 2015), Alaska (Oct. 17, 2014), Arizona (Oct. 17, 2014), California (June 28, 2013), Colorado (Oct. 7, 2014), Connecticut (Nov. 12, 2008), Florida (Jan. 6, 2015), Idaho (Oct. 13, 2014), Indiana (Oct. 6, 2014), Iowa (Apr. 24, 2009), Kansas (Nov. 12, 2014), Massachusetts (May 17, 2004), Montana (Nov. 19, 2014), Nevada (Oct. 9, 2014), New Jersey (Oct. 21, 2013), New Mexico (Dec. 19, 2013), North Carolina (Oct. 10, 2014), Oklahoma (Oct. 6, 2014), Oregon (May 19, 2014), Pennsylvania (May 20, 2014), South Carolina (Nov. 20, 2014), Utah (Oct. 6, 2014), Virginia (Oct. 6, 2014), West Virginia (Oct. 9, 2014), Wisconsin (Oct. 6, 2014), Wyoming (Oct. 21, 2014)
8 by State LegislatureDelaware (July 1, 2013), Hawaii (Dec. 2, 2013), Illinois (June 1, 2014), Minnesota (Aug. 1, 2013), New Hampshire (Jan. 1, 2010), New York (July 24, 2011), Rhode Island (Aug. 1, 2013), Vermont (Sep. 1, 2009)
3 by Popular VoteMaine (Dec. 29, 2012), Maryland (Jan. 1, 2013), Washington (Dec. 9, 2012)
Washington, DC legalized gay marriage on Mar. 3, 2010, the date marriage licenses became available to same-sex couples.
*On Mar. 3, 2015, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the state's 68 probate judges to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, despite an earlier federal court ruling that struck down the state's gay marriage ban, and the US Supreme Court's decision to allow same-sex marriages to proceed in the state. The state Supreme Court gave probate judges five days to respond if they do not feel they have to follow the order.
26 by court decision... LOL
This is how it works... even when people reject proposition thru the ballot, like California's Prop 8, it get's rejected by liberal court as something that people have no right to decide. But when people accept it thru the ballot, then its OK, since people have decided.
This is how it works... even when people reject proposition thru the ballot, like California's Prop 8, it get's rejected by liberal court as something that people have no right to decide. But when people accept it thru the ballot, then its OK, since people have decided.
- May 17, 2013
- 68,385
- 33,399
- 2,290
Fine then........................Gonna be a cake to remember.
orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
26 by court decision... LOL
This is how it works... even when people reject proposition thru the ballot, like California's Prop 8, it get's rejected by liberal court as something that people have no right to decide. But when people accept it thru the ballot, then its OK, since people have decided.
When the law is unconstitutional, the judiciary has an obligation to make a correction. There is much precedent for this.
If you don't think being gay is a choice, is being bisexual a choice?
I don't think that Bisexuality is a choice any more than homosexuality, heterosexuality or transsexuality is.
So I guess a bi should be able to marry both a man and a woman?
Silly. Bigomy is illegal. Perhaps you are confused as to what it means to be bisexual.
Not confused at all, who are we to deprive them the ability to marry the ones they love? Courts have already proven laws mean nothing.Silly. Bigomy is illegal. Perhaps you are confused as to what it means to be bisexual.
Gay marriage is illegal in most of states. It doesn't stop gays to demand to get married. If definition of marriage could be changed for gays and therefore become legal, whats preventing government to change the definition again if there is "popular demand" for it?
If you don't like living in a democratic republic, may I suggest you find some other place to live?
That's not my argument. You said bigamy is illegal. I counter that gay marriage is illegal in most states.
Most states? You have that backwards. 37 states have legalized gay marriage. It is illegal in only 13 states.
No the courts did that in the majority of the states.
orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
I don't think that Bisexuality is a choice any more than homosexuality, heterosexuality or transsexuality is.
So I guess a bi should be able to marry both a man and a woman?
Silly. Bigomy is illegal. Perhaps you are confused as to what it means to be bisexual.
Not confused at all, who are we to deprive them the ability to marry the ones they love? Courts have already proven laws mean nothing.Silly. Bigomy is illegal. Perhaps you are confused as to what it means to be bisexual.
Gay marriage is illegal in most of states. It doesn't stop gays to demand to get married. If definition of marriage could be changed for gays and therefore become legal, whats preventing government to change the definition again if there is "popular demand" for it?
If you don't like living in a democratic republic, may I suggest you find some other place to live?
That's not my argument. You said bigamy is illegal. I counter that gay marriage is illegal in most states.
Most states? You have that backwards. 37 states have legalized gay marriage. It is illegal in only 13 states.
No the courts did that in the majority of the states.
And?
So I guess a bi should be able to marry both a man and a woman?
Silly. Bigomy is illegal. Perhaps you are confused as to what it means to be bisexual.
Not confused at all, who are we to deprive them the ability to marry the ones they love? Courts have already proven laws mean nothing.Gay marriage is illegal in most of states. It doesn't stop gays to demand to get married. If definition of marriage could be changed for gays and therefore become legal, whats preventing government to change the definition again if there is "popular demand" for it?
If you don't like living in a democratic republic, may I suggest you find some other place to live?
That's not my argument. You said bigamy is illegal. I counter that gay marriage is illegal in most states.
Most states? You have that backwards. 37 states have legalized gay marriage. It is illegal in only 13 states.
No the courts did that in the majority of the states.
And?
And you're a liar, 26 of those 37 did not legalize gay marriage, the courts forced it on them, despite what their citizens wanted.
orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
Silly. Bigomy is illegal. Perhaps you are confused as to what it means to be bisexual.
Not confused at all, who are we to deprive them the ability to marry the ones they love? Courts have already proven laws mean nothing.If you don't like living in a democratic republic, may I suggest you find some other place to live?
That's not my argument. You said bigamy is illegal. I counter that gay marriage is illegal in most states.
Most states? You have that backwards. 37 states have legalized gay marriage. It is illegal in only 13 states.
No the courts did that in the majority of the states.
And?
And you're a liar, 26 of those 37 did not legalize gay marriage, the courts forced it on them, despite what their citizens wanted.
Are you suggesting that courts do not have the power to enforce the law or throw illegal laws out? Because they most certainly do.
Not confused at all, who are we to deprive them the ability to marry the ones they love? Courts have already proven laws mean nothing.That's not my argument. You said bigamy is illegal. I counter that gay marriage is illegal in most states.
Most states? You have that backwards. 37 states have legalized gay marriage. It is illegal in only 13 states.
No the courts did that in the majority of the states.
And?
And you're a liar, 26 of those 37 did not legalize gay marriage, the courts forced it on them, despite what their citizens wanted.
Are you suggesting that courts do not have the power to enforce the law or throw illegal laws out? Because they most certainly do.
Only suggestion I made was you lied when you said 37 states had made faghadist marriage legal. The question whether the courts have the authority to impose it on the states has yet to be determined.
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #151
What the people say, doesn't matter either way.The voters in those states has not legalized gay marriage. Activist judges had allow their attempts to make it illegal. It's not the same thing. The voters don't want it.I don't think that Bisexuality is a choice any more than homosexuality, heterosexuality or transsexuality is.
So I guess a bi should be able to marry both a man and a woman?
Silly. Bigomy is illegal. Perhaps you are confused as to what it means to be bisexual.
Not confused at all, who are we to deprive them the ability to marry the ones they love? Courts have already proven laws mean nothing.Silly. Bigomy is illegal. Perhaps you are confused as to what it means to be bisexual.
Gay marriage is illegal in most of states. It doesn't stop gays to demand to get married. If definition of marriage could be changed for gays and therefore become legal, whats preventing government to change the definition again if there is "popular demand" for it?
If you don't like living in a democratic republic, may I suggest you find some other place to live?
That's not my argument. You said bigamy is illegal. I counter that gay marriage is illegal in most states.
Most states? You have that backwards. 37 states have legalized gay marriage. It is illegal in only 13 states.
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #152
No, that question is settled, obviously.Most states? You have that backwards. 37 states have legalized gay marriage. It is illegal in only 13 states.
No the courts did that in the majority of the states.
And?
And you're a liar, 26 of those 37 did not legalize gay marriage, the courts forced it on them, despite what their citizens wanted.
Are you suggesting that courts do not have the power to enforce the law or throw illegal laws out? Because they most certainly do.
Only suggestion I made was you lied when you said 37 states had made faghadist marriage legal. The question whether the courts have the authority to impose it on the states has yet to be determined.
No, that question is settled, obviously.No the courts did that in the majority of the states.
And?
And you're a liar, 26 of those 37 did not legalize gay marriage, the courts forced it on them, despite what their citizens wanted.
Are you suggesting that courts do not have the power to enforce the law or throw illegal laws out? Because they most certainly do.
Only suggestion I made was you lied when you said 37 states had made faghadist marriage legal. The question whether the courts have the authority to impose it on the states has yet to be determined.
Really, did I miss the supreme court decision, you got a link?
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #154
What you missed, I gather, was the SC letting lower court decisions stand. That is a decision, without writing one. Try and keep up and just deal with the fact that gay marriage it here, so stop being queer.No, that question is settled, obviously.And?
And you're a liar, 26 of those 37 did not legalize gay marriage, the courts forced it on them, despite what their citizens wanted.
Are you suggesting that courts do not have the power to enforce the law or throw illegal laws out? Because they most certainly do.
Only suggestion I made was you lied when you said 37 states had made faghadist marriage legal. The question whether the courts have the authority to impose it on the states has yet to be determined.
Really, did I miss the supreme court decision, you got a link?
Esmeralda
Diamond Member
Actually, the majority of people in the US accept gays and support their rights. The majority of people in the US are concerned about hate and intolerance against homosexuals. Most people are not like you, Steph. They are good, open minded, generous spirited people. Not at all like you.ooooooooooooo, anti-homosexual...omg
they should just start hanging these people..how dare anyone be ANTI-HOMOSEXUAL
I mean they are all so gentle and tolerant aren't they?
brother this is the last thing on the majority of the peoples minds on who the hell is Anti-homosexual
get over yourselves already
What the people say, doesn't matter either way.The voters in those states has not legalized gay marriage. Activist judges had allow their attempts to make it illegal. It's not the same thing. The voters don't want it.So I guess a bi should be able to marry both a man and a woman?
Silly. Bigomy is illegal. Perhaps you are confused as to what it means to be bisexual.
Not confused at all, who are we to deprive them the ability to marry the ones they love? Courts have already proven laws mean nothing.Gay marriage is illegal in most of states. It doesn't stop gays to demand to get married. If definition of marriage could be changed for gays and therefore become legal, whats preventing government to change the definition again if there is "popular demand" for it?
If you don't like living in a democratic republic, may I suggest you find some other place to live?
That's not my argument. You said bigamy is illegal. I counter that gay marriage is illegal in most states.
Most states? You have that backwards. 37 states have legalized gay marriage. It is illegal in only 13 states.
It used to be until Obama took over.
Part of his change America thing because the Dems don't like the people being well informed and in control.
Our Constitution and the bill of rights means nothing at all to this administration.
What you missed, I gather, was the SC letting lower court decisions stand. That is a decision, without writing one. Try and keep up and just deal with the fact that gay marriage it here, so stop being queer.No, that question is settled, obviously.And you're a liar, 26 of those 37 did not legalize gay marriage, the courts forced it on them, despite what their citizens wanted.
Are you suggesting that courts do not have the power to enforce the law or throw illegal laws out? Because they most certainly do.
Only suggestion I made was you lied when you said 37 states had made faghadist marriage legal. The question whether the courts have the authority to impose it on the states has yet to be determined.
Really, did I miss the supreme court decision, you got a link?
The vast majority wants gay marriage, just not being forced to participate in that lifestyle.
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #158
The People have never been in control. We don't have mob rule, AKA democracy, here. How many times must this be said? The pitchforks are not in charge, and were never meant to be, ever.What the people say, doesn't matter either way.The voters in those states has not legalized gay marriage. Activist judges had allow their attempts to make it illegal. It's not the same thing. The voters don't want it.Silly. Bigomy is illegal. Perhaps you are confused as to what it means to be bisexual.
Not confused at all, who are we to deprive them the ability to marry the ones they love? Courts have already proven laws mean nothing.If you don't like living in a democratic republic, may I suggest you find some other place to live?
That's not my argument. You said bigamy is illegal. I counter that gay marriage is illegal in most states.
Most states? You have that backwards. 37 states have legalized gay marriage. It is illegal in only 13 states.
It used to be until Obama took over.
Part of his change America thing because the Dems don't like the people being well informed and in control.
Our Constitution and the bill of rights means nothing at all to this administration.
What you missed, I gather, was the SC letting lower court decisions stand. That is a decision, without writing one. Try and keep up and just deal with the fact that gay marriage it here, so stop being queer.No, that question is settled, obviously.And you're a liar, 26 of those 37 did not legalize gay marriage, the courts forced it on them, despite what their citizens wanted.
Are you suggesting that courts do not have the power to enforce the law or throw illegal laws out? Because they most certainly do.
Only suggestion I made was you lied when you said 37 states had made faghadist marriage legal. The question whether the courts have the authority to impose it on the states has yet to be determined.
Really, did I miss the supreme court decision, you got a link?
Of course the supremes have never changed direction, right? LMAO
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #160
This is not a lifestyle, this is a celebration of an American value, Equality.What you missed, I gather, was the SC letting lower court decisions stand. That is a decision, without writing one. Try and keep up and just deal with the fact that gay marriage it here, so stop being queer.No, that question is settled, obviously.Are you suggesting that courts do not have the power to enforce the law or throw illegal laws out? Because they most certainly do.
Only suggestion I made was you lied when you said 37 states had made faghadist marriage legal. The question whether the courts have the authority to impose it on the states has yet to be determined.
Really, did I miss the supreme court decision, you got a link?
The vast majority wants gay marriage, just not being forced to participate in that lifestyle.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 13
- Views
- 213
- Replies
- 37
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 127
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 50
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 36
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8188
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 475
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-