Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[RKMBrown]

BE CLEAR, BEGGING WHAT QUESTION? STOP DANCING.

Begging the question is assuming the truth of your own position. That's what you are doing here. I have no idea what that even means. Not giving validation and party gifts is restricting someone's life, liberty and property how? Again, I don't even know what that means. No one is owed anything by government or anyone else. People do have the right to be left alone. Gays are left alone. So I don't know what that means. It seems like a word game on what I said.

Let me get this straight...
I quote exactly what you said responding to your statements with my best guess at what you meant, and you complain that I'm wrong about what you said and that I was making stuff up.

So then I quote exactly what said, and ask you to tell me what you meant by your statements; and in response you tell me that you have no idea what you said, and that your statements seem like a word game on what you said.

If you don't know what you meant, how the hell am I supposed to know what you meant?

So do you want to keep running your mouth or just ask a question without including strawmen and I'll answer it? I don't care if you do or not, I'm just saying that if you want me to answer a question, that's what it takes. LOL, you and Seawytch are cut from the same mold. She does the same thing, then whines I won't answer her questions when I keep telling her what it takes to answer the question. She also doesn't notice I answer her questions all the time in other posts, just not in the post she includes putting a bunch of crap in my mouth I didn't say like you do.

And LOL, best guess, that's funny. .

Bullshit. You refuse to answer the questions posed because you lack the backbone to defend liberty for gays. My statements were not straw-men, my questions were clear. Stop dancing and deflecting and decide whether you stand for liberty in this matter or for authoritarian control. Saying you pick door number 3, no government management of marriage, is a cop out and you know it.

So you can keep stamping your feet and demanding an answer, but you can't just ask the question without saying I'm saying idiotic things that I didn't say? You can't ask me what I think without telling me what I think while you do it? Yes, you and Seawytch, too bad she's gay, you'd get along. She does the same thing. Stamping her feet doesn't work, and she can't ask questions without saying I said things I didn't.

What I'm asking is simple. Ask me what I think without telling me what I think That's really not possible? You can't do it? You do that and I don't answer and it's on me. Now it's on you. Stop picking fun and then expecting me to be serious.

You said what you think. Why would I want to ask you what you think after you have already said what you think? It's called a conversation, you should try it.

 

[RKMBrown]

You mean the court will claim its decision is based on the Constitution even though they totally ignored it. Supreme Court judges are political hacks who where put on the court because they could be depended upon to make the decisions their benefactors wanted them to make.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with equal protection. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Sexual preferences don't enter into it.

You're still gonna lose.

Um...he just said that. He even clearly explained why. You weren't paying attention, were you?

I was just rubbing it in. He can sour grape it all he wants to, so can you. You'll end up just like the people bitter and angry over the Loving decision. You'll get over it or die and we'll still be getting the same rights, benefits and protections you have (buy you don't enjoy, I know)

Yes, you ignorant slut, I'm against gay rights because I hate gays. This is why I don't take you seriously, ho. Now you can whine that I insulted you when I told you I don't take you seriously so I'm going to insult you.

Children are in my view the one legitimate argument against gay marriage outside the realm of why government is involved in marriage at all. People evolved to need a mother and a father. It's not gays having their own children that makes it an argument, it's adoption. All qualified heterosexual parents should be able to adopt children before going to less than ideal situations, which is all other situations besides heterosexual pair.

As for your reply, Karnac predicts you don't know what the word "ideal" means...

And BTW, you have all the same "rights, benefits and protections" the rest of us have now. Like all liberals, you are not equal unless you are superior.

How is being in a homosexual marriage superior to being in a heterosexual marriage? You're gonna have to explain that one. Text bolded for emphasis.

 

[kaz]

Begging the question is assuming the truth of your own position. That's what you are doing here. I have no idea what that even means. Not giving validation and party gifts is restricting someone's life, liberty and property how? Again, I don't even know what that means. No one is owed anything by government or anyone else. People do have the right to be left alone. Gays are left alone. So I don't know what that means. It seems like a word game on what I said.

Let me get this straight...
I quote exactly what you said responding to your statements with my best guess at what you meant, and you complain that I'm wrong about what you said and that I was making stuff up.

So then I quote exactly what said, and ask you to tell me what you meant by your statements; and in response you tell me that you have no idea what you said, and that your statements seem like a word game on what you said.

If you don't know what you meant, how the hell am I supposed to know what you meant?

So do you want to keep running your mouth or just ask a question without including strawmen and I'll answer it? I don't care if you do or not, I'm just saying that if you want me to answer a question, that's what it takes. LOL, you and Seawytch are cut from the same mold. She does the same thing, then whines I won't answer her questions when I keep telling her what it takes to answer the question. She also doesn't notice I answer her questions all the time in other posts, just not in the post she includes putting a bunch of crap in my mouth I didn't say like you do.

And LOL, best guess, that's funny. .

Bullshit. You refuse to answer the questions posed because you lack the backbone to defend liberty for gays. My statements were not straw-men, my questions were clear. Stop dancing and deflecting and decide whether you stand for liberty in this matter or for authoritarian control. Saying you pick door number 3, no government management of marriage, is a cop out and you know it.

So you can keep stamping your feet and demanding an answer, but you can't just ask the question without saying I'm saying idiotic things that I didn't say? You can't ask me what I think without telling me what I think while you do it? Yes, you and Seawytch, too bad she's gay, you'd get along. She does the same thing. Stamping her feet doesn't work, and she can't ask questions without saying I said things I didn't.

What I'm asking is simple. Ask me what I think without telling me what I think That's really not possible? You can't do it? You do that and I don't answer and it's on me. Now it's on you. Stop picking fun and then expecting me to be serious.

You said what you think. Why would I want to ask you what you think after you have already said what you think? It's called a conversation, you should try it.

You don't need any help, you're doing the talking for both of us.

And so you keep yelling to answer the question, now suddenly I've answered it? Was that another one you answered it for me?

 

[kaz]

And BTW, you have all the same "rights, benefits and protections" the rest of us have now. Like all liberals, you are not equal unless you are superior.

How is being in a homosexual marriage superior to being in a heterosexual marriage? You're gonna have to explain that one. Text bolded for emphasis.

First of all, that was a statement to liberals in general, not just about this case. But on this case, liberals want gays to have something straights don't have. They are saying they should be able to government marry the same sex. I would not say that if they went to the legislature, but they are going to the courts. The courts rule on literal, they do not make law legally.

Democrats are demanding they make law because liberals don't like the law as it's written and they can't be bothered to do it the right way. It's not a sweeping statement that gay marriage is better than straight marriage, it is referring to how they are going about it. We don't like that law, the courts need to fix the law. That is how they think they are superior. They don't have to follow the course the rest of us do.

If the majority goes left, game over, they win. If they majority does not go left, then the courts fix it. Game over, they win.

 

[RKMBrown]

And BTW, you have all the same "rights, benefits and protections" the rest of us have now. Like all liberals, you are not equal unless you are superior.

How is being in a homosexual marriage superior to being in a heterosexual marriage? You're gonna have to explain that one. Text bolded for emphasis.

First of all, that was a statement to liberals in general, not just about this case. But on this case, liberals want gays to have something straights don't have. They are saying they should be able to government marry the same sex. I would not say that if they went to the legislature, but they are going to the courts. The courts rule on literal, they do not make law legally.

Democrats are demanding they make law because liberals don't like the law as it's written and they can't be bothered to do it the right way. It's not a sweeping statement that gay marriage is better than straight marriage, it is referring to how they are going about it. We don't like that law, the courts need to fix the law. That is how they think they are superior. They don't have to follow the course the rest of us do.

If the majority goes left, game over, they win. If they majority does not go left, then the courts fix it. Game over, they win.

That's not what happened though is it? Democrats and Republicans were the ones writing laws banning homosexual marriage. This is a statement of fact. Not up for discussion.

Democrats changed their mind, and now say they have seen the error of their ways and now want those restrictive laws thrown out. They want liberty for the homosexual community at large to have the same damn rights heterosexuals have, the frigging right to get married.

Republicans, are demanding the laws restricting the liberty of homosexuals to get married JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE stay in place.

This is not a homosexuals want special privileges thing.. that is a bull honky lie made up by authoritarians. Homosexuals want the same frigging right as afforded to heterosexuals, the frigging right to get married.

Your argument that heterosexuals can't get married to others of the same sex either is an extremely vile statement. It's the exact same thing as saying blacks could change the color of their skin if they didn't like jim crow laws.

 

[Seawytch]

First of all, that was a statement to liberals in general, not just about this case. But on this case, liberals want gays to have something straights don't have. They are saying they should be able to government marry the same sex. I would not say that if they went to the legislature, but they are going to the courts. The courts rule on literal, they do not make law legally.

Democrats are demanding they make law because liberals don't like the law as it's written and they can't be bothered to do it the right way. It's not a sweeping statement that gay marriage is better than straight marriage, it is referring to how they are going about it. We don't like that law, the courts need to fix the law. That is how they think they are superior. They don't have to follow the course the rest of us do.

If the majority goes left, game over, they win. If they majority does not go left, then the courts fix it. Game over, they win.

We are following the proper course. When your civil rights are being violated, you get to petition the courts.

Straights can marry the same sex too so your "gays get special rights" is pathetic.

 

[WorldWatcher]

But on this case, liberals want gays to have something straights don't have. They are saying they should be able to government marry the same sex.

Speaking as a Republican for about 37 years. These sentences makes no sense.

What would gays have that straights don't have - please be specific as to what functions of laws would apply to same-sex couples that wouldn't apply to different-sex couples? Estate? Tax? Child Custody? What?

Secondly, "They are saying they should be able to government marry the same sex." With Same-sex Civil Marriage, what part of the law would bar a straight person from marrying another straight person of the same gender? None that I know of, so there is nothing special there either as a straight person can marry another person of the same gender that is straight.


>>>>

 

[kaz]

That's not what happened though is it? Democrats and Republicans were the ones writing laws banning homosexual marriage. This is a statement of fact. Not up for discussion.

Nope not up for discussion, it's just flat out wrong, there is no law banning gay marriage any more than there is a law banning tuna fish from getting a drivers license.

Your argument that heterosexuals can't get married to others of the same sex either is an extremely vile statement. It's the exact same thing as saying blacks could change the color of their skin if they didn't like jim crow laws.

What a moron.

My argument is why it's a job for the legislature, not the courts. Oh, the courts need to make life fair, RKM wants it! Gays want government to tell them they are OK, they want tax breaks. It's not fair! Courts, make it fair! Yeah, they're doing a bang up job of that. The legislature sucks at it too, but at least they are accountable to the people.

 

[kaz]

First of all, that was a statement to liberals in general, not just about this case. But on this case, liberals want gays to have something straights don't have. They are saying they should be able to government marry the same sex. I would not say that if they went to the legislature, but they are going to the courts. The courts rule on literal, they do not make law legally.

Democrats are demanding they make law because liberals don't like the law as it's written and they can't be bothered to do it the right way. It's not a sweeping statement that gay marriage is better than straight marriage, it is referring to how they are going about it. We don't like that law, the courts need to fix the law. That is how they think they are superior. They don't have to follow the course the rest of us do.

If the majority goes left, game over, they win. If they majority does not go left, then the courts fix it. Game over, they win.

We are following the proper course. When your civil rights are being violated, you get to petition the courts.

Straights can marry the same sex too so your "gays get special rights" is pathetic.

You still can't name a single gay who has different rights than they would if they were straight.

 

[kaz]

But on this case, liberals want gays to have something straights don't have. They are saying they should be able to government marry the same sex.

Speaking as a Republican for about 37 years. These sentences makes no sense.

What would gays have that straights don't have - please be specific as to what functions of laws would apply to same-sex couples that wouldn't apply to different-sex couples? Estate? Tax? Child Custody? What?

Secondly, "They are saying they should be able to government marry the same sex." With Same-sex Civil Marriage, what part of the law would bar a straight person from marrying another straight person of the same gender? None that I know of, so there is nothing special there either as a straight person can marry another person of the same gender that is straight.


>>>>

As I said, that is a reference to taking it to the courts for a short cut. They don't like the law, they get it changed by a dictator instead of the legislature. If I want to marry my sister, I need to get the legislature to change the law, not the courts. That just isn't the law. The legislature on the other hand can change the law.

 

[RKMBrown]

That's not what happened though is it? Democrats and Republicans were the ones writing laws banning homosexual marriage. This is a statement of fact. Not up for discussion.

Nope not up for discussion, it's just flat out wrong, there is no law banning gay marriage any more than there is a law banning tuna fish from getting a drivers license.

Your argument that heterosexuals can't get married to others of the same sex either is an extremely vile statement. It's the exact same thing as saying blacks could change the color of their skin if they didn't like jim crow laws.

What a moron.

My argument is why it's a job for the legislature, not the courts. Oh, the courts need to make life fair, RKM wants it! Gays want government to tell them they are OK, they want tax breaks. It's not fair! Courts, make it fair! Yeah, they're doing a bang up job of that. The legislature sucks at it too, but at least they are accountable to the people.

Are you mentally retarded?

List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Now you want "legislature" deciding matters of "constitutionality?" Is that the new mantra of libertarians? Tyranny of the majority? ROFL dude, face it you are the OPPOSITE OF A LIBERTARIAN you are an AUTHORITARIAN.

 

[kaz]

That's not what happened though is it? Democrats and Republicans were the ones writing laws banning homosexual marriage. This is a statement of fact. Not up for discussion.

Nope not up for discussion, it's just flat out wrong, there is no law banning gay marriage any more than there is a law banning tuna fish from getting a drivers license.

Your argument that heterosexuals can't get married to others of the same sex either is an extremely vile statement. It's the exact same thing as saying blacks could change the color of their skin if they didn't like jim crow laws.

What a moron.

My argument is why it's a job for the legislature, not the courts. Oh, the courts need to make life fair, RKM wants it! Gays want government to tell them they are OK, they want tax breaks. It's not fair! Courts, make it fair! Yeah, they're doing a bang up job of that. The legislature sucks at it too, but at least they are accountable to the people.

Are you mentally retarded?

List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

No, but you are. Those are in response to what courts are doing. I was referring to the marriage laws as defined by legislatures. Yes, there is a back and fourth now where courts are writing legislation and people are passing amendments to try to stop them.

Now you want "legislature" deciding matters of "constitutionality?" Is that the new mantra of libertarians? Tyranny of the majority? ROFL dude, face it you are the OPPOSITE OF A LIBERTARIAN you are an AUTHORITARIAN.

Strawman, and a bad one. That isn't what I said, not remotely. You have serious issues with reading when your emotions are involved. Maybe they'll get better as your PMS subsides.

 

[RKMBrown]

That's not what happened though is it? Democrats and Republicans were the ones writing laws banning homosexual marriage. This is a statement of fact. Not up for discussion.

Nope not up for discussion, it's just flat out wrong, there is no law banning gay marriage any more than there is a law banning tuna fish from getting a drivers license.

Your argument that heterosexuals can't get married to others of the same sex either is an extremely vile statement. It's the exact same thing as saying blacks could change the color of their skin if they didn't like jim crow laws.

What a moron.

My argument is why it's a job for the legislature, not the courts. Oh, the courts need to make life fair, RKM wants it! Gays want government to tell them they are OK, they want tax breaks. It's not fair! Courts, make it fair! Yeah, they're doing a bang up job of that. The legislature sucks at it too, but at least they are accountable to the people.

Are you mentally retarded?

List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

No, but you are. Those are in response to what courts are doing. I was referring to the marriage laws as defined by legislatures. Yes, there is a back and fourth now where courts are writing legislation and people are passing amendments to try to stop them.

Now you want "legislature" deciding matters of "constitutionality?" Is that the new mantra of libertarians? Tyranny of the majority? ROFL dude, face it you are the OPPOSITE OF A LIBERTARIAN you are an AUTHORITARIAN.

Strawman, and a bad one. That isn't what I said, not remotely. You have serious issues with reading when your emotions are involved. Maybe they'll get better as your PMS subsides.

Bull shit. The state constitutions are written by state legislature not the courts. Are you smoking weed? First you say the states have no laws banning gay marriage. Then I show you the laws banning gay marriage. Then you say no that's the laws written by the legislature to stop the courts from writing legislature.

Strawman argument? You're a lying POS on this topic. Show me where I made up a strawman argument. How many times are you gonna cry strawman? Do you even know what that means? I'm effing quoting you word for word. WORDS OUT OF YOUR MOUTH. I'm not making up what you are saying, not even in the slightest.

Face it, when it comes to gay rights you are the worst kind of authoritarian.

 

[kaz]

That's not what happened though is it? Democrats and Republicans were the ones writing laws banning homosexual marriage. This is a statement of fact. Not up for discussion.

Nope not up for discussion, it's just flat out wrong, there is no law banning gay marriage any more than there is a law banning tuna fish from getting a drivers license.

Your argument that heterosexuals can't get married to others of the same sex either is an extremely vile statement. It's the exact same thing as saying blacks could change the color of their skin if they didn't like jim crow laws.

What a moron.

My argument is why it's a job for the legislature, not the courts. Oh, the courts need to make life fair, RKM wants it! Gays want government to tell them they are OK, they want tax breaks. It's not fair! Courts, make it fair! Yeah, they're doing a bang up job of that. The legislature sucks at it too, but at least they are accountable to the people.

Are you mentally retarded?

List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

No, but you are. Those are in response to what courts are doing. I was referring to the marriage laws as defined by legislatures. Yes, there is a back and fourth now where courts are writing legislation and people are passing amendments to try to stop them.

Now you want "legislature" deciding matters of "constitutionality?" Is that the new mantra of libertarians? Tyranny of the majority? ROFL dude, face it you are the OPPOSITE OF A LIBERTARIAN you are an AUTHORITARIAN.

Strawman, and a bad one. That isn't what I said, not remotely. You have serious issues with reading when your emotions are involved. Maybe they'll get better as your PMS subsides.

Bull shit. The state constitutions are written by state legislature not the courts. Are you smoking weed? First you say the states have no laws banning gay marriage. Then I show you the laws banning gay marriage. Then you say no that's the laws written by the legislature to stop the courts from writing legislature.

Strawman argument? You're a lying POS on this topic. Show me where I made up a strawman argument. How many times are you gonna cry strawman? Do you even know what that means? I'm effing quoting you word for word. WORDS OUT OF YOUR MOUTH. I'm not making up what you are saying, not even in the slightest.

Face it, when it comes to gay rights you are the worst kind of authoritarian.

LOL, you made me laugh. Let's pick it up next week when you're done PMSing.

 

[Silhouette]

First of all, that was a statement to liberals in general, not just about this case. But on this case, liberals want gays to have something straights don't have. They are saying they should be able to government marry the same sex. I would not say that if they went to the legislature, but they are going to the courts. The courts rule on literal, they do not make law legally.

Democrats are demanding they make law because liberals don't like the law as it's written and they can't be bothered to do it the right way. It's not a sweeping statement that gay marriage is better than straight marriage, it is referring to how they are going about it. We don't like that law, the courts need to fix the law. That is how they think they are superior. They don't have to follow the course the rest of us do.

If the majority goes left, game over, they win. If they majority does not go left, then the courts fix it. Game over, they win.

Newsflash and myth-correction. I'm a lifelong democrat. And so are many of these people:

 

[Seawytch]

First of all, that was a statement to liberals in general, not just about this case. But on this case, liberals want gays to have something straights don't have. They are saying they should be able to government marry the same sex. I would not say that if they went to the legislature, but they are going to the courts. The courts rule on literal, they do not make law legally.

Democrats are demanding they make law because liberals don't like the law as it's written and they can't be bothered to do it the right way. It's not a sweeping statement that gay marriage is better than straight marriage, it is referring to how they are going about it. We don't like that law, the courts need to fix the law. That is how they think they are superior. They don't have to follow the course the rest of us do.

If the majority goes left, game over, they win. If they majority does not go left, then the courts fix it. Game over, they win.

We are following the proper course. When your civil rights are being violated, you get to petition the courts.

Straights can marry the same sex too so your "gays get special rights" is pathetic.

You still can't name a single gay who has different rights than they would if they were straight.

Using the same logic blacks and whites had the same right to marry under anti interracial marriage laws.

I don't want to marry a man just as Mildred Loving didn't want to marry a black man. How is discrimination based on gender different than race?

 

[RKMBrown]

That's not what happened though is it? Democrats and Republicans were the ones writing laws banning homosexual marriage. This is a statement of fact. Not up for discussion.

Nope not up for discussion, it's just flat out wrong, there is no law banning gay marriage any more than there is a law banning tuna fish from getting a drivers license.

Your argument that heterosexuals can't get married to others of the same sex either is an extremely vile statement. It's the exact same thing as saying blacks could change the color of their skin if they didn't like jim crow laws.

What a moron.

My argument is why it's a job for the legislature, not the courts. Oh, the courts need to make life fair, RKM wants it! Gays want government to tell them they are OK, they want tax breaks. It's not fair! Courts, make it fair! Yeah, they're doing a bang up job of that. The legislature sucks at it too, but at least they are accountable to the people.

Are you mentally retarded?

List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

No, but you are. Those are in response to what courts are doing. I was referring to the marriage laws as defined by legislatures. Yes, there is a back and fourth now where courts are writing legislation and people are passing amendments to try to stop them.

Now you want "legislature" deciding matters of "constitutionality?" Is that the new mantra of libertarians? Tyranny of the majority? ROFL dude, face it you are the OPPOSITE OF A LIBERTARIAN you are an AUTHORITARIAN.

Strawman, and a bad one. That isn't what I said, not remotely. You have serious issues with reading when your emotions are involved. Maybe they'll get better as your PMS subsides.

Bull shit. The state constitutions are written by state legislature not the courts. Are you smoking weed? First you say the states have no laws banning gay marriage. Then I show you the laws banning gay marriage. Then you say no that's the laws written by the legislature to stop the courts from writing legislature.

Strawman argument? You're a lying POS on this topic. Show me where I made up a strawman argument. How many times are you gonna cry strawman? Do you even know what that means? I'm effing quoting you word for word. WORDS OUT OF YOUR MOUTH. I'm not making up what you are saying, not even in the slightest.

Face it, when it comes to gay rights you are the worst kind of authoritarian.

LOL, you made me laugh. Let's pick it up next week when you're done PMSing.

OK.. high five. We will meet again on this fight I'm sure.

Cheers, Mike

 

[RKMBrown]

First of all, that was a statement to liberals in general, not just about this case. But on this case, liberals want gays to have something straights don't have. They are saying they should be able to government marry the same sex. I would not say that if they went to the legislature, but they are going to the courts. The courts rule on literal, they do not make law legally.

Democrats are demanding they make law because liberals don't like the law as it's written and they can't be bothered to do it the right way. It's not a sweeping statement that gay marriage is better than straight marriage, it is referring to how they are going about it. We don't like that law, the courts need to fix the law. That is how they think they are superior. They don't have to follow the course the rest of us do.

If the majority goes left, game over, they win. If they majority does not go left, then the courts fix it. Game over, they win.

We are following the proper course. When your civil rights are being violated, you get to petition the courts.

Straights can marry the same sex too so your "gays get special rights" is pathetic.

You still can't name a single gay who has different rights than they would if they were straight.

Using the same logic blacks and whites had the same right to marry under anti interracial marriage laws.

I don't want to marry a man just as Mildred Loving didn't want to marry a black man. How is discrimination based on gender different than race?

It's not different. Discrimination based on gender, skin color, sexual orientation, age, religion, ... are all the same. It's bigotry, and it needs to end.

 

[kaz]

First of all, that was a statement to liberals in general, not just about this case. But on this case, liberals want gays to have something straights don't have. They are saying they should be able to government marry the same sex. I would not say that if they went to the legislature, but they are going to the courts. The courts rule on literal, they do not make law legally.

Democrats are demanding they make law because liberals don't like the law as it's written and they can't be bothered to do it the right way. It's not a sweeping statement that gay marriage is better than straight marriage, it is referring to how they are going about it. We don't like that law, the courts need to fix the law. That is how they think they are superior. They don't have to follow the course the rest of us do.

If the majority goes left, game over, they win. If they majority does not go left, then the courts fix it. Game over, they win.

Newsflash and myth-correction. I'm a lifelong democrat. And so are many of these people:

So?

 

[kaz]

First of all, that was a statement to liberals in general, not just about this case. But on this case, liberals want gays to have something straights don't have. They are saying they should be able to government marry the same sex. I would not say that if they went to the legislature, but they are going to the courts. The courts rule on literal, they do not make law legally.

Democrats are demanding they make law because liberals don't like the law as it's written and they can't be bothered to do it the right way. It's not a sweeping statement that gay marriage is better than straight marriage, it is referring to how they are going about it. We don't like that law, the courts need to fix the law. That is how they think they are superior. They don't have to follow the course the rest of us do.

If the majority goes left, game over, they win. If they majority does not go left, then the courts fix it. Game over, they win.

We are following the proper course. When your civil rights are being violated, you get to petition the courts.

Straights can marry the same sex too so your "gays get special rights" is pathetic.

You still can't name a single gay who has different rights than they would if they were straight.

Using the same logic blacks and whites had the same right to marry under anti interracial marriage laws.

I don't want to marry a man just as Mildred Loving didn't want to marry a black man. How is discrimination based on gender different than race?

No, that's not the same logic. Actually, I used logic, you used emotion. What you did isn't logic at all.