marriage should not be a state or federal issue. It should be a private one, that no one can deny to others.
we should go back to being hunter/gatherers too.
we still are.
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.
marriage should not be a state or federal issue. It should be a private one, that no one can deny to others.
we should go back to being hunter/gatherers too.
marriage should not be a state or federal issue. It should be a private one, that no one can deny to others.
marriage should not be a state or federal issue. It should be a private one, that no one can deny to others.
"The couples argued that the power to define and regulate marriage had been left to the states for more than 200 years before Congress passed DOMA"
marriage should not be a state or federal issue.
Ah, so that makes you an expert? Really now?
Such a scary job you had. I was overseas SERVING our country at that time.....pardon me if I do not act impressed by your so-called "dangerous life". And I STILL managed to keep informed daily in what was going on in the U.S. politically and otherwise.
channeling warbler?
how sad
asswipe
beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeatch
Oh yeah?!! Oh YEAH?!?!?
Is that why conservatives get married and then have homosexual flings?You lefties love the 14th Amendment, which doesn't pertain to marriage. We're not going to allow you to manipulate and twist the US Constitution for your agenda.
Of course you will. Every time a liberal judge or corrupt legislature manipulates the Constitution we've taken it and allowed it. This is one of those things that may just have to run it's disastrous course. History has told us that acceptance of homosexuality and its normalization is part of a general societal disintegration. It has never survived as a value out of thousands of years of human history. We won't be any different. We might object, we might fight against it, but in the end, liberals are on the wrong side, the losing side of history.
Really? Where are those historical examples?Guess what, moron. It opens the door for equal protection under the 14th amendment. Do you know what that means? It means that Alabama can do whatever bigoted things they want with defining marriage, but have to accept a married same sex couple as being married, even if they were married in Massachusetts.
You lefties love the 14th Amendment, which doesn't pertain to marriage. We're not going to allow you to manipulate and twist the US Constitution for your agenda.
Of course you will. Every time a liberal judge or corrupt legislature manipulates the Constitution we've taken it and allowed it. This is one of those things that may just have to run it's disastrous course. History has told us that acceptance of homosexuality and its normalization is part of a general societal disintegration. It has never survived as a value out of thousands of years of human history. We won't be any different. We might object, we might fight against it, but in the end, liberals are on the wrong side, the losing side of history.
yeap this is about rights and always has been.
Gay peoples civil rights are being infringed and have been for the entire history of our country.
Bodeacea, since you made point to contrast your service with saying you "SERVED" (all caps), I thought I'd add to the debate a list of non-military men and women in uniform who, I suppose you'd say, didnt truly "SERVE" the citizens of this country: Officer Down Memorial Page (ODMP)
You did and gave FAR more than those folks when you "SERVED". Thank you!
Really? Where are those historical examples?You lefties love the 14th Amendment, which doesn't pertain to marriage. We're not going to allow you to manipulate and twist the US Constitution for your agenda.
Of course you will. Every time a liberal judge or corrupt legislature manipulates the Constitution we've taken it and allowed it. This is one of those things that may just have to run it's disastrous course. History has told us that acceptance of homosexuality and its normalization is part of a general societal disintegration. It has never survived as a value out of thousands of years of human history. We won't be any different. We might object, we might fight against it, but in the end, liberals are on the wrong side, the losing side of history.
Becoming Law: On Sept. 21, 1996, President Clinton signed DOMA into law a turning point for the marriage debate that left a mark of discrimination still on the books: Feature Story section: Metro Weekly magazine
But for former Sen. Tom Daschle, then the Senate Democratic leader, and the 32 Democratic senators who voted for it, DOMA was essentially the lesser of two evils he says they considered a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to be almost ''inevitable'' at the time.
''There was a strong movement to pass a constitutional amendment to put in constitutional law the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman. And the concern that many of us had was that you couldn't beat the constitutional amendment,'' he says. ''So, you had to come up with an alternative to a constitutional amendment and argue that this was better for all concerned. And that was a big part of the tactical and strategic decision-making that went into the run-up to the vote itself.''
Is that why conservatives get married and then have homosexual flings?You lefties love the 14th Amendment, which doesn't pertain to marriage. We're not going to allow you to manipulate and twist the US Constitution for your agenda.
Of course you will. Every time a liberal judge or corrupt legislature manipulates the Constitution we've taken it and allowed it. This is one of those things that may just have to run it's disastrous course. History has told us that acceptance of homosexuality and its normalization is part of a general societal disintegration. It has never survived as a value out of thousands of years of human history. We won't be any different. We might object, we might fight against it, but in the end, liberals are on the wrong side, the losing side of history.
Did ya look closely at what the judge said?
In 2010, a federal judge in Massachusetts declared the heart of the law unconstitutional in two separate lawsuits. The judge found that the law interferes with the right of a state to define marriage.
Guess what, moron. It opens the door for equal protection under the 14th amendment. Do you know what that means? It means that Alabama can do whatever bigoted things they want with defining marriage, but have to accept a married same sex couple as being married, even if they were married in Massachusetts.
You lefties love the 14th Amendment, which doesn't pertain to marriage. We're not going to allow you to manipulate and twist the US Constitution for your agenda.
Bodeacea, since you made point to contrast your service with saying you "SERVED" (all caps), I thought I'd add to the debate a list of non-military men and women in uniform who, I suppose you'd say, didnt truly "SERVE" the citizens of this country: Officer Down Memorial Page (ODMP)
You did and gave FAR more than those folks when you "SERVED". Thank you!
You "didn't truely 'SERVE'"? Your words, not mine.
Guess what, moron. It opens the door for equal protection under the 14th amendment. Do you know what that means? It means that Alabama can do whatever bigoted things they want with defining marriage, but have to accept a married same sex couple as being married, even if they were married in Massachusetts.
You lefties love the 14th Amendment, which doesn't pertain to marriage. We're not going to allow you to manipulate and twist the US Constitution for your agenda.
The 14th Amendment protects the rights of the individual. I guess that's why wingnuts hate it. It resulted in states no longer being able to claim separate, but equal.
Well, Roberts must like the 14th Amendment. He was able to dig up some marginalia, which was never part of any opinion, to give limited liability corporations the rights reserved for individuals.
As for your contention that the 14 Amendment not pertaining to marriage, you don't know what you're talking about. It certainly pertained to Loving v Virginia.
yeap this is about rights and always has been.
Gay peoples civil rights are being infringed and have been for the entire history of our country.
Brothers and sisters also have the same right don't?
Bodeacea, since you made point to contrast your service with saying you "SERVED" (all caps), I thought I'd add to the debate a list of non-military men and women in uniform who, I suppose you'd say, didnt truly "SERVE" the citizens of this country: Officer Down Memorial Page (ODMP)
You did and gave FAR more than those folks when you "SERVED". Thank you!
You "didn't truely 'SERVE'"? Your words, not mine.
Becoming Law: On Sept. 21, 1996, President Clinton signed DOMA into law a turning point for the marriage debate that left a mark of discrimination still on the books: Feature Story section: Metro Weekly magazine
But for former Sen. Tom Daschle, then the Senate Democratic leader, and the 32 Democratic senators who voted for it, DOMA was essentially the lesser of two evils he says they considered a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to be almost ''inevitable'' at the time.
''There was a strong movement to pass a constitutional amendment to put in constitutional law the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman. And the concern that many of us had was that you couldn't beat the constitutional amendment,'' he says. ''So, you had to come up with an alternative to a constitutional amendment and argue that this was better for all concerned. And that was a big part of the tactical and strategic decision-making that went into the run-up to the vote itself.''
This is why DOMA was passed