GOP Senator Susan Collins Throws Support Behind Law Protecting Same-Sex Marriage

[SassyIrishLass]

You have a fat thumb, I remember that picture of you, but I really want to know why do you care if people love each other are the same sex?

My picture has never been on here. Stop lying you jackass. In fact you won't find my picture, our children's pictures or my husband's on the internet

Why did you think that was going to fly? Fcking loser

 

[toobfreak]

It does matter to me personally. Equality should matter to everyone.

You should learn the difference between equality and equity.

By your standard, Hitler's views of the Jews should carry as much weight as that of the Anti-Defamation League.

The bill in the OP protects religious institutions.

From what? From the government?

It also protects same sex marriage.

Protects it? Why should it be protected? Gays could already join for life! What it protects is the IDEA that marriage is anything they want it to be instead of what it has meant to humanity for the past 30 centuries.

This idea that marriage is based on the ability to bear children is ridiculous.

It is based on the family unit, that a man and woman join for life for the possibility of bringing new life into this world and the children having the benefit of being raised morally with the benefit and stable dynamic that only a woman and man's perspective gives them.

 

[WinterBorn]

You should learn the difference between equality and equity.

View attachment 727275

By your standard, Hitler's views of the Jews should carry as much weight as that of the Anti-Defamation League.



From what? From the government?


Protects it? Why should it be protected? Gays could already join for life! What it protects is the IDEA that marriage is anything they want it to be instead of what it has meant to humanity for the past 30 centuries.


It is based on the family unit, that a man and woman join for life for the possibility of bringing new life into this world and the children having the benefit of being raised morally with the benefit and stable dynamic that only a woman and man's perspective gives them.

Protected from the gov't requiring that religious organizations perform same sex weddings etc.

They could have a ceremony and live together. But they could not have access to the +/- 1,400 federal, state and local benefits that Bubba and Karen got for a quick trip to the courthouse for the 6th marriage each.

Same sex married couples provide the same benefits to society that straight married couples do. While same sex couples cannot produce children without outside assistance, they also do not have unwanted children or children they cannot afford.

 

[toobfreak]

Protected from the gov't requiring that religious organizations perform same sex weddings etc.

So, using government force to destroy religious organizations forcing them to go against the very tenets of their belief! That isn't protecting religion, it is creating a NEW one of the State and forcing it at GUNPOINT onto people who DO NOT WANT IT. We call that fascism and totalitarianism. Hello, Commie.

They could have a ceremony and live together. But they could not have access to the +/- 1,400 federal, state and local benefits

That's the GOVERNMENT'S FAULT. All they had to do is quite discriminating against gay couples instead of equating their union to a "marriage."

Same sex married couples provide the same benefits to society that straight married couples do.

Not to the child.

While same sex couples cannot produce children without outside assistance, they also do not have unwanted children or children they cannot afford.

Well, there, you finally found something you could make a true point about. They can adopt, so more and more kids will grow up having a dad and a dad or two moms and be just as confused as you are.

 

[Dragonlady]

Why is this necessarY/

Oh, and it isn't what they are really after years after SCOTUS normalized homosexual marriage. If this gets passed and withstands court challenges they have more, much more in mind.

They have a national age of consent in mind (their "hero" RBG declared the age of consent was too high many years ago already). Then normalize those attracted to young children as a "right".

They are here now for the children. Soon, they'll be kicking in the door for the children.

You're completely deranged.

Clarence Thomas threatened to overturn the Supreme Court decision on Same Sex Marriage, Birth Control, and other privacy issues, and begged the states to bring the Court cases which they could use to do it. The Democrats are going make sure that this right is codified.

As for the rest of your bullshit, get help. You brain has been eaten by Republicans.

 

[WinterBorn]

So, using government force to destroy religious organizations forcing them to go against the very tenets of their belief! That isn't protecting religion, it is creating a NEW one of the State and forcing it at GUNPOINT onto people who DO NOT WANT IT. We call that fascism and totalitarianism. Hello, Commie.


That's the GOVERNMENT'S FAULT. All they had to do is quite discriminating against gay couples instead of equating their union to a "marriage."


Not to the child.


Well, there, you finally found something you could make a true point about. They can adopt, so more and more kids will grow up having a dad and a dad or two moms and be just as confused as you are.

The bill being discussed does not force religions to go against their tenets. In fact, it protects them from having to perform same sex weddings.

And this bill prevents the gov't discrimination. Like that clerk in Kentucky who refused to issues a license, as her job required, even though she has been married 5 or 6 times.

The child will have 2 loving parents who want it.

Same sex couple adopt the children that are not wanted and discarded by their biological parents.

 

[toobfreak]

Just wondering: Now that we have "protection" for blacks, gays, women, trannies, and so forth, every group the left wants, when will the government start protecting conservatives as well? Odd that while the government "protects" one group, they still persecute OTHERS.

 

[Dragonlady]

So, using government force to destroy religious organizations forcing them to go against the very tenets of their belief! That isn't protecting religion, it is creating a NEW one of the State and forcing it at GUNPOINT onto people who DO NOT WANT IT. We call that fascism and totalitarianism. Hello, Commie.


That's the GOVERNMENT'S FAULT. All they had to do is quite discriminating against gay couples instead of equating their union to a "marriage."


Not to the child.


Well, there, you finally found something you could make a true point about. They can adopt, so more and more kids will grow up having a dad and a dad or two moms and be just as confused as you are.

Religious organizations are not being asked to perform same sex marriage. Why do right wing religious fanatics always try to make gay marriage about THEM. Gay marriage has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGIOUS RIGHTS.

What is being asked is that marriages between two consenting adults are legal married couples get the same rights and privileges, under law, that heterosexual couples receive, and that includes "family benefits paid to employees".

All states have to recognize the "next of kin rights" of all spouses.

 

[toobfreak]

The bill being discussed does not force religions to go against their tenets. In fact, it protects them from having to perform same sex weddings.

Does it protect bakeries from being run out of business by the DOJ for not wanting to violate their faith? Does it protect conservative groups holding traditional values from being defamed, cheated, persecuted and harrassed?

And this bill prevents the gov't discrimination.

So, "protect" is really just another euphemism for really ADVANCING ANOTHER LEFTIST AGENDA AT GUNPOINT.

 

[Dragonlady]

Just wondering: Now that we have "protection" for blacks, gays, women, trannies, and so forth, every group the left wants, when will the government start protecting conservatives as well? Odd that while the government "protects" one group, they still persecute OTHERS.

Then tell the Republicans to stop persecuting gays, trannies, racial and religious minorities, and women, and the problem solves itself. YOU'RE the people all of the rest of us need protection from.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Then tell the Republicans to stop persecuting gays, trannies, racial and religious minorities, and women, and the problem solves itself. YOU'RE the people all of the rest of us need protection from.

It's not a Canadian's issue. You're not a citizen of the USA

 

[Dragonlady]

Does it protect bakeries from being run out of business by the DOJ for not wanting to violate their faith? Does it protect conservative groups holding traditional values from being defamed, cheated, persecuted and harrassed?


So, "protect" is really just another euphemism for really ADVANCING ANOTHER LEFTIST AGENDA AT GUNPOINT.

Bakeries don't have a "faith". Bakeries are businesses which are granted licenses under secular law. Businesses are required by law, to serve the public. If the owners of the businesses don't want to abide by the law, then that's going to be a problem for them. The Bible tells Christians to render under Ceasar, and obey his laws.

Discrimination and hatred against others, is not a permitted tenet of religion under the law. Neither is blood sacrifice, but I don't see you defending ritual sacrifice as a loss of religious rights.

 

[Dragonlady]

It's not a Canadian's issue. You're not a citizen of the USA

So what? This is not a restricted board and you're not the boss of me.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Bakeries don't have a "faith". Bakeries are businesses which are granted licenses under secular law. Businesses are required by law, to serve the public. If the owners of the businesses don't want to abide by the law, then that's going to be a problem for them. The Bible tells Christians to render under Ceasar, and obey his laws.

Discrimination and hatred against others, is not a permitted tenet of religion under the law. Neither is blood sacrifice, but I don't see you defending ritual sacrifice as a loss of religious rights.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. The fags haven't came close to winning one

 

[toobfreak]

The bill being discussed does not force religions to go against their tenets.

Face it, WB, you and gays hated how things were and are now using government force to take out your hate on others under the banner of "protection." This is just another leftwing hate bill forcing YOUR views on other people under the euphemism of "tolerance."

The government tolerates everything except thinking, living and acting outside of the narrow box of government oppression they force on others--- if you do THAT, you are again HATED, discriminated and persecuted, just as your Joe Biden does almost every time he opens his mouth. The Left is ABOUT hate, using KGB methods to advance it under false flag names like "love" and "protection."

Can't you just FEEL the Love?!

 

[Dragonlady]

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. The fags haven't came close to winning one

The Supreme Court never ruled on it. They sent it back to the lower court to reconsider their own biases. That's not a ruling.

For someone who isn't an American, I seem to know more about what your Supreme Court is ruling that YOU do.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The Supreme Court never ruled on it. They sent it back to the lower court to reconsider their own biases. That's not a ruling.

For someone who isn't an American, I seem to know more about what your Supreme Court is ruling that YOU do.

You obviously don't realize SCOTUS told the lower courts to fix it

Listen up, you have no bearing on my nation's issues. You're not a citizen of my nation and I don't give two fckn shits what you think you know

How's that?

 

[WinterBorn]

You obviously don't realize SCOTUS told the lower courts to fix it

Listen up, you have no bearing on my nation's issues. You're not a citizen of my nation and I don't give two fckn shits what you think you know

How's that?

Maybe you should tell her to "Shove off". It worked so well with me, huh?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

SCOTUS ruled on Roe v. Wade too. If fact, several of the SCOTUS justices said it was settled case law.

It was. Does the concept of precedent escape you? In the case of Roe V. Wade, the STOTUS decision was wrong. like Plessy v. Ferguson and the Dredd Scott decisions.

Passing a law will not make it any more constitutional.

 

[Leo123]

I know about reproduction. But I also know that there are no restrictions on the gov't benefits for those straight couples who do not reproduce. Want proof? If a couple cannot, biologically, reproduce they can still get married. If she has been through menopause or even had her uterus removed, they can still marry.

I support straight couples no matter what because it is natural.