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.
The trending has been undeniably pro-universal marriage the last fifteen years, more dramatically the last five. By 2020, the trend will be 65% of better.
Then tell me, why has gay marriage been defeated every time it comes up? I think reality flies in the face of your statistics.
Because the older generations vote in much higher numbers than the younger ones.
Your generation will die out and will so your out-moded thinking on marriage.
Then tell me, why has gay marriage been defeated every time it comes up? I think reality flies in the face of your statistics.
I believe it has been defeated every time because of cowardly politicians who are triangulating finger-in-the-wind followers.
As soon as a real leader with intestinal fortitude comes along who vociferously and articulately supports gay marriage, the floodgates will open.
I know there isn't. That is why you need to read #2 again.
The right to equal protection of the laws IS in the Constitution, and that is what is at issue with respect to gay marriage. If you permit gays to "marry", or whatever you wish to call the official sanction of their union, you must extend all the same state and federal protections granted to other sanctioned unions.
Nor can you ban their unions for irrational reasons. You must provide a rational explanation for your discrimination against gay marriage, or they cannot be denied.
We know this because Loving v. Virginia provides us the basis for what we can expect from the Supreme Court when gay marriage comes before them.
No, the right to equal protection does not apply to gay marriage. Sorry, there just isn't any way you can spin that that actually makes sense.
See posts 1 and 38.
do you actually understand what you wrote? I don't think so.That would cover what, Mass and New York?
In every other state where it's legal it was imposed by judicial fiat, against the will of the people. Remember that government derives its power solely from the will of the people.
The government derives its power from the "will of the people", yet the "will of the people" isn't where the power resides.
It's the difference between a Republic and a Democracy.
Whether it's a republic or democracy, authority and legislation do not come from the judiciary of unelected judges.
They didn't say this?
Was that said in the loving decision?
The point is that the RIGHT to marriage is in fact a liberty. Despite what one of the judges said, it isn't a right. Our basic rights are covered specifically in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Everything else are liberties. That said, the government has no right to rule on our liberties and gays should be afforded the same liberties as hetersexuals have.
Yes it was. And you disagree with the Supreme Court on what is considered a right in this country that government has to respect? Too bad, eh?
Then tell me, why has gay marriage been defeated every time it comes up? I think reality flies in the face of your statistics.
I believe it has been defeated every time because of cowardly politicians who are triangulating finger-in-the-wind followers.
As soon as a real leader with intestinal fortitude comes along who vociferously and articulately supports gay marriage, the floodgates will open.
No, I mean when it comes up for a vote by the people.
Men and women could marry before Loving. Men and women can marry after Loving. No real change there.Gay marriage has been legal for how long? Do you really think you can evaluate something like that within a year or two?
People probably made the same argument about abortion.
Apples and oranges.
Granting a gay marriage equal protection under the law is like granting interracial marriages equal protection under the law.
Loving v. Virginia was handed down five years before Roe v. Wade. How is THAT working out for you? Are we better or worse off with interracial marriages being able to file jointly, receive Social Security death benefits, etc., etc., etc.?
[And inter-racial marriage was legal in most of the U.S. anyway.
The trending has been undeniably pro-universal marriage the last fifteen years, more dramatically the last five. By 2020, the trend will be 65% of better.
Then tell me, why has gay marriage been defeated every time it comes up? I think reality flies in the face of your statistics.
It hasn't. 25% of Americans live somewhere where same-sex marriage is legal.
If you're talking about popular votes, I'd remind you that we don't live in a "democracy".
No, the right to equal protection does not apply to gay marriage. Sorry, there just isn't any way you can spin that that actually makes sense.
See posts 1 and 38.
Saw it, it's wrong. Equal protection doesn't apply to marriage, gay or straight. Sorry there is no way you can spin that that makes sense.
PredFan is sink in the myth of heteromarriage for ever.
The trending shows the opposite clearly. Only a matter of time.
PredFan has no point.
The trending is against him and has been for many years.
PredFan is wrong. The 14th is completely applicable here to universal marriage.
Then tell me, why has gay marriage been defeated every time it comes up? I think reality flies in the face of your statistics.
It hasn't. 25% of Americans live somewhere where same-sex marriage is legal.
If you're talking about popular votes, I'd remind you that we don't live in a "democracy".
Good point, however, 25% does not a majority make, and that is my point.
Since there really wasn't much change in law then any effect can be explained by different phenomena occurring in society.Men and women could marry before Loving. Men and women can marry after Loving. No real change there.Apples and oranges.
Granting a gay marriage equal protection under the law is like granting interracial marriages equal protection under the law.
Loving v. Virginia was handed down five years before Roe v. Wade. How is THAT working out for you? Are we better or worse off with interracial marriages being able to file jointly, receive Social Security death benefits, etc., etc., etc.?
I think black people would strongly disagree with your downplayed assessment.
[And inter-racial marriage was legal in most of the U.S. anyway.
Even better. This gives you a longer time period from which to make a judgement of interracial marriage's success or failure.
And the key word in your post is "most". Not all. Otherwise Loving would not have had any standing.
So, has life in America improved or gotten worse because of Loving and legal protections being extended to interracial marriages?
Since there really wasn't much change in law then any effect can be explained by different phenomena occurring in society.Men and women could marry before Loving. Men and women can marry after Loving. No real change there.
I think black people would strongly disagree with your downplayed assessment.
[And inter-racial marriage was legal in most of the U.S. anyway.
Even better. This gives you a longer time period from which to make a judgement of interracial marriage's success or failure.
And the key word in your post is "most". Not all. Otherwise Loving would not have had any standing.
So, has life in America improved or gotten worse because of Loving and legal protections being extended to interracial marriages?
So the inter-racial marriage argument is a fail.
It hasn't. 25% of Americans live somewhere where same-sex marriage is legal.
If you're talking about popular votes, I'd remind you that we don't live in a "democracy".
Good point, however, 25% does not a majority make, and that is my point.
I know what you're saying. But "majority opinion" is the biggest fallacy in this argument. We don't live a country governed by majority rule.
There have been more times than I could possibly count in the history of this country where "the majority" of Americans were wrong.
I don't know how popular opinion will evolve over time. But I'm pretty confident in the trend of people becoming more accepting of "non-traditional" families will continue, and decades from now people will see this the same way as we see Jim Crow laws today.
