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.
You're the one that's stretching with your strawman OP.Polygamy isn't the same as SSM. SSM can be covered exactly the same as any other two person marriage. Not the same with polygamy. New laws would have to be put in place to cover all eventual outcomes like death, divorce, child custody, federal and private bennies...
Nice stretch there, but it doesn't retort any of my statements.
btw, judicial fiat is untrue. Judges are empowered to rule on the constitutionality of a law AND citizens aren't allowed to vote on civil rights, constitutionally.
Fuck off and Die. Implying these people want to torture or kill gays just by opposing gay marriage is foul.
A pox on your house.
The only thing with a pox on it in this thread is opposition to gay rights. 25 states, soon to be 30, and counting.
Your OP is making the claim that there is no difference between SSM and polygamy, basing his argument on emotion.You're the one that's stretching with your strawman OP.Polygamy isn't the same as SSM. SSM can be covered exactly the same as any other two person marriage. Not the same with polygamy. New laws would have to be put in place to cover all eventual outcomes like death, divorce, child custody, federal and private bennies...
Nice stretch there, but it doesn't retort any of my statements.
btw, judicial fiat is untrue. Judges are empowered to rule on the constitutionality of a law AND citizens aren't allowed to vote on civil rights, constitutionally.
First, my OP contained someone else's article, so even if it was a strawman, its not mine.
Second, you still didn't retort each of the statements I DID make. Some vague references to "the paperwork is too hard ZOMG" doesn't count as a retort.
Finally, Judicial fiat is very true when justices decide they can make crap up or ignore parts of the constitution as they see fit. What we have now is amendment by proxy, not interpretation.
Your OP is making the claim that there is no difference between SSM and polygamy, basing his argument on emotion.You're the one that's stretching with your strawman OP.Polygamy isn't the same as SSM. SSM can be covered exactly the same as any other two person marriage. Not the same with polygamy. New laws would have to be put in place to cover all eventual outcomes like death, divorce, child custody, federal and private bennies...
Nice stretch there, but it doesn't retort any of my statements.
btw, judicial fiat is untrue. Judges are empowered to rule on the constitutionality of a law AND citizens aren't allowed to vote on civil rights, constitutionally.
First, my OP contained someone else's article, so even if it was a strawman, its not mine.
Second, you still didn't retort each of the statements I DID make. Some vague references to "the paperwork is too hard ZOMG" doesn't count as a retort.
Finally, Judicial fiat is very true when justices decide they can make crap up or ignore parts of the constitution as they see fit. What we have now is amendment by proxy, not interpretation.
There is a large difference like I explained.
There is no constitutionally valid reason to disallow SSM, therefore the judges ruling on it cannot be making a fiat.
No, states cannot deny someone civil rights any more than the feds can.Your OP is making the claim that there is no difference between SSM and polygamy, basing his argument on emotion.You're the one that's stretching with your strawman OP.Polygamy isn't the same as SSM. SSM can be covered exactly the same as any other two person marriage. Not the same with polygamy. New laws would have to be put in place to cover all eventual outcomes like death, divorce, child custody, federal and private bennies...
Nice stretch there, but it doesn't retort any of my statements.
btw, judicial fiat is untrue. Judges are empowered to rule on the constitutionality of a law AND citizens aren't allowed to vote on civil rights, constitutionally.
First, my OP contained someone else's article, so even if it was a strawman, its not mine.
Second, you still didn't retort each of the statements I DID make. Some vague references to "the paperwork is too hard ZOMG" doesn't count as a retort.
Finally, Judicial fiat is very true when justices decide they can make crap up or ignore parts of the constitution as they see fit. What we have now is amendment by proxy, not interpretation.
There is a large difference like I explained.
There is no constitutionally valid reason to disallow SSM, therefore the judges ruling on it cannot be making a fiat.
His position is that the arguments in favor of SSM and plural marriage are almost exactly the same, not that the two are the same, try some reading comprehension.
There is no constitutionally valid reason a court needs to decide on a law that was created in the State Legislatures, and is not breaking equal protection no matter how much you think SSM and OSM are "equal"
LOL it's over Right Wingers.
They can all marry their dogs!LOL it's over Right Wingers.
No, states cannot deny someone civil rights any more than the feds can.Your OP is making the claim that there is no difference between SSM and polygamy, basing his argument on emotion.You're the one that's stretching with your strawman OP.Nice stretch there, but it doesn't retort any of my statements.
btw, judicial fiat is untrue. Judges are empowered to rule on the constitutionality of a law AND citizens aren't allowed to vote on civil rights, constitutionally.
First, my OP contained someone else's article, so even if it was a strawman, its not mine.
Second, you still didn't retort each of the statements I DID make. Some vague references to "the paperwork is too hard ZOMG" doesn't count as a retort.
Finally, Judicial fiat is very true when justices decide they can make crap up or ignore parts of the constitution as they see fit. What we have now is amendment by proxy, not interpretation.
There is a large difference like I explained.
There is no constitutionally valid reason to disallow SSM, therefore the judges ruling on it cannot be making a fiat.
His position is that the arguments in favor of SSM and plural marriage are almost exactly the same, not that the two are the same, try some reading comprehension.
There is no constitutionally valid reason a court needs to decide on a law that was created in the State Legislatures, and is not breaking equal protection no matter how much you think SSM and OSM are "equal"
And again, no, they aren't almost exactly the same (ssm & polygamy).
Everything pertaining to the pursuit of happiness is a civil right unless it infringes on someone else's civil right.No, states cannot deny someone civil rights any more than the feds can.Your OP is making the claim that there is no difference between SSM and polygamy, basing his argument on emotion.You're the one that's stretching with your strawman OP.
btw, judicial fiat is untrue. Judges are empowered to rule on the constitutionality of a law AND citizens aren't allowed to vote on civil rights, constitutionally.
First, my OP contained someone else's article, so even if it was a strawman, its not mine.
Second, you still didn't retort each of the statements I DID make. Some vague references to "the paperwork is too hard ZOMG" doesn't count as a retort.
Finally, Judicial fiat is very true when justices decide they can make crap up or ignore parts of the constitution as they see fit. What we have now is amendment by proxy, not interpretation.
There is a large difference like I explained.
There is no constitutionally valid reason to disallow SSM, therefore the judges ruling on it cannot be making a fiat.
His position is that the arguments in favor of SSM and plural marriage are almost exactly the same, not that the two are the same, try some reading comprehension.
There is no constitutionally valid reason a court needs to decide on a law that was created in the State Legislatures, and is not breaking equal protection no matter how much you think SSM and OSM are "equal"
And again, no, they aren't almost exactly the same (ssm & polygamy).
Where is gay marriage enshrined as a civil right?
Yet you use definitions that are not used by normal people in the mainstream. Your hyperbole, Marty, is as foul as the picture above.
Fuck off and Die. Implying these people want to torture or kill gays just by opposing gay marriage is foul. A pox on your house.
Yet you use definitions that are not used by normal people in the mainstream. Your hyperbole, Marty, is as foul as the picture above.
Fuck off and Die. Implying these people want to torture or kill gays just by opposing gay marriage is foul. A pox on your house.
Everything pertaining to the pursuit of happiness is a civil right unless it infringes on someone else's civil right.No, states cannot deny someone civil rights any more than the feds can.Your OP is making the claim that there is no difference between SSM and polygamy, basing his argument on emotion.First, my OP contained someone else's article, so even if it was a strawman, its not mine.
Second, you still didn't retort each of the statements I DID make. Some vague references to "the paperwork is too hard ZOMG" doesn't count as a retort.
Finally, Judicial fiat is very true when justices decide they can make crap up or ignore parts of the constitution as they see fit. What we have now is amendment by proxy, not interpretation.
There is a large difference like I explained.
There is no constitutionally valid reason to disallow SSM, therefore the judges ruling on it cannot be making a fiat.
His position is that the arguments in favor of SSM and plural marriage are almost exactly the same, not that the two are the same, try some reading comprehension.
There is no constitutionally valid reason a court needs to decide on a law that was created in the State Legislatures, and is not breaking equal protection no matter how much you think SSM and OSM are "equal"
And again, no, they aren't almost exactly the same (ssm & polygamy).
Where is gay marriage enshrined as a civil right?
Yet you use definitions that are not used by normal people in the mainstream. Your hyperbole, Marty, is as foul as the picture above.
Fuck off and Die. Implying these people want to torture or kill gays just by opposing gay marriage is foul. A pox on your house.
Define my misuse of your purported "definitions"
Yet you use definitions that are not used by normal people in the mainstream. Your hyperbole, Marty, is as foul as the picture above.
Fuck off and Die. Implying these people want to torture or kill gays just by opposing gay marriage is foul. A pox on your house.
Define my misuse of your purported "definitions"
Compare them yourself: no one is going to do your lifting but you.
You want to talk with adults, use reasonable adult definitions and terms.
Basically it means (1) YOU don't make or interpret the law with any authority, (2) YOU have to get along with society, not society with you.
Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.
Defining the marriage contract is not a "nanny state type law."
Fining a baker for not baking a cake? THAT'S a nanny state type law.
You seriously need to learn contract laws here in America.
You seem to be very ill informed about a lot of basic things everyone knows in America.
There are only 3 requirements for a legal contract in America.
1. The person must be 18 or over.
2. The person must be of sound mind.
3. The person must not sign the contract under duress.
That's it. Nothing more. There's nothing in those requirements that says a person must be of a certain sex to enter into the marriage contract. In fact we have specific laws that forbid discriminating against someone because of their sex.
The only reason you want to deny homosexuals that marriage contract is because one of them is of the wrong sex in your opinion. Well that's illegal and unconstitutional in America. I've read enough of your posts to see that you don't give a damn about our laws or our constitution.
As for the cake, then I must assume you believe that African Americans or any minority group shouldn't be serviced equally in public either.
If you want to open a business here in America you need a business license. In that license you sign and agree to serve the public. There's no exceptions. if you don't want to serve the public then don't go into business.
Basically it means (1) YOU don't make or interpret the law with any authority, (2) YOU have to get along with society, not society with you.
Yes, massah, guess wes gots to leaves the figurin of our freedoms to our bettahs. Move alon, Move alon.
Brave Sir Starkey ran away.
Bravely ran away, away.
When danger rears it's ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes Brave Sir Starkey turned about
He gallantly chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat.
Oh bravest of the brave, Sir Starkey.
You can't write even interesting rhymes.
