Told ya! Only a matter of time. Gop goes after gays - AGAIN!

[Harry Dresden]

Marriage equality needs to "go all the way" and be decided once and for all. This ridiculous legal limbo that the gay and lesbian residents of California find themselves in needs to end with finality. There are currently three classes of people in California; Heterosexuals that can get married, gays and lesbians that ARE married and gays and lesbians that can't get married. There is a bunch of "unconstitutional" in that and that MUST be challenged.

i agree.....they give them everything but that document ......i know too many gay people on my route......they are nicer to me than most of the "regular" people.....so my attitude has changed since i was a young radical years back...unlike people like Dean....i can evaluate a person as an individual.... not as a group like he does....

Yea sure. Evaluate Republicans as individuals when they start acting like individuals. Right now, the party is 90% white. They vote in a block. They act in a block. Their beliefs are 90% the same. How often to Democrats vote 100% one way on any issue? Now ask that about Republicans.

oh fuck you Dean....im so tired of hearing your repetitious Bullshit....you act in Block with every fucking Far Leftist in the Country....so what the hell does that make you?....outside of being a fucking Hypocrite......and thanks for backing up what i said about you.....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then such things should be left to the States and their societies to decide. The FED has no business in this whatsoever.

The main reason for the Federal DOMA law is so that states do not have to accept a gay marriage from another state. The decision is up to the individual state.

The second component of DOMA is to deny federal recognition of some legal Civil Marriages.


>>>>

No, that is the third section.

 

[bripat9643]

Yea sure. Evaluate Republicans as individuals when they start acting like individuals. Right now, the party is 90% white. They vote in a block. They act in a block. Their beliefs are 90% the same. How often to Democrats vote 100% one way on any issue? Now ask that about Republicans.

How about black people? You're saying we shouldn't treat them as individuals.

 

[bripat9643]

how is it handing out more Benefits?.....if said guy was with a girl he would be getting no more than if he was with the guy....right?....

We both know they will never be with a girl.

If things were different, they wouldn't be the same. That's all you've said.

 

[Harry Dresden]

how is it handing out more Benefits?.....if said guy was with a girl he would be getting no more than if he was with the guy....right?....

We both know they will never be with a girl.

If things were different, they wouldn't be the same. That's all you've said.

no you said the gay couple get more benifits......im asking where?.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Jeezus Christ, some of you folks in here are so dumb it's not even funny, it's pitiful and pathetic!!

you should know you fucking dumbass.....your not only one of them...your their President.....

First thing he has to work on is his spelling.

he was only able to afford a spelling book that went up to the letter D.....

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, that is the third section.

Thank you for the technical correction. I probably should have said "Another component of..."



>>>>

 

[Cal]

how is it handing out more Benefits?.....if said guy was with a girl he would be getting no more than if he was with the guy....right?....

We both know they will never be with a girl.

If things were different, they wouldn't be the same. That's all you've said.

no you said the gay couple get more benifits......im asking where?.....

I think your spelling book only went up to b.. , I keed.

Ok, back on topic.. .

 

[Harry Dresden]

We both know they will never be with a girl.

If things were different, they wouldn't be the same. That's all you've said.

no you said the gay couple get more benifits......im asking where?.....

I think your spelling book only went up to b.. , I keed.

Ok, back on topic.. .

 

[mudwhistle]

This is yet another liberal wedge-issue.

The left takes a ridiculous position knowing full well the right will object and then they point fingers at them saying loudly "See what haters they are!!!"

I really don't care ether way. If you want to get into the legalities of it, gays have the same rights that heteros do. Some just want to feel accepted.

Fact is regardless of whether you have a piece of paper or not some people will never accept you.

You can't force people to accept you no matter how hard you try.

 

[spectrumc01]

This is yet another liberal wedge-issue.

The left takes a ridiculous position knowing full well the right will object and then they point fingers at them saying loudly "See what haters they are!!!"

I really don't care ether way. If you want to get into the legalities of it, gays have the same rights that heteros do. Some just want to feel accepted.

Fact is regardless of whether you have a piece of paper or not some people will never accept you.

You can't force people to accept you no matter how hard you try.

I agree with almost everything thing you said, but I would drop the left right thing as they both do the same thing. Abortion, right to die, and any religious issue need to stay out of government. Government has no business regulating morality.

 

[Seawytch]

I couldn't care less. Of course, gay marriage is not about what goes on in the bedroom. It's a legal arrangement that grants certain privileges. The idea that your bedroom behavior entitles anyone to those privileges is absurd.

So, your bedroom behavior entitles you to the privilege of legal marriage, but mine should not? How does that work out in the little world you've created in your head?

Civil marriage is a legal contract in this country that grants certain rights, benefits and privileges to married couples. There requires to be a compelling state reason for denying those rights, benefits and privileges to a group of people. Those opposed to gays and lesbians having equal access to legal, civil marriage must provide an overriding harm that comes from allowing gay couples to legally marry.

Lawyers arguing against gay marriage have yet to come up with a compelling state reason to deny marriage equality. You have given me no reason to believe that you will be able to either.

Marriage laws were implemented before things like fertility tests existed, so your lament is idiotic. If fertility tests were required, then liberals would be complaining about that.

Sorry that my point, couched in humor, was too subtle for you. I forgot about the "lizard brain" mentality of the conservative mind. (Conservative Lizard Brain)

Let me break it down...procreation is not required for a marriage license. We don't prevent those who are unwilling or unable to procreate from being granted a marriage license. We don't prevent the elderly from marrying, despite being well beyond their childbearing years so your contention that legal marriage is for the protection of children (that was your simplistic statement wasn't it?) is not valid. (and no where near a "compelling state reason")

As for gays adopting children, that's one reason gay "marriages" shouldn't be legalized. Children should be adopted by normal families. Adoption exists for the benefit if the children, not so gays can feel like normal people.

Parents ability to raise a nurture a child have nothing to do with their sexual orientation. Children should be adopted by loving parents who have the ability to love and care for them. The sexual orientation of those parents is completely irrelevant.

You didn't answer my question. My partner and I have been together for 15 years and have two children. Why is my family less deserving of the rights, benefits and protections of legal, civil marriage than your family? What overriding harm is there in granting MY family those same protections?

 

[Seawytch]

Grant civil unions and give them the same benefits as a traditional marriage such as I have. Just dont call it marriage. Now what's the harm?

Then such things should be left to the States and their societies to decide. The FED has no business in this whatsoever.

And yet they do. There are a number of FEDERAL rights, benefits and privileges associated with legal marriage. There is also that pesky "full faith and credit" thing.

Do you really think Mississippi should be able to make interracial marriage illegal again?

 

[Seawytch]

Grant civil unions and give them the same benefits as a traditional marriage such as I have. Just dont call it marriage. Now what's the harm?

What's the harm in calling it exactly the same thing as you call yours? If you don't want us to call our legal, civil marriage a "marriage" then go ahead and have the name changed for EVERYBODY.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Last time I checked a gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I do.....

 

[Seawytch]

Last time I checked a gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I do.....

Your argument is not new Ollie...it was used during the discussion about legalizing (wait for it...) interracial marriage. It was argued (just like you are doing) that laws prohibiting interracial marriage were NOT discriminatory because they applied equally to men and women. A black man was free to marry a black woman and the same was true for whites and therefore they felt there was no discrimination.

Again, good company you keep...

 

[SFC Ollie]

And again the color of a mans skin is not a lifestyle.....

 

[Seawytch]

And again the color of a mans skin is not a lifestyle.....

And again that doesn't change the discrimination. Those people didn't think it was discrimination to prevent blacks from marrying whites (but it WAS) and you don't think it is discrimination to keep gays and lesbians from marrying the consenting adult partner of their choice (but it IS).

 

[WorldWatcher]

And again the color of a mans skin is not a lifestyle.....

However religion is, would it be discriminatory for a state to make a law that an atheist cannot marry?


>>>>

 

[bripat9643]

Last time I checked a gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I do.....

Your argument is not new Ollie...it was used during the discussion about legalizing (wait for it...) interracial marriage. It was argued (just like you are doing) that laws prohibiting interracial marriage were NOT discriminatory because they applied equally to men and women. A black man was free to marry a black woman and the same was true for whites and therefore they felt there was no discrimination.

Again, good company you keep...

No one is swallowing the comparison with discrimination against blacks, especially blacks. They are insulted by such comparisons. The rest of us just laugh and ridicule such idiocies.