47 Republicans vote in support of same sex marriage

[TheProgressivePatriot]

REALLY!

Like Hitler?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Faghadist demanded to be treated differently with no foundation in the Constitution, law or tradition.

They demanded to be treated the same. No special rights. Anybody can now marry anyone else regardless of gender. Even you. .... "no foundation in the Constitution, or law? Read the constitutution and read the majority opinion which I am sure that you have not

Tradition? A appeal to tradition logical fallacy as opposed to an actual argument. If we based everything on tradition, women would still be the property of men, and only land owning white men could vote

 

[Lastamender]

I am in a safe place. The modern world surounded by loving and rational people. Where are you?

That rules out any Democratic shithole. I am happy for you.

 

[OKTexas]

Complete, moronic and bigoted bovine excrement! I compiled this a while ago and I find it hard to believe that I still have to shove it it peoples faces:

• When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are, in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.
  
  In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.
  
  Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.
  
  One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:

Child, if marriage requires a State license, it's a privilege, not a right. And my argument stands because States treated all men and women equally, so there was no discrimination.

.

 

[OKTexas]

They demanded to be treated the same. No special rights. Anybody can now marry anyone else regardless of gender. Even you. .... "no foundation in the Constitution, or law? Read the constitutution and read the majority opinion which I am sure that you have not

Tradition? A appeal to tradition logical fallacy as opposed to an actual argument. If we based everything on tradition, women would still be the property of men, and only land owning white men could vote

No where in the Constitution, is the regulation of marriage granted as a federal power, either implicitly or explicitly.

.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Child, if marriage requires a State license, it's a privilege, not a right. And my argument stands because States treated all men and women equally, so there was no discrimination.

.

That is a pathetically piss poor response but pretty much what I expected. It in no way addresses the points that I made. Remove you head from your ass and try again

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No where in the Constitution, is the regulation of marriage granted as a federal power, either implicitly or explicitly.

.

Actually thats's true. But if you ever read the Constitution and especially the 14th Amendment, you would know that powers reserved to the states must be excercised in accordance with the concept of equal protection under the law and due process. Again, you have failed miserably to defend your moronic assertion that gays already had equality because they could marry a person of yhe opposite sex

 

[initforme]

I believe marriage in general should be abolished. And I'm a traditionally married Christian white male.

 

[OKTexas]

That is a pathetically piss poor response but pretty much what I expected. It in no way addresses the points that I made. Remove you head from your ass and try again

I address reality, not commie talking points. Perhaps you should join the real world.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Actually thats's true. But if you ever read the Constitution and especially the 14th Amendment, you would know that powers reserved to the states must be excercised in accordance with the concept of equal protection under the law and due process. Again, you have failed miserably to defend your moronic assertion that gays already had equality because they could marry a person of yhe opposite sex

Wrong again commie, all men and women were treated equally under the law. There are no subsets of men and women, just men and women. Why do you reject science?

.

 

[OKTexas]

16 states still had miscegenation laws on the books until Supreme decide Loving vs Virginia, though the civil rights act passed in 1964. People are nevous what the right wing might try next.

Yeah, I can see where commies would be "nervous" (spelled correctly BTW) about the Constitution and federal laws be upheld as written. But what's that got to do with faghadist marriage, which is the thread topic? LMAO

.

 

[OKTexas]

What do you call Affirmative Action?

A bad practice. But what does that have to do with faghadist marriage?

 

[OKTexas]

Nothing. You said law prevented discrimination by race but that is exactly what AA does.

I had to ask what it had to do with faghadist marriage so I would have some topic related content.

.

 

[Lesh]

I’m not going to argue the merits of gay marriage with these assholes

What is clear is that they would abolish it if they got the power. We can not let them have that power

 

[Zincwarrior]

I like the bill. It merely legislates Constitutional state decisis while maintaining state's rights.

 

[White 6]

I like the bill. It merely legislates Constitutional state decisis while maintaining state's rights.

Hey, Zinc. You got a link to the house bill and do you know if the Senate Bill is introduced and in committee?

 

[Zincwarrior]

Hey, Zinc. You got a link to the house bill and do you know if the Senate Bill is introduced and in committee?

Let me see what I can dig up. Check this. The bill is always included.

Text - H.R.8404 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Respect for Marriage Act

Text for H.R.8404 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Respect for Marriage Act

www.congress.gov

 

[White 6]

Let me see what I can dig up. Check this. The bill is always included.

Text - H.R.8404 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Respect for Marriage Act

Text for H.R.8404 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Respect for Marriage Act

www.congress.gov

Looks good to me. Thanks for the link.

 

[toobfreak]

I’m not going to argue the merits of gay marriage with these assholes

Good because how can a gay marriage have ANY merits? I mean other than a gay couple being able to SAY they are "married."

Maybe they are good for population control.

Maybe we will detect a "gay gene" then we can just abort all of you in the womb so fond of abortion anyway!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Wrong again commie, all men and women were treated equally under the law. There are no subsets of men and women, just men and women. Why do you reject science?

.

What the fuck are you blathering about now? Subset of men and women? WHAT? None of that tripe deals with the points that I made. To say that gays already had equal rights ia as stupid as stupid gets. Go back and read what i wrote and try to deal with it as a literat adult which I suspect you are not