Big wins for same sex marriage

[Caroljo]

I don't care what they do or what benefits they get....as long as it's not called a MARRIAGE.
That's my view and it won't change.

 

[martybegan]

The idiots who passed DOMA on the federal level ensured this is a court issue and not a state level one.

This is about rights and equal protection of the laws, which puts it squarely in the judicial branch's bucket. You can thank the bigots for that.



.

Its actually about the desire to be accepted by society, as shown by the rejection of civil unions that would give the exact same rights as a marriage, but would not be called such.

Voters have moved on from that, obviously.

and if voters want to move on from that its fine by me. The consituion is silent on contracts such as marriage. It neither bans nor guarantees gay marriage. Thus is should be left up to the legislatures.

 

[4Horsemen]

Synergy.

It's when one side gets tired of fighting the other side and concedes.

the Gay Mafia has Synergy now. No stopping them now. Cornhole plugs for everybody!

and Obama supports it. As would any non-Christian would.

 

[lovemymutts]

Well, gay marriage should be a state decision and not federal one..So good for them.

And exactly how are the states supposed to vote on whether or not a gay couple is eligible for Social Security death benefits?

How is Kansas supposed to decide if gays can file a federal married tax return?

Rights are not to be voted on. They are rights.

.

Let's breal this down,so it's easy to understand.The states that legalized(as it should be)same sex marriage will be the states that give Social Security benefits (as it should be).Married LEGALLY means that they will LEGALLY be able to file as a married couple on their tax returns.

 

[lovemymutts]

Synergy.

It's when one side gets tired of fighting the other side and concedes.

the Gay Mafia has Synergy now. No stopping them now. Cornhole plugs for everybody!

and Obama supports it. As would any non-Christian would.

All that comes to mind is Unfuckingbelievable !

 

[WorldWatcher]

Its actually about the desire to be accepted by society, as shown by the rejection of civil unions that would give the exact same rights as a marriage, but would not be called such.

Voters have moved on from that, obviously.

and if voters want to move on from that its fine by me. The consituion is silent on contracts such as marriage. It neither bans nor guarantees gay marriage. Thus is should be left up to the legislatures.

So race is a biological condition, gender is a biological condition. You are for it being up to the legislatures based on the biology of gender. Are you for it being up to the legislatures based on the biology of race?



>>>>

 

[rightwinger]

Its actually about the desire to be accepted by society, as shown by the rejection of civil unions that would give the exact same rights as a marriage, but would not be called such.

Voters have moved on from that, obviously.

and if voters want to move on from that its fine by me. The consituion is silent on contracts such as marriage. It neither bans nor guarantees gay marriage. Thus is should be left up to the legislatures.

Nobody should be permitted to vote on what rights other citizens are entitled to

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper

 

[Seawytch]

As much as I disagree with Civil Rights being decided by popular vote...yay!

 

[LogikAndReazon]

A certain victory for queers and homosexuals.................

The time has come to redefine "Marriage" after six thousand years

 

[WorldWatcher]

Synergy.

It's when one side gets tired of fighting the other side and concedes.

the Gay Mafia has Synergy now. No stopping them now. Cornhole plugs for everybody!

and Obama supports it. As would any non-Christian would.

That would be called "surrender" not Synergy.


syn·er·gy
1
: synergism; broadly : combined action or operation
2
: a mutually advantageous conjunction or compatibility of distinct business participants or elements (as resources or efforts)

Synergy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


>>>>

 

[Si modo]

Cool. Maybe all the dykes in Northern Virginia will move to Maryland and not tax our public safety so much with their domestic violence calls.

 

[Seawytch]

Well, gay marriage should be a state decision and not federal one..So good for them.

And exactly how are the states supposed to vote on whether or not a gay couple is eligible for Social Security death benefits?

How is Kansas supposed to decide if gays can file a federal married tax return?

Rights are not to be voted on. They are rights.

.

Let's breal this down,so it's easy to understand.The states that legalized(as it should be)same sex marriage will be the states that give Social Security benefits (as it should be).Married LEGALLY means that they will LEGALLY be able to file as a married couple on their tax returns.

States don't give SS benefits. We don't get them, legally married or not. Same goes for our Heath Care taxes and Fed taxes. Separate and unequal still prevails.

 

[martybegan]

Voters have moved on from that, obviously.

and if voters want to move on from that its fine by me. The consituion is silent on contracts such as marriage. It neither bans nor guarantees gay marriage. Thus is should be left up to the legislatures.

So race is a biological condition, gender is a biological condition. You are for it being up to the legislatures based on the biology of gender. Are you for it being up to the legislatures based on the biology of race?



>>>>

being born without sight is a biological condtion, yet we deny blind people driver's liscences. Isnt that a violation of equal protection based on biology?

And no, race is different, as there is nothing biologically different between a mixed racial marriage and a same race marriage. Unless they are using props, there is a difference biologically between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

 

[martybegan]

Voters have moved on from that, obviously.

and if voters want to move on from that its fine by me. The consituion is silent on contracts such as marriage. It neither bans nor guarantees gay marriage. Thus is should be left up to the legislatures.

Nobody should be permitted to vote on what rights other citizens are entitled to

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper

I want the right to slap every democrat I walk across, not damaging, just a "love tap" I assume you want the law to stop me?

 

[lovemymutts]

A certain victory for queers and homosexuals.................

The time has come to redefine "Marriage" after six thousand years

wtf ?

 

[amrchaos]

Is same sex marriage really a state issue?

Well I have a potential problem with this idea. Let say a gay couple gets married in Maryland and then move to Georgia--are they still married?

If it is a state issue, then they were legally divorced the moment they went into a state that do not recognized same sex marriage.

So what was the point of getting married, right?

If it is a federal issue and if the federal government recognized their marriage, then they are still married and still are governed under the same laws afforded to married couples. The state decision to recognize or not to recognize their marriage is therefore irrevelant.
Under this supposition, marriage, its definition and who can or cannot marry is a national issue, not a local/state issue.

Think about it. Things are not as simple as choosing what you feel is right or wrong.

 

[WorldWatcher]

and if voters want to move on from that its fine by me. The consituion is silent on contracts such as marriage. It neither bans nor guarantees gay marriage. Thus is should be left up to the legislatures.

So race is a biological condition, gender is a biological condition. You are for it being up to the legislatures based on the biology of gender. Are you for it being up to the legislatures based on the biology of race?



>>>>

being born without sight is a biological condtion, yet we deny blind people driver's liscences. Isnt that a violation of equal protection based on biology?

It's discrimination (which in and of itself is not good or bad), but it is not a violation of equal protection as there is a domonstratable compelling government interest in denying drivers licenses to blind people since operating a multi-ton vehicle at highway speeds is a clear and present danger to the lives of others.

And no, race is different, as there is nothing biologically different between a mixed racial marriage and a same race marriage.

There is a difference biologically between whites and (as they were called when interracial marriages were illegal) "coloreds", is called the color of their skin which is determined by biology.

Unless they are using props, there is a difference biologically between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

Really what is the difference in a man performing oral sex on a woman and a woman performing oral sex on another woman?



>>>>

 

[lovemymutts]

and if voters want to move on from that its fine by me. The consituion is silent on contracts such as marriage. It neither bans nor guarantees gay marriage. Thus is should be left up to the legislatures.

So race is a biological condition, gender is a biological condition. You are for it being up to the legislatures based on the biology of gender. Are you for it being up to the legislatures based on the biology of race?



>>>>

being born without sight is a biological condtion, yet we deny blind people driver's liscences. Isnt that a violation of equal protection based on biology?

And no, race is different, as there is nothing biologically different between a mixed racial marriage and a same race marriage. Unless they are using props, there is a difference biologically between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

I stongly suggest that YOU go back and take a Biology course.Stupidity can be genetic as you so vividly prove.

 

[Seawytch]

Cool. Maybe all the dykes in Northern Virginia will move to Maryland and not tax our public safety so much with their domestic violence calls.

Yeah, I'm sure it's the lesbians that are the leading contributor to domestic violence problems.

 

[Newby]

And it was done the right way, via a popular vote, not making up some right and going through the courts.

The courts are where you decide if reciprocity applies to these marriages or not.

The idiots who passed DOMA on the federal level ensured this is a court issue and not a state level one.

This is about rights and equal protection of the laws, which puts it squarely in the judicial branch's bucket. You can thank the bigots for that.



.

Its actually about the desire to be accepted by society, as shown by the rejection of civil unions that would give the exact same rights as a marriage, but would not be called such.

Yep, if it was only about the legal issue, this would have been a done deal a long time ago. It's always been more about forcing acceptance of it as normal.