Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[GreenBean]

No, it's about equal protection. Feel free to join this guy in his fight to ban all civil marriages. As long as it applies to everybody, best of luck!

It is demonstratively NOT about equal protection under the law as I have pointed out.

This guy in your link has the right idea if we are going to say the law cant differentiate based on relationship status. I see the author couldn't help but drag in an unrelated racial issue tho...that is pathetic.

Yes, it demonstratively is. Gays want to be treated equally under the law, period. Feel free to change those laws if you like...fill the pool so the black kids can't swim, but we still want to be treated equally.

Will you kindly stop insulting the African Americans by equating them with YOU !

 

[JakeStarkey]

Seawytch was referring to the act of filling in pools so no one, meaning the black kids, could swim.

A Mormon presiding elder did that with the baptismal font in a small Mississippi town so blacks could not be baptized.

The demonization by the hetero-fascists merely follows the same pattern to exclude those they for whatever reason don't want to be around.

The 14th Amendment and the Constitution governs this issue, not religious cult theory not bastardized natural law theory.

Tis what tis.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That's your opinion or religious view. I happen to be legally married and we just filed our first joint Federal tax return. WOW, what a difference!

Huh. Look at that, the Relativist offers up the LEGAL qualifier, noting, NOT the LIFELONG BOND of two individuals who have FULLY COMMITTED TO ONE ANOTHER, but the TAX FILING, as representing her primary concerns for her would-be "marriage", and, in so doing establishing "That", as a fact of the incontrovertible variety.

And in a delightfully sweet, ironic twist, one which is FURTHER validated through her inability to contest such being limited to the attempt to distract from such, through feckless and fallacious appeals.

For all intents and purposes, she and her most special friend are bound through simple incorporation, basically a modification of an LLC. But instead of actually using the path of incorporation, the Homo-lobby advocating the normalization of sexual abnormality, DESPERATELY needed to take the pretense of "Marriage" path. The thing is that HAD they opted to incorporate, instead of demanding Marriage, they could load up the car and drive, or fly or sail, anywhere in the world, where their 'union' would be recognized. Because a corporation is a legally binding contract. As it stands now, the moment our contributor and her 'significant other' cross their state line, they're right back to being little more than roomies.

So, we should WHY would the Homo-movement reject a secular and throughly binding, perfectly suited instrument, over something for which they are THOROUGHLY UNQUALIFIED FOR?

They DESPERATELY NEED the legitimacy inherent in "Marriage" which is unobtainable as a practicing homosexual. The proof of which is demonstrated in the desperation itself.

Much as many homosexuals are obsessed with the accumulation of wealth, they need Marriage to secure legitimacy. But, being illegitimate, nothing they DO will ever produce legitimacy, until they turn from the illegitimacy, that defines them, which is their deviant BEHAVIOR.

WOO HOO!! NATURE WINS ANOTHER ONE!
You can't fight Mother Nature​

Wow...who knew a simple marriage license could so unhinge some people.

We've been "bonded" for 18 years now. We're well on our way to "lifelong". Finally our relationship is treated equally under the law. What a great time to be alive!

Oh! Are you the only Homosexual playing house, as a modified LLC?

I had heard there were dozens of such. SO MANY, that the culture needed to be slammed on its ear so we could strip the nuclear core of the nation of any form of standard.

(Relativism << See how that works folks?

She's not advocating for anyone but her self and her most special friend, who enjoyed a nice reduction in federal liabilities, because of they recently incorporated.)

Deceit <=> FRAUD <=> Ignorance
>>> >> S O C I A L I S M << <<<​

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is demonstratively NOT about equal protection under the law as I have pointed out.

This guy in your link has the right idea if we are going to say the law cant differentiate based on relationship status. I see the author couldn't help but drag in an unrelated racial issue tho...that is pathetic.

Yes, it demonstratively is. Gays want to be treated equally under the law, period. Feel free to change those laws if you like...fill the pool so the black kids can't swim, but we still want to be treated equally.

Will you kindly stop insulting the African Americans by equating them with YOU !

That’s only an ‘insult’ in accordance with your ignorant, hateful, and subjective perception; in reality it’s no ‘insult’ at all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The opponents of marriage equality now, their arguments eviscerated, can only strike out to hurt others' feelings, or so they hope.

They are nothing more than red-eyed snarling feral children in the corner stamping their little cloven hooves.

Cult theory and natural law and the nonsense of "socialism" are no defense to the overturning of Amendment 3 in Utah.

Sotomayor continues to gather her majority, which I predict will be no less than six to three for upholding Judge Shelby's ruling and probably more likely will be seven to two.

 

[beagle9]

I've cited DOMA where they mentioned Loving v Virginia and then went on to affirm that the correct place where the decision of gay marriage or no gay marriage lies in the "unquestioned authority" "since the founding of the country" is in consensus of the broad-swath of the voters in each state.

And above strategic blunder is to fail to add SCOTUS' clear meaning "no state can deny the civil liberties of citizens." As well, George Pyle in the Salt Lake Tribune today, page O1 ,O4 devastates any religious underpinning for Amendment 3 as well.

"Reminiscent of when Bishop Wilberforce, in a debate over Darwin's recently public "Origin of Species, made a strategic blunder and his rival, T. H. Huxley, was reportedly heard to mutter, "The Lord hath delivered him into my hands," before demolishing the good bishop's anti-evolution argument."

"Amendment 3's only hope of withstanding this flood of judicial scrutiny is if it can be defended as having a secular practicality . . . . Because creationism, creation science and intelligent design do not exist outside a mindset," and as for many, defense of Amendment 3 rests within a religious mindset, SCOTUS justifiably precludes their presence "from public school science classes. Opposition to same-sex marriage may soon find itself in that bin."

And just how did all this exclusion of morals, decency, ethical conduct,, and the exclusion of religious values and it's views come about in our society now ? It has come about by pressures being placed in very precise ways, and upon strategic weak spots in the federal government. It was then all transferred to the activist riddled sold out federal judiciary, who in turn has picked this nation up, and has thrown it down upon it's head ever since.

 

[Silhouette]

Wow...who knew a simple marriage license could so unhinge some people.

We've been "bonded" for 18 years now. We're well on our way to "lifelong". Finally our relationship is treated equally under the law. What a great time to be alive!

I have many friends of the same gender that I'm bonded to. Why in the world would I need to be married to them to bond with them? Why would I want to unhinge the description of the word "marriage" to declare that people of my same gender I can like. Sex is for the opposite gender only. Hence the word "sex" and its origins. Homosexuality degrades and renders suspect all same-gender bondings and friendships.

In the old days you used to know that opposite gender meant sex. All other relationships mean "not for sex". ie: free from the stresses & strains of being hit on or hitting on someone. They were "down time" with people close to you. Now all that is thrown on the rocks for some delusional cult that feels it needs to unravel the fabric of reality in order to be rebellious sexually. It's gotten to where people of the same gender are afraid to be close to each other because they'll be mistaken for "gay". Or worse, nobody can trust that the same-gendered friend they have is authentically their friend. There's more than just damage to marriage being done in this way. It is destroying human culture and bonds of every nature; rendering them all suspect to "the dating game".

There will come a time when people will sit up and say "what the hell were they thinking back then?" But wisdom comes slowly, in driblets.

 

[Seawytch]

It is demonstratively NOT about equal protection under the law as I have pointed out.

This guy in your link has the right idea if we are going to say the law cant differentiate based on relationship status. I see the author couldn't help but drag in an unrelated racial issue tho...that is pathetic.

Yes, it demonstratively is. Gays want to be treated equally under the law, period. Feel free to change those laws if you like...fill the pool so the black kids can't swim, but we still want to be treated equally.

Will you kindly stop insulting the African Americans by equating them with YOU !

What is being equated is the discrimination. That's the same...sometimes startlingly so.

The following statements were made about interracial marriage or gay marriage. Can you tell which is which?

1. "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies" not allowing their marriage.

2. This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."

3. State legislators spoke out against such an "abominable" type of relationship, warning that it will eventually "pollute" America.

4. “It not only is a complete undermining of ... the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down ... It literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”

5. This type of marriage is not allowed "because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

6. This type of marriage is "regarded as unnatural and immoral."

7. This type of relationship is "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce." Such marriages would lead to "a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

8. "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says [this marriage should not occur], the whole plan of God as He has dealt with [humanity] down through the ages indicates that [this] marriage is not best for man."

9. "A little-reported fact is that [these types of relationships] are far more violent than are [insert single-race or heterosexual] households."

10. "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist submitted to the court. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."​

 

[Seawytch]

Wow...who knew a simple marriage license could so unhinge some people.

We've been "bonded" for 18 years now. We're well on our way to "lifelong". Finally our relationship is treated equally under the law. What a great time to be alive!

I have many friends of the same gender that I'm bonded to. Why in the world would I need to be married to them to bond with them? Why would I want to unhinge the description of the word "marriage" to declare that people of my same gender I can like. Sex is for the opposite gender only. Hence the word "sex" and its origins. Homosexuality degrades and renders suspect all same-gender bondings and friendships.

In the old days you used to know that opposite gender meant sex. All other relationships mean "not for sex". ie: free from the stresses & strains of being hit on or hitting on someone. They were "down time" with people close to you. Now all that is thrown on the rocks for some delusional cult that feels it needs to unravel the fabric of reality in order to be rebellious sexually. It's gotten to where people of the same gender are afraid to be close to each other because they'll be mistaken for "gay". Or worse, nobody can trust that the same-gendered friend they have is authentically their friend. There's more than just damage to marriage being done in this way. It is destroying human culture and bonds of every nature; rendering them all suspect to "the dating game".

There will come a time when people will sit up and say "what the hell were they thinking back then?" But wisdom comes slowly, in driblets.

Renders suspect? Yeah, okay.

I'm not bonded to my partner like a friend, I'm bonded to her as a life partner. A spouse, a lover. We have been married in our hearts for almost two decades...now we just get to be married legally too. What a great country!

 

[Bumberclyde]

Gay people in Utah should just **** with their heads and get a legal document between the couple conferring to each other what a marriage license does, and call it a Marriage Contract. Then just sit back and watch them all cream their magic underwear.

 

[Iceweasel]

When did homosexuals become a seperate race?

 

[Seawytch]

When did homosexuals become a seperate race?

When did anyone say they were? The only anyone has done is compare the discrimination.

Can you tell which of these statements is about interracial marriage and which is about gay marriage?

1. "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies" not allowing their marriage.

2. This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."

3. State legislators spoke out against such an "abominable" type of relationship, warning that it will eventually "pollute" America.

4. “It not only is a complete undermining of ... the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down ... It literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”

5. This type of marriage is not allowed "because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

6. This type of marriage is "regarded as unnatural and immoral."

7. This type of relationship is "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce." Such marriages would lead to "a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

8. "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says [this marriage should not occur], the whole plan of God as He has dealt with [humanity] down through the ages indicates that [this] marriage is not best for man."

9. "A little-reported fact is that [these types of relationships] are far more violent than are [insert single-race or heterosexual] households."

10. "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist submitted to the court. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."​

 

[Iceweasel]

When did anyone say they were?

You implied it by comparing it to the black struggle. The reason interracial marriage was unconstitutional is because not all men were being treated equally in the eyes of the law. Since then all eligible men could marry any eligible women (defined by each state). That's equal. Pretending that homosexuality is in the same boat means that you want us to believe it too is a race.

When did anyone say they were? The only anyone has done is compare the discrimination.

It's meaningless to claim all forms of discrimination are the same, especially before establishing any discrimination to begin with. As I said earlier, anyone or group can use your argument.

Can you tell which of these statements is about interracial marriage and which is about gay marriage?

1. "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies" not allowing their marriage.

2. This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."

3. State legislators spoke out against such an "abominable" type of relationship, warning that it will eventually "pollute" America.

4. &#8220;It not only is a complete undermining of ... the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down ... It literally is a threat to the nation&#8217;s survival in the long run.&#8221;

5. This type of marriage is not allowed "because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

6. This type of marriage is "regarded as unnatural and immoral."

7. This type of relationship is "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce." Such marriages would lead to "a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

8. "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says [this marriage should not occur], the whole plan of God as He has dealt with [humanity] down through the ages indicates that [this] marriage is not best for man."

9. "A little-reported fact is that [these types of relationships] are far more violent than are [insert single-race or heterosexual] households."

10. "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist submitted to the court. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."​

Also anyone can pick selected quotes to try to bolster their argument for anything. I can use your technique to show how bigoted, hateful and wrong it is to deny three people from marriage. Or more. The fact that you think you are being fair and honest supports my opinion that the state needs to get out of the marriage business, we are too relativistic today, someone will always feel discriminated against.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes, it demonstratively is. Gays want to be treated equally under the law, period. Feel free to change those laws if you like...fill the pool so the black kids can't swim, but we still want to be treated equally.

Will you kindly stop insulting the African Americans by equating them with YOU !

What is being equated is the discrimination. That's the same...sometimes startlingly so.

The following statements were made about interracial marriage or gay marriage. Can you tell which is which?

1. "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies" not allowing their marriage.

2. This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."

3. State legislators spoke out against such an "abominable" type of relationship, warning that it will eventually "pollute" America.

4. “It not only is a complete undermining of ... the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down ... It literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”

5. This type of marriage is not allowed "because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

6. This type of marriage is "regarded as unnatural and immoral."

7. This type of relationship is "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce." Such marriages would lead to "a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

8. "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says [this marriage should not occur], the whole plan of God as He has dealt with [humanity] down through the ages indicates that [this] marriage is not best for man."

9. "A little-reported fact is that [these types of relationships] are far more violent than are [insert single-race or heterosexual] households."

10. "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist submitted to the court. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."​

So, humanity is to set aside 'discrimination' now.

Now that's HYSTERICAL.

Discrimination is a function of a sound being. Absent discrimination, there is virtually no chance that the being, or its summed component of the beings culture, would survive.

But this does provide us with a first class opportunity to educate:

The above individual is a Liberal (socialist).

Socialism rests in Relativism.

Relativism rejects Objectivity.

Objectivity is ESSENTIAL TO Truth, trust, morality and justice.

Meaning that without Objectivity, there is no truth.

Without truth, there is no Trust.

Without trust there is no Morality.

Without morality, there is no Justice.

Now what does Relativism look like?

Here's a clue: 'DISCRIMINATION, AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF VIABILITY: IS WRONG!'

 

[Silhouette]

Please stop assuming democrats don't disagree with gay marriage. I'm a lifelong democrat. I believe in and promote green energy. I'm all about pro-choice/the horrible choice of lesser of two evils as long as termination is before 3 months. Much more prefer Plan B and free birth control to not even have to have the conversation about abortion, eh?

That doesn't keep me from keeping my eyes open when it comes to gay marriage.

I submit again as sound reasons to object:

1. Federal and state laws protecting children that mandate a person must err on the side of caution when that person even just suspects harm coming to a child or children. And those laws having a punitive clause where failure to do so can result in prosecution.



2. Gays and lesbians [same sex couples] lining up in unison to elevate Harvey Milk's sexual-political "achievements" as a matter of law, and now a new US Postage stamp as "the embodiment of the LGBT movement across the nation and the world".



3. That Harvey Milk's "sexual-political achievements" were to bugger orphaned street teens on drugs, vulnerable and incapable of consent. And his officiating to at least one of those boys as "a father figure"; a boy who later killed himself on Milk's birthday.



4. The fact that once married, LGBTers will elevate, legally, to the top-tier of screened people to adopt orphaned children.



5. The fact that even when gays are reminded of Harvey Milk's sex crimes against orphaned teens, the church of LGBT line up to defend and not denounce him.



6. The law in California passed on the urgings/beliefs of a gay politician there, as this church expands its flock, that requires young children in public schools to celebrate Harvey Milk for his sexuality. [see #3 & #5].



7. The law in California on the urgings/beliefs of a gay politician there, as this church expands its flock, that prohibit teens and other minors under 18 from seeking therapy on their own even to help change their sexual orientation from gay to straight, even if that child knows or suspects it was imprinted on them from molestation from a same-sexed perp. While other laws, statutes and customs there not only don't prohibit the reverse in children [urging "coming out" gay or being "bi curious"] and dozens of entities that exist to "help children transition" from straight to gay. [not a church? yeah, right]/



8. First amendment rights particularly in Utah where the christian faith teaches that an entire culture [Sodom] and its inhabitants were wiped off the map because of homosexual behavior taking over an entire region as a culture. [See Jude 1 & Romans 1, also the Koran for muslims Poets 26.] And that not just the homosexuals but also their enablers or apologists being sent to the Pit of Fire forever.





As long as the church of LGBT requires children to celebrate Harvey Milk's sexual-political "achievements" those adults must not be allowed access anywhere near adoptable orphans.



You DO realize what will happen the moment they get the legal toe in the door of marriage, right? If any adoption agency DARES to screen them at that point as not savory to adopt, that adoption agency will be sued into next year and the US Supreme Court will be faced once again with a decision to examine the LGBT CULTure more closely, this time, and make that final determination to shelve children's protection in favor of an ideology that worships the Harvey Milk sexual ideal, which is, sex with orphaned teens who are preferably, according to Milk's bio, addled on drugs and incapable of mentally resisting his sexual advances.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I've cited DOMA where they mentioned Loving v Virginia and then went on to affirm that the correct place where the decision of gay marriage or no gay marriage lies in the "unquestioned authority" "since the founding of the country" is in consensus of the broad-swath of the voters in each state.

And above strategic blunder is to fail to add SCOTUS' clear meaning "no state can deny the civil liberties of citizens." As well, George Pyle in the Salt Lake Tribune today, page O1 ,O4 devastates any religious underpinning for Amendment 3 as well.

"Reminiscent of when Bishop Wilberforce, in a debate over Darwin's recently public "Origin of Species, made a strategic blunder and his rival, T. H. Huxley, was reportedly heard to mutter, "The Lord hath delivered him into my hands," before demolishing the good bishop's anti-evolution argument."

"Amendment 3's only hope of withstanding this flood of judicial scrutiny is if it can be defended as having a secular practicality . . . . Because creationism, creation science and intelligent design do not exist outside a mindset," and as for many, defense of Amendment 3 rests within a religious mindset, SCOTUS justifiably precludes their presence "from public school science classes. Opposition to same-sex marriage may soon find itself in that bin."

And just how did all this exclusion of morals, decency, ethical conduct,, and the exclusion of religious values and it's views come about in our society now ? It has come about by pressures being placed in very precise ways, and upon strategic weak spots in the federal government. It was then all transferred to the activist riddled sold out federal judiciary, who in turn has picked this nation up, and has thrown it down upon it's head ever since.

Wah! Progress happens and you can't stop it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, your political affiliation is immaterial to the inevitability of marriage equality.

Politicians, too, are sensing a sea change. In March, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) used the same word, telling NBC's Chuck Todd that although he opposed gay marriage, it was "inevitable" that Republican presidential contenders will someday back it. Poll: Gay Marriage Viewed As 'Inevitable' By Most Americans

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, your political affiliation is immaterial to the inevitability of marriage equality.

That's not what the US Supreme Court said in DOMA. They said that state's "unquestioned authority" in determining whether or not gay marriage was legal within its boundaries is of "central relevance" to the DOMA Decision. They said that a broad consensus within a state's boundaries is the right and proper way this determination should be made in accordance with the way "the Framers of the Constutition intended" [those are direct quotes]. That's Justice code for saying "such and such is upheld constituitonally". And, they also said in Windsor/DOMA that this affirmation of a state's right and proper way of defining marriage is retroactive to the founding of the nation.

So, as it happens, my political affiliation or leanings on this particular question are of "central relevance" to the open and unanswered question as to the "inevitability" of gay marriage.

Most relevant to that ongoing consensus discussion is what's in my signature and legal mandates to protect adoptable orphans. You can't have a cult that worships old men sodomizing orphaned teen boys while officiating as their "father figure", having top-tier access to adopt orphans as one of the perks of legal marriage, now can you? Also, you cannot force christians, mormons or muslims to commit the mortal sin [Bible, Jude 1, Romans 1...Koran, Poets 26] of enabling a homosexual culture and be damned to hell for eternity for it, now can you?

Aside: Seawytch, I've been meaning to ask you, or any other gay advocate here how you feel about outreach to youth in the currently identified hetero population to "come out gay" or explore their "bi-curious" urgings? A simple answer or a complex one: either one will do.

 

[Seawytch]

When did anyone say they were?

You implied it by comparing it to the black struggle. The reason interracial marriage was unconstitutional is because not all men were being treated equally in the eyes of the law. Since then all eligible men could marry any eligible women (defined by each state). That's equal. Pretending that homosexuality is in the same boat means that you want us to believe it too is a race.

When did anyone say they were? The only anyone has done is compare the discrimination.

It's meaningless to claim all forms of discrimination are the same, especially before establishing any discrimination to begin with. As I said earlier, anyone or group can use your argument.

Can you tell which of these statements is about interracial marriage and which is about gay marriage?

1. "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies" not allowing their marriage.

2. This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."

3. State legislators spoke out against such an "abominable" type of relationship, warning that it will eventually "pollute" America.

4. “It not only is a complete undermining of ... the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down ... It literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”

5. This type of marriage is not allowed "because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

6. This type of marriage is "regarded as unnatural and immoral."

7. This type of relationship is "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce." Such marriages would lead to "a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

8. "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says [this marriage should not occur], the whole plan of God as He has dealt with [humanity] down through the ages indicates that [this] marriage is not best for man."

9. "A little-reported fact is that [these types of relationships] are far more violent than are [insert single-race or heterosexual] households."

10. "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist submitted to the court. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."​

Also anyone can pick selected quotes to try to bolster their argument for anything. I can use your technique to show how bigoted, hateful and wrong it is to deny three people from marriage. Or more. The fact that you think you are being fair and honest supports my opinion that the state needs to get out of the marriage business, we are too relativistic today, someone will always feel discriminated against.

Uh huh...only TWO were about "the gays". Which ones?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silohuette's last post above is feeble and ranting. We were talking about party affiliation, she sliced my post to get it out of context (reported), and then wants to talk about states' rights.

The rulings last year made it clear that states may not abridge citizens' civil liberties. The court also made it clear that it is not following the Bible and that it is not following natural law.

End of story.