Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It describes me.Which describes almost nobody against the federal law or SCOTUS decision.
Nothing is sillier than supposedly debating a person by telling them that they don't believe what they are saying.That con isn't fooling anyone, sorry.
I have already demonstrated how that is complete bullshit,Most marriages end in divorce. Someday there will be no need for them anyway. Not a huge deal.
You are one person. And you're probably not being all that honest anyway.It describes me.
yes..how does that support your argument?
i know what it says…i am asking how that supports your argumentninth amendment simplified - Bing
Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.www.bing.com
I don't think that you do know what it says and if you do, you crearly do not understand it.i know what it says…i am asking how that supports your argument
i don’t at all underhand how you think it benefits your arguments…that’s why i am asking you to explainI don't think that ypu do know what it says and if you do, you crearly do not understand it.
Please quote my bigoted statement.What I have figured out is that you are a bigot. Your statement that gays already had equal rights because they could marry someone of the opposite sex said it all. You claim that "feeling" are irrelevant to the law, but what you really mean is that the "feelings" of gay people are irrelevant as far as you are concerned . You do not think that it is important to gay people to be able to marry for love and attraction and try to mask that by dismissing the importance of emotions as a factor at all. Then you try to cover it all up by stating that you never said that oppose gay marriage. Finally, I have figured out that you are a coward because you won't actually say what you think and believe
I already did , many timesPlease quote my bigoted statement.
I’ll wait
Um no you didn't. What I posted that you are calling bigoted was a statement of fact. I didn't write the laws that define marriage as a union of man and woman Im just pointing out their existence and that based on that 2 men not being able to get married to each other (which by that definition wouldn't be a marriage per the law BTW) cant be discriminatory. That's not my fault, and doesn't make me a bigot.I already did , many times
You claim that "feeling" are irrelevant to the law, but what you really mean is that the "feelings" of gay people are irrelevant as far as you are concerned . You do not think that it is important to gay people to be able to marry for love and attraction and try to mask that by dismissing the importance of emotions as a factor at all. Then you try to cover it all up by stating that you never said that oppose gay marriage.
OK, lets back up here. First allow me to thank you for motivating me to do further research on the issue. I think that perhaps we can both learn something here. It seems that the issue is more complicated that I realized and,, as it turns out, we were both only partially correct.i know what it says…i am asking how that supports your argument
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(629x679:631x681)/Respect-for-Marriage-Act-2015-Washinton-DC-071822-3-f9a7fd703b7c4b13ab961d9cbdf6ab0b.jpg)
Bottom line is that congress is not powerless on the issueThe RFMA, Stacy tells PEOPLE, would accomplish a few important goals. Most significantly, it would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that said the federal government will not recognize any same-sex marriages performed by states. (DOMA is currently unenforceable thanks to landmark Supreme Court decisions United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges, though it still exists on paper, meaning it could be reinstated if those rulings were overturned by the current court's conservative stronghold.)
Yes Congress power is limited to Arr 1 Sec 8…they can pass a civil rights act because they have the power to regulate interstate commerceOK, lets back up here. First allow me to thank you for motivating me to do further research on the issue. I think that perhaps we can both learn something here. It seems that the issue is more complicated that I realized and,, as it turns out, we were both only partially correct.
My position has been that Congress can fully codify Obergfell.
You, on the other hand, are apparently taking the position that congress can legally do nothing.
My position was based on the fact that the 9th Amendment makes it clear that rights of the people are not limited to enumerated rights . Afterall, congress did pass the Civil Rights Acts to ensure that minorities had the right to be free from discrimination.
However, it appears that congress'ability to regulate marriage is limited. This is what I learned, atleast from 1 source
The Respect for Marriage Act Can't Fully Replace 'Obergefell,' but It Can Help Prevent It from Being Overturned
A legislative expert explains the marriage equality bill, its likelihood of passing in the evenly split Senate, and why the time to protect same-sex marriage is nowpeople.com
Bottom line is that congress is not powerless on the issue
Pa. Rep. Glenn Thompson votes against same-sex marriage days after attending son's gay wedding
A Pennsylvania lawmaker is facing criticism for attending his gay son's wedding last week, just days after opposing a bill in the U.S. house that would enshrine protections for same-sex marriage into federal law.www.cbsnews.com
"A Pennsylvania lawmaker is facing criticism for attending his gay son's wedding last week, just days after opposing a bill in the U.S. house that would enshrine protections for same-sex marriage into federal law. Representative Glenn Thompson's office said in a statement that he and his wife were thrilled to attend the nuptials and are very happy to welcome a new son-in-law into the family. His office did not respond to a follow-up question about why he decided to vote against the measure."
So I guess the key to opposing same sex marriage is to just oppose it for everyone else but not your own family? Cool...Kinda makes for an awkward wedding knowing your Dad would have gladly voted to stop you from being married "legally" if Republicans ever had their wish....I am sure the weasel excuse given is:
"I am totally for gay marriage bro, I just don't want them to be federally protected...that's all"
I assume this is a case of a politician just doing what he thinks he has to do to get elected -- and for some reason, there are a lot of Republicans believing that the easiest way to remain in power is to oppose gay rights in any form it pops up...which is odd, because I keep hearing from the so-called Conservatives on this message board that "Bro, nobody is trying to take away rights from gays bro..." -- Seems once again, Conservatives are lying about their own positions....
Bullshit ! You said that gays people already had equal rights because that could marry some one of the opposite sex. To say that they already had equality IS NOT a fact. It is a way to dance around your bigotry with out admitting your bigotry.Um no you didn't. What I posted that you are calling bigoted was a statement of fact. I didn't write the laws that define marriage as a union of man and woman Im just pointing out their existence and that based on that 2 men not being able to get married to each other (which by that definition wouldn't be a marriage per the law BTW) cant be discriminatory. That's not my fault, and doesn't make me a bigot.
OK, we are on the same page nowYes Congress power is limited to Arr 1 Sec 8…they can pass a civil rights act because they have the power to regulate interstate commerce
the 9th amendment has nothing to do with the powers of congress
Bill Cljnton’s DOMA is and was unconstitutional…see USA v Windsor
Complete and utter horseshshitI bet a new version of Prop H8te would get traction & win in 30-35 States easily if it were brought forward there
It won in California so that makes you think. Oklahoma or Kansas or Arkansas or New Hampshire or Idaho would balk ?Complete and utter horseshshit
