GOP Senator Celebrates His Vote Against Gay Marriage By Attending Son's Gay Marriage

[pknopp]

If the state has defined an activity as X and everyone is allowed to participate in that activity within the bounds of that definition then everyone is equally participating. Because you dont get to participate in the way you want to because it's outside the definition of that activity as defined by the state doesnt mean they are discriminating against you.

It was once outside the definition to mixed race couples.

 

[Couchpotato]

Mixed race couples once couldn't get them from many states either.........

Im aware. Thanks.

 

[pknopp]

Im aware. Thanks.

And the FEDERAL government ended that.

 

[Couchpotato]

It was once outside the definition to mixed race couples.

Yep it was.

Governments make mistakes. Would you rather they made them primarily at the federal level where it affects everyone or at the state level where it affects the least number possible?

 

[Couchpotato]

And the FEDERAL government ended that.

And they were probably out of their box when they did.

 

[Couchpotato]

Process matters.

 

[pknopp]

And they were probably out of their box when they did.

Meaningless babble.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If the state has defined an activity as X and everyone is allowed to participate in that activity within the bounds of that definition then everyone is equally participating. Because you dont get to participate in the way you want to because it's outside the definition of that activity as defined by the state doesnt mean they are discriminating against you.

You keep twisting yourself into a pretzle to justify your bigotry, without admitting that you are a bigot. Amazing! Read the Obergefell decision!

 

[Couchpotato]

You keep twisting yourself into a pretzle to justify your bigotry, Read the Obergefell decision!

I have. I just dont agree with it. Sorry. And I dont give a shit if you think Im a bigot so you can stop trying to bludgeon me into changing my mind on this issue. It has nothing to do with people's feelings for me. It has to do with process and I think they got it wrong, just like they got Roe wrong. I would have thought they were just as wrong for the same reasons had they banned SSM or abortion.

 

[Couchpotato]

Meaningless babble.

You are literally one of the dumbest posters on this board. And that's saying something. Youre opinion of what Im saying couldnt hold less meaning for me.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yep it was.
ne
Governments make mistakes. Would you rather they made them primarily at the federal level where it affects everyone or at the state level where it affects the least number possible?

Government makes and government fixes mistakes. I would rather that those fixes be at the federal level where they affect everyone

 

[pknopp]

You are literally one of the dumbest posters on this board. And that's saying something. Youre opinion of what Im saying couldnt hold less meaning for me.

Sadly despite being asked many times you won't actually state what you believe.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I have. I just dont agree with it. Sorry. And I dont give a shit if you think Im a bigot so you can stop trying to bludgeon me into changing my mind on this issue. It has nothing to do with people's feelings for me. It has to do with process and I think they got it wrong, just like they got Roe wrong. I would have thought they were just as wrong for the same reasons had they banned SSM or abortion.

It has to do with the process? Really? Well then, do you support state level legislation that legalizes same sex marriage? Yes or No?

 

[Couchpotato]

Dovernment makes and government fixes mistakes. I would rather that those fixes be at the federal level where they affect everyone

That's fair, but it has to happen within the bounds of the Constitution and in this instance I dont think they did. It's just my opinion. I said FROM THE BEGINING that I didnt think they should overturn Obergfell, because of the dependencies the former court created with the decision, but I would understand based solely on Constitutional grounds why it was done if it were done.

 

[Couchpotato]

It has to do with the process? Really? Well then, do you support state level legislation that legalizes same sex marriage? Yes or No?

Absolutely. If the voters elected people into the legislature that wrote that law why wouldn't I?

 

[Couchpotato]

Sadly despite being asked many times you won't actually state what you believe.

Because it's irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Couchpotato]

pknopp

I know your feels are super important.

 

[pknopp]

pknopp

I know your feels are super important.

It's not about me. It's about those who would deny rights to others they themselves hold.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Absolutely. If the voters elected people into the legislature that wrote that law why wouldn't I?

That is something I suppose. But I thought that such legislation was not needed because gay people already have equal rights since they can marry someone of the opposite sex.

Also, what would you do about those states that would never pass such legislation?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That's fair, but it has to happen within the bounds of the Constitution and in this instance I dont think they did. It's just my opinion. I said FROM THE BEGINING that I didnt think they should overturn Obergfell, because of the dependencies the former court created with the decision, but I would understand based solely on Constitutional grounds why it was done if it were done.

I have no idea what this means