Iowa approves same sex marriage

[KittenKoder]

Perhaps it's how it should be, but you must admit it is no longer like this.

Which is why, I feel, you see so many problems with society today. If children are raised with strong family values, with two parents that are actively engaged in the child's life, they have far less problems in their lives. I don't really care if it's a father and a father, or a mother and a mother, but a child, imho, deserves two parents. If it's a single mother and her parents are involved, then that's fine imho.

Until the majority again follow this pattern though the tax breaks should be repealed since that is what they were intended to be used for.

Again, the government should encourage this as much as possible; a two-parent home with one person always home with the child until the child goes to school. I think we should give BIGGER tax breaks for marriage.

Actually, they are raised with only strong "family values" which is producing a lot of the problems. They are not taught to respect law nor take pride in accomplishments though, and almost all our problems are mirrored in this lack of discipline. They are however taught that family is more important, creating one of two mentalities, the mafia style of "family only" attitude responsible for gang growth or the "gotta have a family ASAP" mentality that is increasing the number of teen pregnancies and STDs.

 

[DavidS]

Iowa Approves? ROFLMNAO... What we have here is the judicial fiat, not the ascension of the people of Iowa... and a leftists which desperately needs to imply 'the approval of the People', on a decision by leftist jurists.

Can you tell me when "the people" voted FOR heterosexual marriage?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I’d first like to remind the opposition that almost every civil rights gain in American history has been against majority opinion.

...

I'd say they basically destroyed the arguments against gay marriage...

You'd say that, but you'd do so on vacuous ingorance...

Marriage is a Union between a man and a woman... and the subversive opinion of leftists are not going to change that.

There is no potential for discrimination against homosexuals with regard to marriage; as the law is equally enforced across all sexualities... Any homosexual can marry anyone that they can convince to marry them, as long as that homosexual is of the opposite gender of that with whom they would be married.

You empty adherence to this spurious decision doesn't lend the decision logical validity or convert the reasoning on which it rests from unsound to sound...

The decision will be overturned, and the homosexuals will still be perfectly entitled to marry anyone that they can convince to marry them, just like everyone else... as long as the marriage is one male and one female.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

DavidS-- You are on my ignore list because of the piece of code you include in your signature displaying a download status. It looked fake, but based on some of the things you have said I decided to play it safe. Is there a way for you to remove it?

 

[KittenKoder]

DavidS-- You are on my ignore list because of the piece of code you include in your signature displaying a download status. It looked fake, but based on some of the things you have said I decided to play it safe. Is there a way for you to remove it?

Um ... code? It's a damned animated GIF ... LOL ... you computer illiterates are so funny sometimes.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Iowa General Assembly - Iowa Constitution


Rights of persons. SECTION 1. All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights--among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
Amended 1998, Amendment [45]

ROFLMNAO... Are you trying to use THIS as a means to redefine MARRIAGE?

Golly.... How does being equal mean that you're entitled to SUPER SPECIAL RIGHTS?

 

[KittenKoder]

Iowa General Assembly - Iowa Constitution


Rights of persons. SECTION 1. All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights--among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
Amended 1998, Amendment [45]

ROFLMNAO... Are you trying to use THIS as a means to redefine MARRIAGE?

Golly.... How does being equal mean that you're entitled to SUPER SPECIAL RIGHTS?

Explain how it is redefining marriage, which is by law defined as a contract, and all contracts must be enforced by the courts without discrimination of religion, gender, or personal lifestyle unless the contract is deemed unfair to those who signed it.

 

[Ravi]

The decision will be overturned, and the homosexuals will still be perfectly entitled to marry anyone that they can convince to marry them, just like everyone else... as long as the marriage is one male and one female.

This is always the most retarded argument from the wingnut. Way to protect the "sanctity" of marriage you flaming hypocrite.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Here is the text from the article refered to in the first post. The same thing happened recently in CA.

For the record, I am not a religious wing-nut and your attributing the gay rights matter to religion in this country is an over-simplification. At the heart of the issue is a premise and model of child bearing and rearing. While that is a moral type of issue, there is not a straight line between religiousity and holding such moral views.

--
The ruling said that the Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.

"The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification," wrote the justices.

The decision strikes the language from Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman. It further directs that the remaining statutory language be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.

--

Love this stuff on the tyranny of the majority as it implicitly assumes the majority is wrong, and/or that others are more right and should correct voting outcomes, which itself is a form of tyranny. See "Understanding Debate in a Democratic Society" on Indiana Oracle

On the Iowa matter, the only thing that concerns me is that the populus was overturned on something as fundamentally minor, or even as meaningless, as gay marriage. These judicial jackasses have been reaching into society to correct what they perceive to be our collective madnesses since the civil-rights era. The Supreme Court tilted toward social engineering around the time of the depression.

How? They all voted that contractual agreements between two consenting adults must be enforced by law, how is it that the courts deciding they will enforce all agreements regardless of the genders overturning anything?

 

[KittenKoder]

The decision will be overturned, and the homosexuals will still be perfectly entitled to marry anyone that they can convince to marry them, just like everyone else... as long as the marriage is one male and one female.

This is always the most retarded argument from the wingnut. Way to protect the "sanctity" of marriage you flaming hypocrite.

Nothing wrong with keeping love out of marriage ... it hasn't been about love since ... well ... the Roman empire so why change it now?

 

[DavidS]

DavidS-- You are on my ignore list because of the piece of code you include in your signature displaying a download status. It looked fake, but based on some of the things you have said I decided to play it safe. Is there a way for you to remove it?

No, sorry, this is the only way I hack into your computer and steal all of your credit card information.






















It's just an animated gif. Kind of like this:

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Iowa General Assembly - Iowa Constitution


Rights of persons. SECTION 1. All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights--among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
Amended 1998, Amendment [45]

ROFLMNAO... Are you trying to use THIS as a means to redefine MARRIAGE?

Golly.... How does being equal mean that you're entitled to SUPER SPECIAL RIGHTS?

Explain how it is redefining marriage, which is by law defined as a contract, and all contracts must be enforced by the courts without discrimination of religion, gender, or personal lifestyle unless the contract is deemed unfair to those who signed it.

Oh Let's see, it's a contract which due to moral prudence can only me entered into by one example of each of the two distincts genders... Marriage is, even legally, vastly more than a contract... it is a joining of two human beings, each one unique in their respective genders, into one legal entity.

Now again, you want to limit the scope of marriage to a strict legal interpretation and to rinse from it's measure, the moral imperative which it serves.

But when one considers that in strict legal terms, a Corporation provides for the joining of mulitple individuals into one legal entity... and despite the many years of debates where innumerable people have advanced this legal certainty that the simple forming of a Corporation by those who want to share insurance, inherent pensions, enjoy a legal right to visit those represented within that legal entity who are in hospital... NOT ONE queer has ever adhered to this certainty.

So given that indisputable fact, reason requires that there is MUCH more than a pendatic interpretaton of a legal definition in the fight of the sexual devients to undermine the not so high moral threshold required to marry.

They want to use Marriage as a means to validate their sexual deviency... to normalize the abnormal; to undermine the culture; Homosexuals want to redefine marriage to rationalize that the CULTURE needs to accept their deviency to allow them to 'feel better about THEMSELVES.'

Which, I suppose, IF that were possible; IF normalizing deviency COULD make the deviency normal... and thus in so doing make them 'feel better about themselves'... what would be the problem? But normalizing deviency will not make deviency normal, and allowing queers to marry will NOT make them feel better about themselves... it merely subverts the cultural thresholds which sought to reduce the number of people who engage in devient behavior and as a result would feel bad about themselves; meaning that more people will, as a result of the subverting of these thresholds, engage in sexual deviency and FEEL BAD ABOUT THEMSELVES...

Good call dumbass!

 

[KittenKoder]

ROFLMNAO... Are you trying to use THIS as a means to redefine MARRIAGE?

Golly.... How does being equal mean that you're entitled to SUPER SPECIAL RIGHTS?

Explain how it is redefining marriage, which is by law defined as a contract, and all contracts must be enforced by the courts without discrimination of religion, gender, or personal lifestyle unless the contract is deemed unfair to those who signed it.

Oh Let's see, it's a contract which due to moral prudence can only me entered into by one example of each of the two distincts genders... Marriage is, even legally, vastly more than a contract... it is a joining of two human beings, each one unique in their respective genders, into one legal entity.

Now again, you want to limit the scope of marriage to a strict legal interpretation and to rinse from it's measure, the moral imperative which it serves.

But when one considers that in strict legal terms, a Corporation provides for the joining of mulitple individuals into one legal entity... and despite the many years of debates where innumerable people have advanced this legal certainty that the simple forming of a Corporation by those who want to share insurance, inherent pensions, enjoy a legal right to visit those represented within that legal entity who are in hospital... NOT ONE queer has ever adhered to this certainty.

So given that indisputable fact, reason requires that there is MUCH more than a pendatic interpretaton of a legal definition in the fight of the sexual devients to undermine the not so high moral threshold required to marry.

They want to use Marriage as a means to validate their sexual deviency... to normalize the abnormal; to undermine the culture; Homosexuals want to redefine marriage to rationalize that the CULTURE needs to accept their deviency to allow them to 'feel better about THEMSELVES.'

Which, I suppose, IF that were possible; IF normalizing deviency COULD make the deviency normal... and thus in so doing make them 'feel better about themselves'... what would be the problem? But normalizing deviency will not make deviency normal, and allowing queers to marry will NOT make them feel better about themselves... it merely subverts the cultural thresholds which sought to reduce the number of people who engage in devient behavior and as a result would feel bad about themselves; meaning that more people will, as a result of the subverting of these thresholds, engage in sexual deviency and FEEL BAD ABOUT THEMSELVES...

Good call dumbass!

Moral ... so you are all for the government telling people what religious views we should have as well as think it's illegal for the courts to enforce legal binding contracts based on gender.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

If you want to argue about the law why don't you address the points the Iowa SC made, as quoted in my earlier post. I'm inclined to trust their opinion of law more than random posters, but I would rather points stand or fall by their merits than appeal to experts.

ROFLMNAO... Are you trying to use THIS as a means to redefine MARRIAGE?

Golly.... How does being equal mean that you're entitled to SUPER SPECIAL RIGHTS?

Explain how it is redefining marriage, which is by law defined as a contract, and all contracts must be enforced by the courts without discrimination of religion, gender, or personal lifestyle unless the contract is deemed unfair to those who signed it.

Oh Let's see, it's a contract which due to moral prudence can only me entered into by one example of each of the two distincts genders... Marriage is, even legally, vastly more than a contract... it is a joining of two human beings, each one unique in their respective genders, into one legal entity.

That sounds like an appeal to religion. The right of persons to get married is not based upon whether them getting married is morally prudent by some religion's standards. If that were the case, atheists would not be allowed to marry.

Now again, you want to limit the scope of marriage to a strict legal interpretation and to rinse from it's measure, the moral imperative which it serves.

What moral imperative do all marriages serve? Does one marriage not reaching "moral imperatives" invalidate moral marriages?

But when one considers that in strict legal terms, a Corporation provides for the joining of mulitple individuals into one legal entity... and despite the many years of debates where innumerable people have advanced this legal certainty that the simple forming of a Corporation by those who want to share insurance, inherent pensions, enjoy a legal right to visit those represented within that legal entity who are in hospital... NOT ONE queer has ever adhered to this certainty.

Couldn't we have said the same about interracial couples? The real question is what interest is served by disallowing such people to enter into this contract.

They want to use Marriage as a means to validate their sexual deviency... to normalize the abnormal; to undermine the culture; Homosexuals want to redefine marriage to rationalize that the CULTURE needs to accept their deviency to allow them to 'feel better about THEMSELVES.'

I think they just want to be treated equal under the law as they should be.

Which, I suppose, IF that were possible; IF normalizing deviency COULD make the deviency normal...

What is wrong with abnormal?

and thus in so doing make them 'feel better about themselves'...

How do you know they feel bad about themselves?

what would be the problem? But normalizing deviency will not make deviency normal, and allowing queers to marry will NOT make them feel better about themselves... it merely subverts the cultural thresholds which sought to reduce the number of people who engage in devient behavior

Really. You think allowing gay marriage is going to make people who are not gay suddenly become gay?

 

[Valerie]

For the record, I am not a religious wing-nut and your attributing the gay rights matter to religion in this country is an over-simplification. At the heart of the issue is a premise and model of child bearing and rearing. While that is a moral type of issue, there is not a straight line between religiosity and holding such moral views.

--


No, but there is a straight line pointing to the activists who are campaigning across the country "in defense of marriage". They are indeed religious moralists with an agenda to discriminate against what they believe to be an abomination and "bad for the children". Ironically enough, it is their actions that have brought the issue to the evening news for years now, putting it "in your face".

In my opinion, the moral stance is to protect all citizens from discrimination. These couples have a right to equality under the law as defined by "marriage" in civil law. They're not asking for any special privileges or rights, they're asking for equal status under the law. The religious moralists have legally secured their sacred word with DOMA and now the state constitutions are still going to give all citizens equal protection under the law, and that is the proper legal and moral solution, IMHO. It's not judicial fiat to make a ruling based on the state Constitution's equal protection clause.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Explain how it is redefining marriage, which is by law defined as a contract, and all contracts must be enforced by the courts without discrimination of religion, gender, or personal lifestyle unless the contract is deemed unfair to those who signed it.

Oh Let's see, it's a contract which due to moral prudence can only me entered into by one example of each of the two distincts genders... Marriage is, even legally, vastly more than a contract... it is a joining of two human beings, each one unique in their respective genders, into one legal entity.

Now again, you want to limit the scope of marriage to a strict legal interpretation and to rinse from it's measure, the moral imperative which it serves.

But when one considers that in strict legal terms, a Corporation provides for the joining of mulitple individuals into one legal entity... and despite the many years of debates where innumerable people have advanced this legal certainty that the simple forming of a Corporation by those who want to share insurance, inherent pensions, enjoy a legal right to visit those represented within that legal entity who are in hospital... NOT ONE queer has ever adhered to this certainty.

So given that indisputable fact, reason requires that there is MUCH more than a pendatic interpretaton of a legal definition in the fight of the sexual devients to undermine the not so high moral threshold required to marry.

They want to use Marriage as a means to validate their sexual deviency... to normalize the abnormal; to undermine the culture; Homosexuals want to redefine marriage to rationalize that the CULTURE needs to accept their deviency to allow them to 'feel better about THEMSELVES.'

Which, I suppose, IF that were possible; IF normalizing deviency COULD make the deviency normal... and thus in so doing make them 'feel better about themselves'... what would be the problem? But normalizing deviency will not make deviency normal, and allowing queers to marry will NOT make them feel better about themselves... it merely subverts the cultural thresholds which sought to reduce the number of people who engage in devient behavior and as a result would feel bad about themselves; meaning that more people will, as a result of the subverting of these thresholds, engage in sexual deviency and FEEL BAD ABOUT THEMSELVES...

Good call dumbass!

Moral ... so you are all for the government telling people what religious views we should have as well as think it's illegal for the courts to enforce legal binding contracts based on gender.

ROFL... so you come to the point in only two posts... (It's easy to see how the secularist is boyed by the Runaway secularism at play today.)

Notice friends, how the Member's position has come from a stand upon thewhat they imply is a moral imperative; equal outcome citing Constitutional mandates which they erroneously feel requires such... to the demand that the government has no place in the enforcement of morality, implying such to be the simple opinion of the superstitious; being part and parcel of their religious views.

Notice too, how she COMPLETELY set aside the point wherein ANY TWO PEOPLE CAN ENTER INTO A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT, INCORPORATING their common interests, providing each will be LEGALLY RECOGNIZED as one ENTITY; where each respective party within that CORPORATION can will be able to design how proceeds from insurance and pensions and other such legal instruments can be distributed... and notice how, DESPITE HER STATED DESIRE TO LIMIT THE DISCUSSION TO STRICT LEGAL (setting aside the aforementioned misnomer born in the moral imperative of equality of outcome) interpretations CONTRACTS... she shows NO INTERESTS in the means which homosexuals are perfectly, legally entitled to create and which fulfills EVERY FACET of this 'legal contract' farce...

And she does so , because the Advocates of Normalizing Deviency aren't interested in WHAT'S LEGAL... in finding a way to cohabitate together and enjoy the legal rights where the law recognizes them as one legal entity able to share pensions and insurance and visit those in hopistal with the rights and priviledges to which such an entity is entitled.

They're interested in VALIDATING THEIR DEVIENCY, to normalize the abnormal; for no other purpose than to make themselves FEEL BETTER ABOUT THEIR MORAL DEPRAVITY...

Their pupose is to undermine the cultural standards, to impart THEIR MORALITY upon the rest of us... and they intend to do so, NOT through the legislative process, which has REJECTED THEIR MORALITY TIME AND TIME AGAIN... but by fiat projected by the judicial oligarchy of the radical left; who 'interpret' the constitution by whatever they damn well please... as they're in NO WAY bound to interpret that Constitution through the words of those who WROTE IT!

This member would LOVE you to beleive that she is standing for 'EQUAL RIGHTS and THE LAW!' But what she's standing for is a misguided, invalid understanding of 'equality' and MANIPULATION OF THE LAW to thrust the SECULAR MORALITY upon a nation which rejects it.

 

[Ravi]

For the record, I am not a religious wing-nut and your attributing the gay rights matter to religion in this country is an over-simplification. At the heart of the issue is a premise and model of child bearing and rearing. While that is a moral type of issue, there is not a straight line between religiosity and holding such moral views.

--


No, but there is a straight line pointing to the activists who are campaigning across the country "in defense of marriage". They are indeed religious moralists with an agenda to discriminate against what they believe to be an abomination and "bad for the children". Ironically enough, it is their actions that have brought the issue to the evening news for years now, putting it "in your face".

In my opinion, the moral stance is to protect all citizens from discrimination. These couples have a right to equality under the law as defined by "marriage" in civil law. They're not asking for any special privileges or rights, they're asking for equal status under the law. The religious moralists have legally secured their sacred word with DOMA and now the state constitutions are still going to give all citizens equal protection under the law, and that is the proper legal and moral solution, IMHO. It's not judicial fiat to make a ruling based on the state Constitution's equal protection clause.

Good post Valarie. I often have to laugh when I remember that it is fault of the religious community that this is even an issue. Gay pride parades are a direct result of telling people what others may do with their bodies and trying to portray them as bad people. LOL! It always cracks me up when someone complains about gays being "in your face." Freaking religious nuts have no problem being in everyones face.

 

[KittenKoder]

Oh Let's see, it's a contract which due to moral prudence can only me entered into by one example of each of the two distincts genders... Marriage is, even legally, vastly more than a contract... it is a joining of two human beings, each one unique in their respective genders, into one legal entity.

Now again, you want to limit the scope of marriage to a strict legal interpretation and to rinse from it's measure, the moral imperative which it serves.

But when one considers that in strict legal terms, a Corporation provides for the joining of mulitple individuals into one legal entity... and despite the many years of debates where innumerable people have advanced this legal certainty that the simple forming of a Corporation by those who want to share insurance, inherent pensions, enjoy a legal right to visit those represented within that legal entity who are in hospital... NOT ONE queer has ever adhered to this certainty.

So given that indisputable fact, reason requires that there is MUCH more than a pendatic interpretaton of a legal definition in the fight of the sexual devients to undermine the not so high moral threshold required to marry.

They want to use Marriage as a means to validate their sexual deviency... to normalize the abnormal; to undermine the culture; Homosexuals want to redefine marriage to rationalize that the CULTURE needs to accept their deviency to allow them to 'feel better about THEMSELVES.'

Which, I suppose, IF that were possible; IF normalizing deviency COULD make the deviency normal... and thus in so doing make them 'feel better about themselves'... what would be the problem? But normalizing deviency will not make deviency normal, and allowing queers to marry will NOT make them feel better about themselves... it merely subverts the cultural thresholds which sought to reduce the number of people who engage in devient behavior and as a result would feel bad about themselves; meaning that more people will, as a result of the subverting of these thresholds, engage in sexual deviency and FEEL BAD ABOUT THEMSELVES...

Good call dumbass!

Moral ... so you are all for the government telling people what religious views we should have as well as think it's illegal for the courts to enforce legal binding contracts based on gender.

ROFL... so you come to the point in only two posts... (It's easy to see how the secularist is boyed by the Runaway secularism at play today.)

Notice friends, how the Member's position has come from a stand upon thewhat they imply is a moral imperative; equal outcome citing Constitutional mandates which they erroneously feel requires such... to the demand that the government has no place in the enforcement of morality, implying such to be the simple opinion of the superstitious; being part and parcel of their religious views.

Notice too, how she COMPLETELY set aside the point wherein ANY TWO PEOPLE CAN ENTER INTO A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT, INCORPORATING their common interests, providing each will be LEGALLY RECOGNIZED as one ENTITY; where each respective party within that CORPORATION can will be able to design how proceeds from insurance and pensions and other such legal instruments can be distributed... and notice how, DESPITE HER STATED DESIRE TO LIMIT THE DISCUSSION TO STRICT LEGAL (setting aside the aforementioned misnomer born in the moral imperative of equality of outcome) interpretations CONTRACTS... she shows NO INTERESTS in the means which homosexuals are perfectly, legally entitled to create and which fulfills EVERY FACET of this 'legal contract' farce...

And she does so , because the Advocates of Normalizing Deviency aren't interested in WHAT'S LEGAL... in finding a way to cohabitate together and enjoy the legal rights where the law recognizes them as one legal entity able to share pensions and insurance and visit those in hopistal with the rights and priviledges to which such an entity is entitled.

They're interested in VALIDATING THEIR DEVIENCY, to normalize the abnormal; for no other purpose than to make themselves FEEL BETTER ABOUT THEIR MORAL DEPRAVITY...

Their pupose is to undermine the cultural standards, to impart THEIR MORALITY upon the rest of us... and they intend to do so, NOT through the legislative process, which has REJECTED THEIR MORALITY TIME AND TIME AGAIN... but by fiat projected by the judicial oligarchy of the radical left; who 'interpret' the constitution by whatever they damn well please... as they're in NO WAY bound to interpret that Constitution through the words of those who WROTE IT!

This member would LOVE you to beleive that she is standing for 'EQUAL RIGHTS and THE LAW!' But what she's standing for is a misguided, invalid understanding of 'equality' and MANIPULATION OF THE LAW to thrust the SECULAR MORALITY upon a nation which rejects it.

So to you it's a religious matter but you deny it (any time you call someone a "secularist" you bring your religious idiocies into it) and think it;s okay to push your religious views on others instead of allowing courts to do their job and simply enforce laws. Since you believe that then you are no better than Adolf Hitler or the pope.

 

[KittenKoder]

For the record, I am not a religious wing-nut and your attributing the gay rights matter to religion in this country is an over-simplification. At the heart of the issue is a premise and model of child bearing and rearing. While that is a moral type of issue, there is not a straight line between religiosity and holding such moral views.

--


No, but there is a straight line pointing to the activists who are campaigning across the country "in defense of marriage". They are indeed religious moralists with an agenda to discriminate against what they believe to be an abomination and "bad for the children". Ironically enough, it is their actions that have brought the issue to the evening news for years now, putting it "in your face".

In my opinion, the moral stance is to protect all citizens from discrimination. These couples have a right to equality under the law as defined by "marriage" in civil law. They're not asking for any special privileges or rights, they're asking for equal status under the law. The religious moralists have legally secured their sacred word with DOMA and now the state constitutions are still going to give all citizens equal protection under the law, and that is the proper legal and moral solution, IMHO. It's not judicial fiat to make a ruling based on the state Constitution's equal protection clause.

Good post Valarie. I often have to laugh when I remember that it is fault of the religious community that this is even an issue. Gay pride parades are a direct result of telling people what others may do with their bodies and trying to portray them as bad people. LOL! It always cracks me up when someone complains about gays being "in your face." Freaking religious nuts have no problem being in everyones face.

Which is really the only problem religious nuts have, if they practiced what they demanded of others then no one would be so against them.

 

[Newby]

It's funny that they still consider this passing a law ... when it's just enforcing a law already passed really. The laws of contractual agreements.

Really? So, a whole group of people could sign a contract that they're all married to eachother and it's legal then? Two men and a woman could marry? Two women and a man? I wonder why polygamists haven't just been 'making legal contracts' all these years then? All they needed was a damn contract!!!