Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Czernobog]

Okay, lemme try that question again, emphasizing the part you seemed to have missed. Actually, I know you didn't miss it. You just don't want to answer the question honestly, because you are well aware of the shitstorm you would open with an honest answer. But, I'm gonna keep asking the question until you either answer it honestly, or admit your position is bullshit:

So, you think in order to to access the benefits come with being married, gays should just pretend to be heterosexual, and marry someone of the opposite sex, correct?

If they don't want to marry a member of the opposite sex.

Their choice

And they can still claim all of the benefits that come with being married? What must gays do to claim those benefits? I told you I'm not going to quit asking his question until you answer it.

Singles don't get those benefits

Clear enough fella

So, it is your position that if homosexuals want to access the benefits of being married, they should marry people of the opposite sex, correct?

Go with that Mr. Spock

What do you know? The cowardly bigot doesn't want to admit his own position, and so keep equivocating in order not to have to say it.

 

[Seawytch]

No Marty, true shit. We want to be civilly married. We have always had equal access to religious marriage, it is not the issue. It is not us that has a problem with the religious, it is the religious that have a problem with us. Civil unions for all would be perfectly acceptable to gays and lesbians. Marriage for straights, civil unions for gays is not.

I don't care what you have a problem with, I'm glad I live in a county where we can address our grievances through the judicial system.

Still looking for that acceptance you so desperately desire. Its almost Freudian.

Repeating a lie does not make it true. We want equality. If you get civil unions, they're fine for us. If you get civil marriage, that's what we get too. Why do you insist we meed to create something separate for gays?

That's acceptance, not equality.

So you're saying that heterosexuals only seek civil marriage for societal acceptance? That had nothing to do with why I got civilly married.

Civil unions or civil marriage for all. It's that simple. That is equality.

Its your desire to be accepted by people who don't want to accept you, or barring that to make them such pariahs that you get some smug satisfaction over ******* them over.

Your posts imply this, shoutingly imply it.

My civil marriage does not desire or require your acceptance...just equal protection.

My civil marriage has no affect on the religious except in their own minds.

 

[martybegan]

Well I realize that some liberals think states rights ought never exist in any form, but since that is how the Constitution established our nation, we're going to stick with the 10th Amendment and the fact that states do retain power in our system.

Does the federal government issue marriage licenses? No. It is something authorized by the state, not the federal government. It is a state function, a state right.

So you can't square your opinion with those actual court rulings...you could have just said that.

I think way too much is made out of the court rulings. Courts have ruled all kinds of outrageous shit over the years, they aren't always right by any stretch. The People retain the right to set our boundaries and establish our laws, not the courts. It took The People ratifying two Constitutional amendments to rid ourselves of slavery. If it were left to the courts, people were chattel.

Also, in almost every case, when you Gay Marriage nuts start reeling off these court cases, you fail to comprehend the cases were about specifics. There were two or more invested parties who were at an impasse. The court made a ruling on their case, not on the issue of nationalized gay rights.

I'm opposed to gay marriage, I am an advocate of civil unions. Removing government from the role of determining what constitutes marriage in our country. This gives THE PEOPLE the ultimate Civil Right. WE get to determine what marriage is, not the government. I proposed a solution to the problem. One that I believe would have wide popular support because it resolves this issue forever. Not only does it resolve it, but to the mutual satisfaction of virtually all interested parties. The ONLY people who don't get what they want are activists who want to cram their beliefs down society's throat against their will and be intolerant of compromise.

All the cases winning across the country are about specifics too. Two or more people at an impasse. When the court ruled on all three cases, Loving v Turner, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley, they also had nationwide impact. Convicted murderers all over the country could get civilly married. Divorcees all over the country could get civilly married.

You didn't propose shit. We've been saying that for years, civil unions for all, but anti gay states wrote into their anti gay legislation language that also prohibits civil unions. Gays would be fine with civil unions ...as long as they applied to all civil marriages. What we will not allow to happen is gays get civil unions, straights get civil marriage. Understand?

Some cases are winning and some are not winning. The only cases which ever have nationwide impact are SCOTUS cases.

You didn't propose shit.
Oh, but I did. Now, I won't get into a pissing contest over who suggested it first, as I said when I proposed it, the idea is not my own, it comes from a gay couple I know personally, who are opposed to gay marriage.

What we will not allow to happen is gays get civil unions, straights get civil marriage.
I didn't propose a "separate but equal" solution, so why are you accusing me of that? Yes, I know gays would be fine with my solution, so would most churches and religious people. That's the great thing about it, we resolve the ******* problem.

but anti gay states wrote into their anti gay legislation...
I don't know of any "anti-gay" state. People who oppose gay marriage are not automatically "anti-gay" and it is insulting for you to label them as such. I am opposed to gay marriage, and I am always going to be opposed to the government defining marriage.

I am actually proposing the solution to the problem that gives everybody what they want. It is YOU who are pushing this 'all-or-nothing' agenda, who seem to not give two shits about actual gay couples. How many more years are you going to hold them hostage as you demand social justice? How much are you interested in resolving the problem as opposed to maintaining the issue so you can clobber conservatives and religious people over the head with it?

Yes, they are. Anyone that opposes marriage equality IS a bigot. States that intentionally wrote prohibitions against civil unions into their anti gay marriage laws are bigoted laws based SOLELY on animus.

Go ahead and get civil unions for all passed. We aren't going to wait for that though, but I do applaud your efforts.

Fighting for our equality punishes no one. My civil marriage punished no one.

Sorry, you don't get to expand the definition of bigotry to suit your interests. At that point you are a bigot for disrespecting a religious person's belief that your lifestyle is sinful.

 

[martybegan]

Still looking for that acceptance you so desperately desire. Its almost Freudian.

Repeating a lie does not make it true. We want equality. If you get civil unions, they're fine for us. If you get civil marriage, that's what we get too. Why do you insist we meed to create something separate for gays?

That's acceptance, not equality.

So you're saying that heterosexuals only seek civil marriage for societal acceptance? That had nothing to do with why I got civilly married.

Civil unions or civil marriage for all. It's that simple. That is equality.

Its your desire to be accepted by people who don't want to accept you, or barring that to make them such pariahs that you get some smug satisfaction over ******* them over.

Your posts imply this, shoutingly imply it.

My civil marriage does not desire or require your acceptance...just equal protection.

My civil marriage has no affect on the religious except in their own minds.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[Seawytch]

It's clearly against the will of the people in most places. I'm all for citizens in a state defining marriage however they want but it's tyranny for a minority to define society for everyone else.

It is no where near as against the "will of the people" as interracial marriage was when the SCOTUS ruled on Loving. Fewer than 20% supported that "redefining" of marriage.

Civil rights aren't a popularity contest...thank goodness.

 

[Seawytch]

Repeating a lie does not make it true. We want equality. If you get civil unions, they're fine for us. If you get civil marriage, that's what we get too. Why do you insist we meed to create something separate for gays?

That's acceptance, not equality.

So you're saying that heterosexuals only seek civil marriage for societal acceptance? That had nothing to do with why I got civilly married.

Civil unions or civil marriage for all. It's that simple. That is equality.

Its your desire to be accepted by people who don't want to accept you, or barring that to make them such pariahs that you get some smug satisfaction over ******* them over.

Your posts imply this, shoutingly imply it.

My civil marriage does not desire or require your acceptance...just equal protection.

My civil marriage has no affect on the religious except in their own minds.

Keep telling yourself that.

Stunning (see pathetic) response. Why do you wish to require gays have something different? (Other than animus)

 

[bodecea]

So you can't square your opinion with those actual court rulings...you could have just said that.

I think way too much is made out of the court rulings. Courts have ruled all kinds of outrageous shit over the years, they aren't always right by any stretch. The People retain the right to set our boundaries and establish our laws, not the courts. It took The People ratifying two Constitutional amendments to rid ourselves of slavery. If it were left to the courts, people were chattel.

Also, in almost every case, when you Gay Marriage nuts start reeling off these court cases, you fail to comprehend the cases were about specifics. There were two or more invested parties who were at an impasse. The court made a ruling on their case, not on the issue of nationalized gay rights.

I'm opposed to gay marriage, I am an advocate of civil unions. Removing government from the role of determining what constitutes marriage in our country. This gives THE PEOPLE the ultimate Civil Right. WE get to determine what marriage is, not the government. I proposed a solution to the problem. One that I believe would have wide popular support because it resolves this issue forever. Not only does it resolve it, but to the mutual satisfaction of virtually all interested parties. The ONLY people who don't get what they want are activists who want to cram their beliefs down society's throat against their will and be intolerant of compromise.

All the cases winning across the country are about specifics too. Two or more people at an impasse. When the court ruled on all three cases, Loving v Turner, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley, they also had nationwide impact. Convicted murderers all over the country could get civilly married. Divorcees all over the country could get civilly married.

You didn't propose shit. We've been saying that for years, civil unions for all, but anti gay states wrote into their anti gay legislation language that also prohibits civil unions. Gays would be fine with civil unions ...as long as they applied to all civil marriages. What we will not allow to happen is gays get civil unions, straights get civil marriage. Understand?

Some cases are winning and some are not winning. The only cases which ever have nationwide impact are SCOTUS cases.

You didn't propose shit.
Oh, but I did. Now, I won't get into a pissing contest over who suggested it first, as I said when I proposed it, the idea is not my own, it comes from a gay couple I know personally, who are opposed to gay marriage.

What we will not allow to happen is gays get civil unions, straights get civil marriage.
I didn't propose a "separate but equal" solution, so why are you accusing me of that? Yes, I know gays would be fine with my solution, so would most churches and religious people. That's the great thing about it, we resolve the ******* problem.

but anti gay states wrote into their anti gay legislation...
I don't know of any "anti-gay" state. People who oppose gay marriage are not automatically "anti-gay" and it is insulting for you to label them as such. I am opposed to gay marriage, and I am always going to be opposed to the government defining marriage.

I am actually proposing the solution to the problem that gives everybody what they want. It is YOU who are pushing this 'all-or-nothing' agenda, who seem to not give two shits about actual gay couples. How many more years are you going to hold them hostage as you demand social justice? How much are you interested in resolving the problem as opposed to maintaining the issue so you can clobber conservatives and religious people over the head with it?

Yes, they are. Anyone that opposes marriage equality IS a bigot. States that intentionally wrote prohibitions against civil unions into their anti gay marriage laws are bigoted laws based SOLELY on animus.

Go ahead and get civil unions for all passed. We aren't going to wait for that though, but I do applaud your efforts.

Fighting for our equality punishes no one. My civil marriage punished no one.

Sorry, you don't get to expand the definition of bigotry to suit your interests. At that point you are a bigot for disrespecting a religious person's belief that your lifestyle is sinful.

And you are not recognizing a muslim person's religious beliefs that your lifestyle is sinful. Why does your religious beliefs trump that muslim's? Or a Jew's? Or a Hindu's? Or a pagan's? Or an atheist's?

And what makes ANY religious person's beliefs trump the Constitution and secular law?

 

[Seawytch]

Marty, maybe you can explain how you believe my civil marriage forces acceptance? Be specific.

 

[Seawytch]

So you can't square your opinion with those actual court rulings...you could have just said that.

I think way too much is made out of the court rulings. Courts have ruled all kinds of outrageous shit over the years, they aren't always right by any stretch. The People retain the right to set our boundaries and establish our laws, not the courts. It took The People ratifying two Constitutional amendments to rid ourselves of slavery. If it were left to the courts, people were chattel.

Also, in almost every case, when you Gay Marriage nuts start reeling off these court cases, you fail to comprehend the cases were about specifics. There were two or more invested parties who were at an impasse. The court made a ruling on their case, not on the issue of nationalized gay rights.

I'm opposed to gay marriage, I am an advocate of civil unions. Removing government from the role of determining what constitutes marriage in our country. This gives THE PEOPLE the ultimate Civil Right. WE get to determine what marriage is, not the government. I proposed a solution to the problem. One that I believe would have wide popular support because it resolves this issue forever. Not only does it resolve it, but to the mutual satisfaction of virtually all interested parties. The ONLY people who don't get what they want are activists who want to cram their beliefs down society's throat against their will and be intolerant of compromise.

All the cases winning across the country are about specifics too. Two or more people at an impasse. When the court ruled on all three cases, Loving v Turner, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley, they also had nationwide impact. Convicted murderers all over the country could get civilly married. Divorcees all over the country could get civilly married.

You didn't propose shit. We've been saying that for years, civil unions for all, but anti gay states wrote into their anti gay legislation language that also prohibits civil unions. Gays would be fine with civil unions ...as long as they applied to all civil marriages. What we will not allow to happen is gays get civil unions, straights get civil marriage. Understand?

Some cases are winning and some are not winning. The only cases which ever have nationwide impact are SCOTUS cases.

You didn't propose shit.
Oh, but I did. Now, I won't get into a pissing contest over who suggested it first, as I said when I proposed it, the idea is not my own, it comes from a gay couple I know personally, who are opposed to gay marriage.

What we will not allow to happen is gays get civil unions, straights get civil marriage.
I didn't propose a "separate but equal" solution, so why are you accusing me of that? Yes, I know gays would be fine with my solution, so would most churches and religious people. That's the great thing about it, we resolve the ******* problem.

but anti gay states wrote into their anti gay legislation...
I don't know of any "anti-gay" state. People who oppose gay marriage are not automatically "anti-gay" and it is insulting for you to label them as such. I am opposed to gay marriage, and I am always going to be opposed to the government defining marriage.

I am actually proposing the solution to the problem that gives everybody what they want. It is YOU who are pushing this 'all-or-nothing' agenda, who seem to not give two shits about actual gay couples. How many more years are you going to hold them hostage as you demand social justice? How much are you interested in resolving the problem as opposed to maintaining the issue so you can clobber conservatives and religious people over the head with it?

Yes, they are. Anyone that opposes marriage equality IS a bigot. States that intentionally wrote prohibitions against civil unions into their anti gay marriage laws are bigoted laws based SOLELY on animus.

Go ahead and get civil unions for all passed. We aren't going to wait for that though, but I do applaud your efforts.

Fighting for our equality punishes no one. My civil marriage punished no one.

Sorry, you don't get to expand the definition of bigotry to suit your interests. At that point you are a bigot for disrespecting a religious person's belief that your lifestyle is sinful.

So all those atheist marrying is disrespectful to the religious...obviously we must only have civil unions for them, right?

 

[martybegan]

I think way too much is made out of the court rulings. Courts have ruled all kinds of outrageous shit over the years, they aren't always right by any stretch. The People retain the right to set our boundaries and establish our laws, not the courts. It took The People ratifying two Constitutional amendments to rid ourselves of slavery. If it were left to the courts, people were chattel.

Also, in almost every case, when you Gay Marriage nuts start reeling off these court cases, you fail to comprehend the cases were about specifics. There were two or more invested parties who were at an impasse. The court made a ruling on their case, not on the issue of nationalized gay rights.

I'm opposed to gay marriage, I am an advocate of civil unions. Removing government from the role of determining what constitutes marriage in our country. This gives THE PEOPLE the ultimate Civil Right. WE get to determine what marriage is, not the government. I proposed a solution to the problem. One that I believe would have wide popular support because it resolves this issue forever. Not only does it resolve it, but to the mutual satisfaction of virtually all interested parties. The ONLY people who don't get what they want are activists who want to cram their beliefs down society's throat against their will and be intolerant of compromise.

All the cases winning across the country are about specifics too. Two or more people at an impasse. When the court ruled on all three cases, Loving v Turner, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley, they also had nationwide impact. Convicted murderers all over the country could get civilly married. Divorcees all over the country could get civilly married.

You didn't propose shit. We've been saying that for years, civil unions for all, but anti gay states wrote into their anti gay legislation language that also prohibits civil unions. Gays would be fine with civil unions ...as long as they applied to all civil marriages. What we will not allow to happen is gays get civil unions, straights get civil marriage. Understand?

Some cases are winning and some are not winning. The only cases which ever have nationwide impact are SCOTUS cases.

You didn't propose shit.
Oh, but I did. Now, I won't get into a pissing contest over who suggested it first, as I said when I proposed it, the idea is not my own, it comes from a gay couple I know personally, who are opposed to gay marriage.

What we will not allow to happen is gays get civil unions, straights get civil marriage.
I didn't propose a "separate but equal" solution, so why are you accusing me of that? Yes, I know gays would be fine with my solution, so would most churches and religious people. That's the great thing about it, we resolve the ******* problem.

but anti gay states wrote into their anti gay legislation...
I don't know of any "anti-gay" state. People who oppose gay marriage are not automatically "anti-gay" and it is insulting for you to label them as such. I am opposed to gay marriage, and I am always going to be opposed to the government defining marriage.

I am actually proposing the solution to the problem that gives everybody what they want. It is YOU who are pushing this 'all-or-nothing' agenda, who seem to not give two shits about actual gay couples. How many more years are you going to hold them hostage as you demand social justice? How much are you interested in resolving the problem as opposed to maintaining the issue so you can clobber conservatives and religious people over the head with it?

Yes, they are. Anyone that opposes marriage equality IS a bigot. States that intentionally wrote prohibitions against civil unions into their anti gay marriage laws are bigoted laws based SOLELY on animus.

Go ahead and get civil unions for all passed. We aren't going to wait for that though, but I do applaud your efforts.

Fighting for our equality punishes no one. My civil marriage punished no one.

Sorry, you don't get to expand the definition of bigotry to suit your interests. At that point you are a bigot for disrespecting a religious person's belief that your lifestyle is sinful.

And you are not recognizing a muslim person's religious beliefs that your lifestyle is sinful. Why does your religious beliefs trump that muslim's? Or a Jew's? Or a Hindu's? Or a pagan's? Or an atheist's?

And what makes ANY religious person's beliefs trump the Constitution and secular law?

These people in general are not going to government agencies to force others to accept or go out of business. You assholes are.

 

[martybegan]

I think way too much is made out of the court rulings. Courts have ruled all kinds of outrageous shit over the years, they aren't always right by any stretch. The People retain the right to set our boundaries and establish our laws, not the courts. It took The People ratifying two Constitutional amendments to rid ourselves of slavery. If it were left to the courts, people were chattel.

Also, in almost every case, when you Gay Marriage nuts start reeling off these court cases, you fail to comprehend the cases were about specifics. There were two or more invested parties who were at an impasse. The court made a ruling on their case, not on the issue of nationalized gay rights.

I'm opposed to gay marriage, I am an advocate of civil unions. Removing government from the role of determining what constitutes marriage in our country. This gives THE PEOPLE the ultimate Civil Right. WE get to determine what marriage is, not the government. I proposed a solution to the problem. One that I believe would have wide popular support because it resolves this issue forever. Not only does it resolve it, but to the mutual satisfaction of virtually all interested parties. The ONLY people who don't get what they want are activists who want to cram their beliefs down society's throat against their will and be intolerant of compromise.

All the cases winning across the country are about specifics too. Two or more people at an impasse. When the court ruled on all three cases, Loving v Turner, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley, they also had nationwide impact. Convicted murderers all over the country could get civilly married. Divorcees all over the country could get civilly married.

You didn't propose shit. We've been saying that for years, civil unions for all, but anti gay states wrote into their anti gay legislation language that also prohibits civil unions. Gays would be fine with civil unions ...as long as they applied to all civil marriages. What we will not allow to happen is gays get civil unions, straights get civil marriage. Understand?

Some cases are winning and some are not winning. The only cases which ever have nationwide impact are SCOTUS cases.

You didn't propose shit.
Oh, but I did. Now, I won't get into a pissing contest over who suggested it first, as I said when I proposed it, the idea is not my own, it comes from a gay couple I know personally, who are opposed to gay marriage.

What we will not allow to happen is gays get civil unions, straights get civil marriage.
I didn't propose a "separate but equal" solution, so why are you accusing me of that? Yes, I know gays would be fine with my solution, so would most churches and religious people. That's the great thing about it, we resolve the ******* problem.

but anti gay states wrote into their anti gay legislation...
I don't know of any "anti-gay" state. People who oppose gay marriage are not automatically "anti-gay" and it is insulting for you to label them as such. I am opposed to gay marriage, and I am always going to be opposed to the government defining marriage.

I am actually proposing the solution to the problem that gives everybody what they want. It is YOU who are pushing this 'all-or-nothing' agenda, who seem to not give two shits about actual gay couples. How many more years are you going to hold them hostage as you demand social justice? How much are you interested in resolving the problem as opposed to maintaining the issue so you can clobber conservatives and religious people over the head with it?

Yes, they are. Anyone that opposes marriage equality IS a bigot. States that intentionally wrote prohibitions against civil unions into their anti gay marriage laws are bigoted laws based SOLELY on animus.

Go ahead and get civil unions for all passed. We aren't going to wait for that though, but I do applaud your efforts.

Fighting for our equality punishes no one. My civil marriage punished no one.

Sorry, you don't get to expand the definition of bigotry to suit your interests. At that point you are a bigot for disrespecting a religious person's belief that your lifestyle is sinful.

So all those atheist marrying is disrespectful to the religious...obviously we must only have civil unions for them, right?

They aren't the ones trying to force bakers to bake cakes against their will. They are however using the courts to be dicks to people of faith, so I guess you assholes share that in common.

 

[martybegan]

Marty, maybe you can explain how you believe my civil marriage forces acceptance? Be specific.

Bakers, cakes, force, government. gays.

 

[martybegan]

That's acceptance, not equality.

So you're saying that heterosexuals only seek civil marriage for societal acceptance? That had nothing to do with why I got civilly married.

Civil unions or civil marriage for all. It's that simple. That is equality.

Its your desire to be accepted by people who don't want to accept you, or barring that to make them such pariahs that you get some smug satisfaction over ******* them over.

Your posts imply this, shoutingly imply it.

My civil marriage does not desire or require your acceptance...just equal protection.

My civil marriage has no affect on the religious except in their own minds.

Keep telling yourself that.

Stunning (see pathetic) response. Why do you wish to require gays have something different? (Other than animus)

Why do you seek to force people to accept your lifestyle or go out of business?

 

[JakeStarkey]

'hand in hand with biology" does not excuse one from Pop's type of bigotry, the bigot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So you're saying that heterosexuals only seek civil marriage for societal acceptance? That had nothing to do with why I got civilly married.

Civil unions or civil marriage for all. It's that simple. That is equality.

Its your desire to be accepted by people who don't want to accept you, or barring that to make them such pariahs that you get some smug satisfaction over ******* them over.

Your posts imply this, shoutingly imply it.

My civil marriage does not desire or require your acceptance...just equal protection.

My civil marriage has no affect on the religious except in their own minds.

Keep telling yourself that.

Stunning (see pathetic) response. Why do you wish to require gays have something different? (Other than animus)

Why do you seek to force people to accept your lifestyle or go out of business?

Since your silly libertarian views are never going to be part of our society, your question is meaningless.

 

[martybegan]

Its your desire to be accepted by people who don't want to accept you, or barring that to make them such pariahs that you get some smug satisfaction over ******* them over.

Your posts imply this, shoutingly imply it.

My civil marriage does not desire or require your acceptance...just equal protection.

My civil marriage has no affect on the religious except in their own minds.

Keep telling yourself that.

Stunning (see pathetic) response. Why do you wish to require gays have something different? (Other than animus)

Why do you seek to force people to accept your lifestyle or go out of business?

Since your silly libertarian views are never going to be part of our society, your question is meaningless.

They were what founded our society, until assholes like you figured out a way to **** over people using the courts and government.

 

[Pop23]

If they don't want to marry a member of the opposite sex.

Their choice

And they can still claim all of the benefits that come with being married? What must gays do to claim those benefits? I told you I'm not going to quit asking his question until you answer it.

Singles don't get those benefits

Clear enough fella

So, it is your position that if homosexuals want to access the benefits of being married, they should marry people of the opposite sex, correct?

Go with that Mr. Spock

What do you know? The cowardly bigot doesn't want to admit his own position, and so keep equivocating in order not to have to say it.

Biology can't be bigoted dumbass

Do you not know what "go with that" means?

My position has been made quite clear. Your delusions are also quite clear.

Your failure to indoctrinate me as one of your enablers is Chrystal clear.

If you have a damn point, I wish you'd make it.

 

[Pop23]

'hand in hand with biology" does not excuse one from Pop's type of bigotry, the bigot.

Freakin funny

 

[Pop23]

Marty, maybe you can explain how you believe my civil marriage forces acceptance? Be specific.

It won't dummy

 

[Pop23]

That's acceptance, not equality.

So you're saying that heterosexuals only seek civil marriage for societal acceptance? That had nothing to do with why I got civilly married.

Civil unions or civil marriage for all. It's that simple. That is equality.

Its your desire to be accepted by people who don't want to accept you, or barring that to make them such pariahs that you get some smug satisfaction over ******* them over.

Your posts imply this, shoutingly imply it.

My civil marriage does not desire or require your acceptance...just equal protection.

My civil marriage has no affect on the religious except in their own minds.

Keep telling yourself that.

Stunning (see pathetic) response. Why do you wish to require gays have something different? (Other than animus)

Lawyers are professionals, as are basketball players, none are allowed to perform brain surgery.