Why can't gays accept civil unions and just be done with it?

[WorldWatcher]

Pardon me, what does FF&C have to do with it?

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

Seriously, you don't see how that relates to DOMA?

The post you responded to with FF&C was about a case before the SCOTUS that has to do with federal recognition of legal Civil Marriages under State law. Which is section 3 of DOMA, not section 2. It has nothing do with with marriage recognition between two different States.


Seriously, you don't see the difference between section 3 of DOMA and section 2?




>>>>

 

[kaz]

Pardon me, what does FF&C have to do with it?

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

Seriously, you don't see how that relates to DOMA?

The post you responded to with FF&C was about a case before the SCOTUS that has to do with federal recognition of legal Civil Marriages under State law. Which is section 3 of DOMA, not section 2. It has nothing do with with marriage recognition between two different States.


Seriously, you don't see the difference between section 3 of DOMA and section 2?




>>>>

Somehow not knowing DOMA section by section doesn't have the same zing.

 

[WorldWatcher]

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

Seriously, you don't see how that relates to DOMA?

The post you responded to with FF&C was about a case before the SCOTUS that has to do with federal recognition of legal Civil Marriages under State law. Which is section 3 of DOMA, not section 2. It has nothing do with with marriage recognition between two different States.


Seriously, you don't see the difference between section 3 of DOMA and section 2?




>>>>

Somehow not knowing DOMA section by section doesn't have the same zing.

Not knowing DOMA section by section, understandable ...

.... Not understanding that FF&C is about recognition between the states, and responding with it about the federal government not recognizing a legal Civil Marriage sure does though.



>>>>

 

[kaz]

The post you responded to with FF&C was about a case before the SCOTUS that has to do with federal recognition of legal Civil Marriages under State law. Which is section 3 of DOMA, not section 2. It has nothing do with with marriage recognition between two different States.


Seriously, you don't see the difference between section 3 of DOMA and section 2?




>>>>

Somehow not knowing DOMA section by section doesn't have the same zing.

Not knowing DOMA section by section, understandable ...

.... Not understanding that FF&C is about recognition between the states, and responding with it about the federal government not recognizing a legal Civil Marriage sure does though.



>>>>

You actually read several posts in the middle from one point to get to that end. The response and posts in the middle had nothing to do with that. Then obviously you knew what my point was and asked the question played dumb when you knew exactly what I was referring to. You're working WAY too hard to be offended. Good job though, you managed it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Somehow not knowing DOMA section by section doesn't have the same zing.

Not knowing DOMA section by section, understandable ...

.... Not understanding that FF&C is about recognition between the states, and responding with it about the federal government not recognizing a legal Civil Marriage sure does though.



>>>>

You actually read several posts in the middle from one point to get to that end. The response and posts in the middle had nothing to do with that. Then obviously you knew what my point was and asked the question played dumb when you knew exactly what I was referring to. You're working WAY too hard to be offended. Good job though, you managed it.

Psst - I'm not "offended".


I just found the attempt to inject FF&C into a reply that had nothing to do with Civil Marriage being recognized between the States (it was about the federal government recognizing a legal Civil Marriage under State law) as funny. And yes, you invoked FF&C, I know exactly what you were talking about. That's how I know you were wrong as FF&C has nothing to do with federal recognition of legal Civil Marriages under State law.


Instead of defending an error, try having the testicular fortitude to say "I was wrong". It's good for the soul.



>>>>

 

[kaz]

Not knowing DOMA section by section, understandable ...

.... Not understanding that FF&C is about recognition between the states, and responding with it about the federal government not recognizing a legal Civil Marriage sure does though.



>>>>

You actually read several posts in the middle from one point to get to that end. The response and posts in the middle had nothing to do with that. Then obviously you knew what my point was and asked the question played dumb when you knew exactly what I was referring to. You're working WAY too hard to be offended. Good job though, you managed it.

Psst - I'm not "offended".


I just found the attempt to inject FF&C into a reply that had nothing to do with Civil Marriage being recognized between the States (it was about the federal government recognizing a legal Civil Marriage under State law) as funny. And yes, you invoked FF&C, I know exactly what you were talking about. That's how I know you were wrong as FF&C has nothing to do with federal recognition of legal Civil Marriages under State law.


Instead of defending an error, try having the testicular fortitude to say "I was wrong". It's good for the soul.



>>>>

OK, since you want to play lawyer, I'll go one round with you.

Actually it's not clear from what she wrote if she was talking about:

- Paying Federal taxes (not Full Faith and Credit)
- Paying State taxes in another State (clearly Full Faith and Credit)

You interpreted it as the first, me as the second. The reason I interpreted it that way was that Seawytch said she was married in "her State." That sounded to me like she was in another State.

There's nothing unconstitutional about it in either case, but one interpretation does and the other doesn't involve the full faith and credit clause, the narrow point you are arguing.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You actually read several posts in the middle from one point to get to that end. The response and posts in the middle had nothing to do with that. Then obviously you knew what my point was and asked the question played dumb when you knew exactly what I was referring to. You're working WAY too hard to be offended. Good job though, you managed it.

Psst - I'm not "offended".


I just found the attempt to inject FF&C into a reply that had nothing to do with Civil Marriage being recognized between the States (it was about the federal government recognizing a legal Civil Marriage under State law) as funny. And yes, you invoked FF&C, I know exactly what you were talking about. That's how I know you were wrong as FF&C has nothing to do with federal recognition of legal Civil Marriages under State law.


Instead of defending an error, try having the testicular fortitude to say "I was wrong". It's good for the soul.



>>>>

OK, since you want to play lawyer, I'll go one round with you.

Actually it's not clear from what she wrote if she was talking about:

- Paying Federal taxes (not Full Faith and Credit)
- Paying State taxes in another State (clearly Full Faith and Credit)

You interpreted it as the first, me as the second. The reason I interpreted it that way was that Seawytch said she was married in "her State." That sounded to me like she was in another State.

There's nothing unconstitutional about it in either case, but one interpretation does and the other doesn't involve the full faith and credit clause, the narrow point you are arguing.

1. Even a passing familiarity with the case of Windsor v. United States which was in the news A LOT, especially prior to oral arguments before posting about the subject a reasonable person would know that the State involved was New York the State of residence for Edith Windsor and the State where she and her wife lived.

2. The discrimination against legally Civilly Married couples based on gender has been found unconstitutional by both the federal district court and in the cognizant appeals court. The case is currently being decided by the SCOTUS and after listening to oral arguments (which I have), it doesn't look good as there was no compelling government interest presented by those that oppose equal treatment to justify such discrimination.



>>>>

 

[kaz]

Psst - I'm not "offended".


I just found the attempt to inject FF&C into a reply that had nothing to do with Civil Marriage being recognized between the States (it was about the federal government recognizing a legal Civil Marriage under State law) as funny. And yes, you invoked FF&C, I know exactly what you were talking about. That's how I know you were wrong as FF&C has nothing to do with federal recognition of legal Civil Marriages under State law.


Instead of defending an error, try having the testicular fortitude to say "I was wrong". It's good for the soul.



>>>>

OK, since you want to play lawyer, I'll go one round with you.

Actually it's not clear from what she wrote if she was talking about:

- Paying Federal taxes (not Full Faith and Credit)
- Paying State taxes in another State (clearly Full Faith and Credit)

You interpreted it as the first, me as the second. The reason I interpreted it that way was that Seawytch said she was married in "her State." That sounded to me like she was in another State.

There's nothing unconstitutional about it in either case, but one interpretation does and the other doesn't involve the full faith and credit clause, the narrow point you are arguing.

1. Even a passing familiarity with the case of Windsor v. United States which was in the news A LOT, especially prior to oral arguments before posting about the subject a reasonable person would know that the State involved was New York the State of residence for Edith Windsor and the State where she and her wife lived.

The snippiness contradicts your statement you aren't offended. I see no reason that I should be interested in that case, I'm not. I showed you how I reasonably interpreted the statement I responded to. You came back with mind blowing argument that wow, that's a different section of DOMA. Wow.

2. The discrimination against legally Civilly Married couples based on gender has been found unconstitutional by both the federal district court and in the cognizant appeals court.

The Constitution is an enumerated document. Show where that is so, don't point to the courts. The courts BTW also have ruled that Dred Scott is property, that government can confiscate land for it's own benefit and not the people's and that US law applies overseas and that foreign law is a basis for their rulings, among other retarded things.

The case is currently being decided by the SCOTUS and after listening to oral arguments (which I have), it doesn't look good as there was no compelling government interest presented by those that oppose equal treatment to justify such discrimination.

SCOTUS is no friend of liberty or the Constitution, I gave a few great examples why. And the idea that the government gets to decide what powers the people gave to the government and that is somehow "proof" is a mind blow.

 

[Seawytch]

If you're typical of gay attitudes towards your partner's needs, then gay marriage is not like heterosexual marriage and you're not entitled to equality of marriage since according to you your marriage isn't actually equivalent to mine.

And he deflects again! Dang you're good at that!

Which of you needed the validation you claim marriage is about? Did it work for whoever it was?

I understand, you say gay marriage is not as committed as straight marriage. So why would you expect to get the same government perks since you're telling me the relationship is less of a partnership? The answer of course is convenience. You think gay marriage is convenience, so you want government conveniences as well.

Since I never said that, whatever point you think you made is moot.

 

[kaz]

And he deflects again! Dang you're good at that!

Which of you needed the validation you claim marriage is about? Did it work for whoever it was?

I understand, you say gay marriage is not as committed as straight marriage. So why would you expect to get the same government perks since you're telling me the relationship is less of a partnership? The answer of course is convenience. You think gay marriage is convenience, so you want government conveniences as well.

Since I never said that, whatever point you think you made is moot.

You clearly said that. You said I should ignore my partners feelings and force my own on her. You've repeated it over and over and over.

Seriously, you know what I'm saying and you refuse to address it. If you want a serious response, make a serious point. Saying that by not crushing her views and implementing my own it's deflection and covering my hypocrisy is crap, and you know that. So stop with the games or accept they are games.

 

[WorldWatcher]

OK, since you want to play lawyer, I'll go one round with you.

Actually it's not clear from what she wrote if she was talking about:

- Paying Federal taxes (not Full Faith and Credit)
- Paying State taxes in another State (clearly Full Faith and Credit)

You interpreted it as the first, me as the second. The reason I interpreted it that way was that Seawytch said she was married in "her State." That sounded to me like she was in another State.

There's nothing unconstitutional about it in either case, but one interpretation does and the other doesn't involve the full faith and credit clause, the narrow point you are arguing.

1. Even a passing familiarity with the case of Windsor v. United States which was in the news A LOT, especially prior to oral arguments before posting about the subject a reasonable person would know that the State involved was New York the State of residence for Edith Windsor and the State where she and her wife lived.

The snippiness contradicts your statement you aren't offended. I see no reason that I should be interested in that case, I'm not. I showed you how I reasonably interpreted the statement I responded to. You came back with mind blowing argument that wow, that's a different section of DOMA. Wow.

Correcting a technical error on you part is not "snippiness". Simply a channeling of my internal Sheldon Cooper.

2. The discrimination against legally Civilly Married couples based on gender has been found unconstitutional by both the federal district court and in the cognizant appeals court.

The Constitution is an enumerated document. Show where that is so, don't point to the courts. The courts BTW also have ruled that Dred Scott is property, that government can confiscate land for it's own benefit and not the people's and that US law applies overseas and that foreign law is a basis for their rulings, among other retarded things.

1. Not all rights must be enumerated in the Constitution, would you like me to show you where it says that? The Constitution is not an enumeration of our rights, the Constitution is a restriction on government itself.

2. The fact that States cannot discriminate in terms of privileges and immunities, and that all citizens have an inherent right to due process and equal protection under the law is enumerated in the 14th Amendment. A principle also inherent and applicable to the federal government through the application of the 5th Amendments due process clause.

3. Finally I never indicated that I agree with the SCOTUS on all their rulings and the court hasn't even agreed with all it's decisions and hove on occasion overturned themselves upon reexamination. Whether I agree or disagree though, the Constitution itself identifies the courts (namely the SCOTUS) as the final determinator as to law and fact.

The case is currently being decided by the SCOTUS and after listening to oral arguments (which I have), it doesn't look good as there was no compelling government interest presented by those that oppose equal treatment to justify such discrimination.

SCOTUS is no friend of liberty or the Constitution, I gave a few great examples why. And the idea that the government gets to decide what powers the people gave to the government and that is somehow "proof" is a mind blow.

Final? Not really. I'd refer you to the 5th Amendment which contains the process whereby the Constitution is amended giving the people the power to remove an issue from the power of the court.

For example, if a Constitutional amendment were to define Civil Marriage as only between a man and a woman, then that would place the issue beyond the powers of the court.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

I understand, you say gay marriage is not as committed as straight marriage. So why would you expect to get the same government perks since you're telling me the relationship is less of a partnership? The answer of course is convenience. You think gay marriage is convenience, so you want government conveniences as well.

Since I never said that, whatever point you think you made is moot.

You clearly said that. You said I should ignore my partners feelings and force my own on her. You've repeated it over and over and over.

Seriously, you know what I'm saying and you refuse to address it. If you want a serious response, make a serious point. Saying that by not crushing her views and implementing my own it's deflection and covering my hypocrisy is crap, and you know that. So stop with the games or accept they are games.

No, that isn't what I said and I've even, I believe, said I understood that your spouse forced you to be the hypocrite you are.

So are you saying she needed the validation you believe marriage is about?

 

[kaz]

Since I never said that, whatever point you think you made is moot.

You clearly said that. You said I should ignore my partners feelings and force my own on her. You've repeated it over and over and over.

Seriously, you know what I'm saying and you refuse to address it. If you want a serious response, make a serious point. Saying that by not crushing her views and implementing my own it's deflection and covering my hypocrisy is crap, and you know that. So stop with the games or accept they are games.

No, that isn't what I said and I've even, I believe, said I understood that your spouse forced you to be the hypocrite you are.

Can you show me the post I ever said that? Good luck looking for that one, Honey. I never said any such thing.

So are you saying she needed the validation you believe marriage is about?

"She" needed the validation "I" believe marriage is about? What does that even mean? Here are the facts for the newcomers who probably don't care but I'll update them anyway.

1) I've told you My wife's a conservative christian, she wants government marriage as well as the Church wedding we had, it's very important to her.

2) I don't see the point in government marriage, I don't stay because of the government. I wouldn't get a government certificate. It's not a big deal to me.

3) She's good with most of my libertarian views, she's not OK with that one.

4) So, the government part is critical to her, it's not a big deal to me. In heterosexual relationships, that means we do it her way.

5) You keep informing me I must divorce her or I'm a hypocrite. You have no answer to if you would do that to your partner or why I should never do anything I don't believe because my partner wants it. I don't want government marriage, you pronounce her irrelevant in that equation and I must divorce her.

I don't make decisions in my life because idiots on the Internet tell me to, so there's no risk here. But at least address the point. In what possible way does your conclusion make sense?

 

[Seawytch]

You clearly said that. You said I should ignore my partners feelings and force my own on her. You've repeated it over and over and over.

Seriously, you know what I'm saying and you refuse to address it. If you want a serious response, make a serious point. Saying that by not crushing her views and implementing my own it's deflection and covering my hypocrisy is crap, and you know that. So stop with the games or accept they are games.

No, that isn't what I said and I've even, I believe, said I understood that your spouse forced you to be the hypocrite you are.

Can you show me the post I ever said that? Good luck looking for that one, Honey. I never said any such thing.

So are you saying she needed the validation you believe marriage is about?

"She" needed the validation "I" believe marriage is about? What does that even mean? Here are the facts for the newcomers who probably don't care but I'll update them anyway.

1) I've told you My wife's a conservative christian, she wants government marriage as well as the Church wedding we had, it's very important to her.

2) I don't see the point in government marriage, I don't stay because of the government. I wouldn't get a government certificate. It's not a big deal to me.

3) She's good with most of my libertarian views, she's not OK with that one.

4) So, the government part is critical to her, it's not a big deal to me. In heterosexual relationships, that means we do it her way.

5) You keep informing me I must divorce her or I'm a hypocrite. You have no answer to if you would do that to your partner or why I should never do anything I don't believe because my partner wants it. I don't want government marriage, you pronounce her irrelevant in that equation and I must divorce her.

I don't make decisions in my life because idiots on the Internet tell me to, so there's no risk here. But at least address the point. In what possible way does your conclusion make sense?

You made the claim that gays just want validation which, since you are legally married, must mean that either you or your wife must have required "validation"( your words, not mine), yes?

I never said you must divorce her but, unwilling or not, the fact you are legally married, but claim to be against it makes you a hypocrite. "The unwilling hypocrite" that takes it for himself, but wishes to deny it to others.

 

[kaz]

You made the claim that gays just want validation which, since you are legally married, must mean that either you or your wife must have required "validation"( your words, not mine), yes?

Yes, you dumb bimbo. My wife needs validation. How many times can I tell you that I'm a libertarian, I'm against government. My wife is a ... wait for it ... wait some more ... CONSERVATIVE. My God woman, they want government just as much as you do, they just want different government.

And I also told you she's a religious conservative. Have you heard of Conservatives wanting government to control abortion, proposition, drugs, gambling and so on? Seriously, what is wrong with you? In what possible universe do you think religious conservatives don't want government validation of morality? Do you pay attention to politics at all as you're spending endless hours writing about it? Hello, is there anyone at home? My God.

I never said you must divorce her but, unwilling or not, the fact you are legally married, but claim to be against it makes you a hypocrite. "The unwilling hypocrite" that takes it for himself, but wishes to deny it to others.

So answer the question that you've dance, skipped and jogged around then once. Is that the standard you apply to your own life? If your ideology is contradictory to a deep conviction of your partner, you refuse to let her have her way. Ever. She will do it your way. That is the standard you hold me to. For the hundredth time, is that YOUR standard for YOURSELF?

Answer the question. If you can't, you've shown clearly what you are.

 

[Redfish]

You made the claim that gays just want validation which, since you are legally married, must mean that either you or your wife must have required "validation"( your words, not mine), yes?

Yes, you dumb bimbo. My wife needs validation. How many times can I tell you that I'm a libertarian, I'm against government. My wife is a ... wait for it ... wait some more ... CONSERVATIVE. My God woman, they want government just as much as you do, they just want different government.

And I also told you she's a religious conservative. Have you heard of Conservatives wanting government to control abortion, proposition, drugs, gambling and so on? Seriously, what is wrong with you? In what possible universe do you think religious conservatives don't want government validation of morality? Do you pay attention to politics at all as you're spending endless hours writing about it? Hello, is there anyone at home? My God.

I never said you must divorce her but, unwilling or not, the fact you are legally married, but claim to be against it makes you a hypocrite. "The unwilling hypocrite" that takes it for himself, but wishes to deny it to others.

So answer the question that you've dance, skipped and jogged around then once. Is that the standard you apply to your own life? If your ideology is contradictory to a deep conviction of your partner, you refuse to let her have her way. Ever. She will do it your way. That is the standard you hold me to. For the hundredth time, is that YOUR standard for YOURSELF?

Answer the question. If you can't, you've shown clearly what you are.

LOL, you summed up wytchy pretty well. she is a sick libtard lesbian.

She is not about equality, she is about having the govt FORCE her lifestyle on the rest of us.

she, like most libtards, wants the views of a minority to be shoved down the throats of the majority.

 

[Seawytch]

You made the claim that gays just want validation which, since you are legally married, must mean that either you or your wife must have required "validation"( your words, not mine), yes?

Yes, you dumb bimbo. My wife needs validation. How many times can I tell you that I'm a libertarian, I'm against government. My wife is a ... wait for it ... wait some more ... CONSERVATIVE. My God woman, they want government just as much as you do, they just want different government.

And I also told you she's a religious conservative. Have you heard of Conservatives wanting government to control abortion, proposition, drugs, gambling and so on? Seriously, what is wrong with you? In what possible universe do you think religious conservatives don't want government validation of morality? Do you pay attention to politics at all as you're spending endless hours writing about it? Hello, is there anyone at home? My God.

I never said you must divorce her but, unwilling or not, the fact you are legally married, but claim to be against it makes you a hypocrite. "The unwilling hypocrite" that takes it for himself, but wishes to deny it to others.

So answer the question that you've dance, skipped and jogged around then once. Is that the standard you apply to your own life? If your ideology is contradictory to a deep conviction of your partner, you refuse to let her have her way. Ever. She will do it your way. That is the standard you hold me to. For the hundredth time, is that YOUR standard for YOURSELF?

Answer the question. If you can't, you've shown clearly what you are.

You aren't absolved from being a hypocrite no matter how you try to justify it or blame it on someone else. My spouse wouldn't force me to violate my personal morals nor would I hers. We would compromise. Your spouse felt more strongly than you did, and that's perfectly all right. You gave up your beliefs in favor of hers...you're an unwilling and saintly hypocrite. I'll put in a good word for your wings.

 

[Seawytch]

You made the claim that gays just want validation which, since you are legally married, must mean that either you or your wife must have required "validation"( your words, not mine), yes?

Yes, you dumb bimbo. My wife needs validation. How many times can I tell you that I'm a libertarian, I'm against government. My wife is a ... wait for it ... wait some more ... CONSERVATIVE. My God woman, they want government just as much as you do, they just want different government.

And I also told you she's a religious conservative. Have you heard of Conservatives wanting government to control abortion, proposition, drugs, gambling and so on? Seriously, what is wrong with you? In what possible universe do you think religious conservatives don't want government validation of morality? Do you pay attention to politics at all as you're spending endless hours writing about it? Hello, is there anyone at home? My God.

I never said you must divorce her but, unwilling or not, the fact you are legally married, but claim to be against it makes you a hypocrite. "The unwilling hypocrite" that takes it for himself, but wishes to deny it to others.

So answer the question that you've dance, skipped and jogged around then once. Is that the standard you apply to your own life? If your ideology is contradictory to a deep conviction of your partner, you refuse to let her have her way. Ever. She will do it your way. That is the standard you hold me to. For the hundredth time, is that YOUR standard for YOURSELF?

Answer the question. If you can't, you've shown clearly what you are.

LOL, you summed up wytchy pretty well. she is a sick libtard lesbian.

She is not about equality, she is about having the govt FORCE her lifestyle on the rest of us.

she, like most libtards, wants the views of a minority to be shoved down the throats of the majority.

Can't discuss on the merits of your argument I see. Out of ammo and throwing the gun.

 

[Redfish]

Yes, you dumb bimbo. My wife needs validation. How many times can I tell you that I'm a libertarian, I'm against government. My wife is a ... wait for it ... wait some more ... CONSERVATIVE. My God woman, they want government just as much as you do, they just want different government.

And I also told you she's a religious conservative. Have you heard of Conservatives wanting government to control abortion, proposition, drugs, gambling and so on? Seriously, what is wrong with you? In what possible universe do you think religious conservatives don't want government validation of morality? Do you pay attention to politics at all as you're spending endless hours writing about it? Hello, is there anyone at home? My God.



So answer the question that you've dance, skipped and jogged around then once. Is that the standard you apply to your own life? If your ideology is contradictory to a deep conviction of your partner, you refuse to let her have her way. Ever. She will do it your way. That is the standard you hold me to. For the hundredth time, is that YOUR standard for YOURSELF?

Answer the question. If you can't, you've shown clearly what you are.

LOL, you summed up wytchy pretty well. she is a sick libtard lesbian.

She is not about equality, she is about having the govt FORCE her lifestyle on the rest of us.

she, like most libtards, wants the views of a minority to be shoved down the throats of the majority.

Can't discuss on the merits of your argument I see. Out of ammo and throwing the gun.

not at all, I am just out of patience with idiots like you. you won't even admit what your real agenda is. I will not waste any more time with you, you are a fool. I actually pity you.

 

[kaz]

You made the claim that gays just want validation which, since you are legally married, must mean that either you or your wife must have required "validation"( your words, not mine), yes?

Yes, you dumb bimbo. My wife needs validation. How many times can I tell you that I'm a libertarian, I'm against government. My wife is a ... wait for it ... wait some more ... CONSERVATIVE. My God woman, they want government just as much as you do, they just want different government.

And I also told you she's a religious conservative. Have you heard of Conservatives wanting government to control abortion, proposition, drugs, gambling and so on? Seriously, what is wrong with you? In what possible universe do you think religious conservatives don't want government validation of morality? Do you pay attention to politics at all as you're spending endless hours writing about it? Hello, is there anyone at home? My God.

I never said you must divorce her but, unwilling or not, the fact you are legally married, but claim to be against it makes you a hypocrite. "The unwilling hypocrite" that takes it for himself, but wishes to deny it to others.

So answer the question that you've dance, skipped and jogged around then once. Is that the standard you apply to your own life? If your ideology is contradictory to a deep conviction of your partner, you refuse to let her have her way. Ever. She will do it your way. That is the standard you hold me to. For the hundredth time, is that YOUR standard for YOURSELF?

Answer the question. If you can't, you've shown clearly what you are.

You aren't absolved from being a hypocrite no matter how you try to justify it or blame it on someone else. My spouse wouldn't force me to violate my personal morals nor would I hers. We would compromise. Your spouse felt more strongly than you did, and that's perfectly all right. You gave up your beliefs in favor of hers...you're an unwilling and saintly hypocrite. I'll put in a good word for your wings.

It's actually a far stronger conviction to me that my partner's values matter more than strictly following every single bit of my political ideology. To call following that "hypocrisy" is retarded. And if I were to believe you, you would clearly be arguing that gay marriage is less than straight marriage and that would destroy every argument you've ever made on the subject.

Though we both know you're a liar, you don't treat your partner as you advocate other people treat theirs. Hmm..there's a word for that. As for actually addressing the question as to whether you treat your partner as you advocate mine ...

... all she wants to do is, all she wants to do is



Liberalism, an odd ideology where if you believe their shallow lies you actually think they are more stupid then if you think they are lying. Not a game I'd ever play.

So, do you treat your partner as you advocate I treat mine? What about answering the question?