Why do polls show support for gay marriage, when the states keep rejecting it?

[Spoonman]

can you say the word dodge?I knew you could..

yea dodged . a couple of congressmen comment that the senate was better off under THE ORIGINAL PROVISIONS of the Constitution. no legislation was passed. excuse me, no legislation was even introduced. Spin a little more you partisan hack. you have no frigging argument at all.

false! that would be you...the FF knew the constitution would of necessity be amended, provisions changed to fit a ever changing world.

which is why they included wording like SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW AGAINST. It's why they provided a provision for a civilian militia to combat the regular army should the federal government every try to oppress the people .

you still got nothing

 

[Spoonman]

The House and the Senate were controlled by the GOP, as you well know.

And things have changed in more than 15 years. Good on that.

so you are saying the 118 democratic congressmen who voted for it have no mind of their own? the president has no mind of his own?

oh no !not the no mind of their own or it's twin thinking for yourself ploys!
it's been my experience that people who use those "phrases" lack the use of each.

so you are saying the democratic congressmen aren't representing the people who elected them, they are doing the bidding of the republicans? man you have lost it

 

[Spoonman]

Yup, that law that our GOP congress forced on the president and the American people.

Look up the latest polling, particularly for those under forty.

Heterosexual only marriage is dead man walking.

with the help of the majority of the democrats in both the house and senate

call the waaaaabulance.

we had better because you can't deal with the facts. the democrats sold you out lol

 

[daws101]

yea dodged . a couple of congressmen comment that the senate was better off under THE ORIGINAL PROVISIONS of the Constitution. no legislation was passed. excuse me, no legislation was even introduced. Spin a little more you partisan hack. you have no frigging argument at all.

false! that would be you...the FF knew the constitution would of necessity be amended, provisions changed to fit a ever changing world.

which is why they included wording like SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW AGAINST. It's why they provided a provision for a civilian militia to combat the regular army should the federal government every try to oppress the people .

you still got nothing

again that would be you...the 2nd amendment ploy is irreverent to this debate..
your freedom of speech and religion has not been abridged that's also irrelevant to this debate!

 

[daws101]

so you are saying the 118 democratic congressmen who voted for it have no mind of their own? the president has no mind of his own?

oh no !not the no mind of their own or it's twin thinking for yourself ploys!
it's been my experience that people who use those "phrases" lack the use of each.

so you are saying the democratic congressmen aren't representing the people who elected them, they are doing the bidding of the republicans? man you have lost it

no you just wish that was the case..

 

[daws101]

with the help of the majority of the democrats in both the house and senate

call the waaaaabulance.

we had better because you can't deal with the facts. the democrats sold you out lol

really? how's that? as I'm the one with the facts ...you on the other hand are rationalizing as fast as you can....

 

[Spoonman]

false! that would be you...the FF knew the constitution would of necessity be amended, provisions changed to fit a ever changing world.

which is why they included wording like SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW AGAINST. It's why they provided a provision for a civilian militia to combat the regular army should the federal government every try to oppress the people .

you still got nothing

again that would be you...the 2nd amendment ploy is irreverent to this debate..
your freedom of speech and religion has not been abridged that's also irrelevant to this debate!

what is relevant to this debate is overwhelming democratic support right up to the president for what you try to claim was a republican only initiative. oooooh the republicans did it. waaaaaaaaah. those evil republicans

 

[daws101]

gotta go the pres in coming on!

 

[daws101]

which is why they included wording like SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW AGAINST. It's why they provided a provision for a civilian militia to combat the regular army should the federal government every try to oppress the people .

you still got nothing

again that would be you...the 2nd amendment ploy is irreverent to this debate..
your freedom of speech and religion has not been abridged that's also irrelevant to this debate!

what is relevant to this debate is overwhelming democratic support right up to the president for what you try to claim was a republican only initiative. oooooh the republicans did it. waaaaaaaaah. those evil republicans

that's your fantasy not mine.

 

[Spoonman]

call the waaaaabulance.

we had better because you can't deal with the facts. the democrats sold you out lol

really? how's that? as I'm the one with the facts ...you on the other hand are rationalizing as fast as you can....

you have facts? good show ne the legislation the republicans passed to change the 17th amendment. Show me how DOMA was a republican only initiative and did not have overwhelming democratic support as well. that's right, I am being rational, you are being emotional and without facts to back you up. well, bring them on

 

[Spoonman]

again that would be you...the 2nd amendment ploy is irreverent to this debate..
your freedom of speech and religion has not been abridged that's also irrelevant to this debate!

what is relevant to this debate is overwhelming democratic support right up to the president for what you try to claim was a republican only initiative. oooooh the republicans did it. waaaaaaaaah. those evil republicans

that's your fantasy not mine.

votes recorded in congress document my fantasy love. all you have is your spin

 

[JakeStarkey]

almost seventy 70 in the House voted against it 1 GOP voted against it

22 dems in the Senate voted against it 1 Pub and 1 Indie voted against in the Senate

DOMA - Defense of Marriage Act - 1996

 

[Spoonman]

almost seventy 70 in the House voted against it 1 GOP voted against it

22 dems in the Senate voted against it 1 Pub and 1 Indie voted against in the Senate

DOMA - Defense of Marriage Act - 1996

from your link. as usual the numbers don't quite match your claim. what is it with liberals and facts that create such problems?


and then the House passed the bill, 342-67, on 12 July; two abstained and 22 did not vote. The Senate passed the bill, 85-14, on 10 September; one did not vote


oh and your democratic president signed it too

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Human rights, I dig. Gay and "rights" go together like military and intelligence…. “Gay” is a politicized made up word for broken sexuality. Homosexuality is a dysfunction, a handicap , it's not the optimal function of human physiology. Most of us know it isn't equitable to heterosexuality. Perhaps I am not addressing the topic on this board, I am addressing a broader and more important point: homosexuality isn’t the same as heterosexuality.

No one ever said it was.

And your ignorance blinds you to the only relevant point: citizens have the right to individual liberty and self-determination free from interference by the state.

With regard to same-sex couples, the states may not deny gay citizens their 14th Amendment right to access marriage law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

almost seventy 70 in the House voted against it 1 GOP voted against it

22 dems in the Senate voted against it 1 Pub and 1 Indie voted against in the Senate

DOMA - Defense of Marriage Act - 1996

from your link. as usual the numbers don't quite match your claim. what is it with liberals and facts that create such problems?

and then the House passed the bill, 342-67, on 12 July; two abstained and 22 did not vote. The Senate passed the bill, 85-14, on 10 September; one did not vote

oh and your democratic president signed it too

You better count again. An overwhelmingly GOP bill passed and a complacent Democratic president signed it.

And in almost 20 years that has all changed.

Now our GOP says it's a state matter. I opposed our party then and I oppose its hypocrisy now.

 

[Spoonman]

almost seventy 70 in the House voted against it 1 GOP voted against it

22 dems in the Senate voted against it 1 Pub and 1 Indie voted against in the Senate

DOMA - Defense of Marriage Act - 1996

from your link. as usual the numbers don't quite match your claim. what is it with liberals and facts that create such problems?

and then the House passed the bill, 342-67, on 12 July; two abstained and 22 did not vote. The Senate passed the bill, 85-14, on 10 September; one did not vote

oh and your democratic president signed it too

You better count again. An overwhelmingly GOP bill passed and a complacent Democratic president signed it.

And in almost 20 years that has all changed.

Now our GOP says it's a state matter. I opposed our party then and I oppose its hypocrisy now.

I don't have to count. the numbers are right there. talking democrats only, the overwhelming number of democrats supported the bill. jake, almost 75% of the democratic senators supported it. seems the democratic president was complacent on signing many things libs try to blame the republicans for. perhaps we shouldn't have democrats in office if they can't think for themselves

 

[GreenBean]

In the long run, this isn't about 'marriage equality'...



It's about legitimizing and mainstreaming homosexuality...



Those who already understand this oppose it...



Those who do not yet understand it will eventually come to that understanding...



Mostly after they've had children of their own...



And contemplate grandchildren...



And reach the conclusion that they don't want that degenerate shit around their kids, either...



And come to the sad conclusion that Mom and Dad were right about such depravity, after all...

No, it's really about marriage equality...and bigotry like yours is the minority.

He most certainly is not the minority on the Gay Marriage issue - the fact that most jurisdictions have to bypass the ballot box and get SSM forced upon the people by Judicial or legislative modes is an indication of that . To quote one of your little perverted cohorts

Our civil rights are not subject to the 'will of the people.'

PS: OT - Hows that Nose Job working out for you ?

Nope, most people don't find anything wrong with homosexuality at all.

Where'd you get that horse shit from ?

Human rights, I dig. Gay and "rights" go together like military and intelligence…. “Gay” is a politicized made up word for broken sexuality. Homosexuality is a dysfunction, a handicap , it's not the optimal function of human physiology. Most of us know it isn't equitable to heterosexuality. Perhaps I am not addressing the topic on this board, I am addressing a broader and more important point: homosexuality isn’t the same as heterosexuality.

Why be so polite ?

Homosexuals are a demented , devious pack of rabid,degenerate,nauseating, arrogant disease infested, parasitc perverts.

 

[Seawytch]

In the long run, this isn't about 'marriage equality'...



It's about legitimizing and mainstreaming homosexuality...



Those who already understand this oppose it...



Those who do not yet understand it will eventually come to that understanding...



Mostly after they've had children of their own...



And contemplate grandchildren...



And reach the conclusion that they don't want that degenerate shit around their kids, either...



And come to the sad conclusion that Mom and Dad were right about such depravity, after all...

No, it's really about marriage equality...and bigotry like yours is the minority.

He most certainly is not the minority on the Gay Marriage issue - the fact that most jurisdictions have to bypass the ballot box and get SSM forced upon the people by Judicial or legislative modes is an indication of that . To quote one of your little perverted cohorts

Our civil rights are not subject to the 'will of the people.'

PS: OT - Hows that Nose Job working out for you ?

Nope, most people don't find anything wrong with homosexuality at all.

Where'd you get that horse shit from ?

Human rights, I dig. Gay and "rights" go together like military and intelligence…. “Gay” is a politicized made up word for broken sexuality. Homosexuality is a dysfunction, a handicap , it's not the optimal function of human physiology. Most of us know it isn't equitable to heterosexuality. Perhaps I am not addressing the topic on this board, I am addressing a broader and more important point: homosexuality isn’t the same as heterosexuality.

Why be so polite ?

Homosexuals are a demented , devious pack of rabid,degenerate,nauseating, arrogant disease infested, parasitc perverts.

Try here:

 

[Plasmaball]

I don't reacall republicans trying to change the constitution

well except for things like giving blacks rights and freedoms and stuff like that

might wanna rethink that
Ever since President Obama entered office, Republicans have called for constitutional freedoms of our constitutional government to be repealed by amendment. A few examples:

1. REPEALING CITIZENSHIP: Numerous GOP lawmakers, including their Senate leader and the most-recent Republican candidate for president, are backing a “review” of the 14th Amendment’s grant of citizenship to virtually all persons born within the United States.

2. REPEALING CONGRESS’ POWER TO RAISE MONEY: Tea Party Republicans are calling for a full repeal of the 16th Amendment, the amendment which enables the INCOME TAX. Wouldn't it be impossible to function as a nation if America lacked the power to raise the money it needs to pay our armed forces, for example.

3. REPEALING CONGRESS’ POWER TO SPEND MONEY: The Constitution gives Congress power to “provide for the common defense and general welfare,” which means, in my view, the authority to create federal spending programs such as Social Security. For example, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), recently called upon the Supreme Court to rewrite the Constitution’s clear language and repeal parts of the budget he doesn’t like. A Texas GOP even went so far as to claim that the federal highway system is unconstitutional.

4. REPEALING EQUALITY: The Constitution entitles all persons to “equal protection of the laws,” This in my opinion include the rights of Gay Marriage and until it is ruled illegal like Polygamy, it should be noted.

5. REPEALING ELECTION OF SENATORS: A number of GOP candidates have come out in favor of repealing the 17th Amendment, the provision of the Constitution which requires direct election of senators.

please, how many years did this country not only exist but expand and succeed with out an income tax? what the tea party is saying which you are obviously clueless about is the abusive spending and misuse of tax dollars.

republicans never tried to repeal equality. they have always agreed with the constitution on equality as it applies to marriage. it clearly defines that the rights belong to the states to decide. and yes that gives individual state the right to determine if they will support rights of gays to marry in their state. loud and clear the State has the right to decide. when the republicans got involved it was after courts defied the constitution and over ruled State decisions to prohibit. same sex marriage.

I see you have joined the ranks of a liberal spin doctor on this one.

please stop lying. its just sad at this point.

 

[bripat9643]

Nobody willing to answer my question, eh?

The last time was in 2012, moron:

List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia