Public support solidly for gay marriage

You can marry, I cannot.

And of you would like to use the argument that I can marry a women just as you can, I will remind you that in 1950, neither of us could marry a black women, and a black man could not marry a white women. Its was equal for everyone right?

 

Yes you can, under the exact ruleset as myself.

if I decide I'd rather marry a Bananna than a Female...well tough (*)(*)(*)(*) for me too. The criteria is quite clear.

Your wanting the criteria to be other than what it is does not mean you are missing some kind of right.

And I'm going to tell you and others for the millionth time that race and sexual choice are not the same thing at all. One is clearly discrimination, and the other is simply a case of someone wanting something, but refusing to follow the path that gets you there...and then crying foul.

 

Doesn't matter what your ignorant side thinks, once Obama is re-elected and appoints liberal judges to the supreme court this will end.

 

It will be the end of the democrat party.

 

The only ignorant side is yours Montoya..demonstrated by your unthinking beliefe that Obama actually meant what he said with regards to Gay marriage. It's not going to even be on his relection platform....

 

The interracial Marriage analogy is not an analogy. You cannot define marriage as between a man and a woman and yet ban marriages between certain men and women because of their race--that is discriminatory.

Same-sex marriage is not equatable with that, because nowhere is the definition of marriage being discriminated on. Everyone has the same equal right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Period. That is an absolute and non-discriminatory right, and any restrictions to that right on the basis of age and/or family member are applied equally as well.

So stop using flawed analogies.

 

The numbers are wrong. How many states did Gay Marriage just lose in? How does that happen with the numbers reported in the O.P.

(Note: I am alright with Gay Marriage, but would prefer to get government out of it.)

 

First off a banana cannot give its legal consent to marriage. If something cannot give its legal consent to marriage, you can toss out all the hog-wash arguments. Two male adults or two females adults can.

Race and sexual choice is simply variables in the equation. Nothing more, nothing less.

You are allowing one variable in the equation while not wanting another variable in there.

That is unconstitutional my friend, plane and simple.

 

The only ignorant side is yours Montoya..demonstrated by your unthinking belief that Obama actually meant what he said with regards to Gay marriage. It's not going to even be on his relection platform. Just a quick shout out to the Gay Community for some votes...like the Gitmo closers and the Immigration reformers.

And surprise...there you are taking it as truth.

 

Race and sexual orientation are only variables in the equation.

Saying one variable is ok while the other is not is discrimination.

 

Weather he is actually for it who knows, at least unlike your kind, you know bigots and oppressors, he had the balls to stand up for true liberty. Not the crap cons spew about liberty. You know the kind that gives all power to corporations and rich people?

Your argument is pathetic, your ideology is pathetic.

 

And why does this matter?

Oh thats right, because we as a society decided we wanted two consenting parties when we decided what Marriage would be in the USA. Coincidentally...we also decided they must be of opposite sex as well. Tell me why one decision was ok, yet the other is somehow not?

Well because you agree with one and not the other of course.

I know we are always going to disagree on this one Stones, hopefully none of this comes off as an insult or attack to you as it isnt intended that way.

 

boy, it's a good thing the definition of marriage has nothing to do with sexual orientation then, isn't it?

 

LOL....whether he is actually for it, who knows??? So you admit you dont know if he's for it or not, but a couple posts above you were quick to paint a picture of how he is going to slam it upon us once reelected, as if you knew where he stood. Insults do not run an effective cover for an ignorant argument Montoya. Anyone reading your posts can see just what is pathetic here.

 

Because marriage is a legal contract. Next.

 

DOMA has been declared unconstituional. Way to stay current Next.

 

He is for equal rights, even if he personally is against it which I don't know. Once again I shred your arguments.

 

LOL....whether he is actually for it, who knows??? So you admit you dont know if he's for it or not, but a couple posts above you were quick to paint a picture of how he is going to slam it upon us once reelected, as if you knew where he stood. Insults do not run an effective cover for an ignorant argument Montoya. Anyone reading your posts can see just what is pathetic here.

 

LOL...you have never, not in this thread, nor in any other shredded any argument I have ever made. Please get over yourself.

 

Excellent point. The cons conveniently forget that one.

 

DOMA was a federal law and this is a state's right's issue. It should have been struck down. How exactly does that prove your point about anything?

 

Sorry Stones, that doesn't answer the entire post. You can bold parts it answers and ignore the rest if you like..but there was an important, relevant point in the entire post which you are missing.

 

If a law is unconstitutional on the federal level, it is certainly unconstitutional on the state level.

Hence if a federal declaring marriage is between a man and a woman in unconstitutional on the federal level, it is also on the state level.

Its amazing how you have to point this out. It really is.

Now, since DOMA is unconstitutional, gender is like race – just a variable in the equation of marriage.

Hence allowing one and not the other is unconstitutional.

 

So I have to ask. if it is all so settled...then why are we still talking about it at all. Surely it's law of the land already then?

 

The rest was a bunch of fluff that didnt need an answer to and has nothing to do with legal consent.