Thread: Fifth consecutive poll shows national majority support for same-sex marriage

Originally Posted by dixon76710

???? Actually, more frequently thay have been ruled to be perfectly constuitutional. You merely only hear about cases where the gays prevail.

every case in the past five years the courts have heard they have ruled against you.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Of course. Marriage limited to heterosexual couples has a rational relation to a legitimate governmental interest. They are the only couplings that result in children being born. You have no legitimate governmental interest that is only served in the case of heterosexual and homosexual couples. All the court cases cite the formation of stable homes, but heterosexual and homosexual couples ARE NOT the only couples who can form a stable home. ANY TWO people can do that. You cant just grant rights to special innterest groups because they whine the loudest.

name some other group that has pushed for marriage equality. you hear about same sex couples more because they are the only couples taking their case to court.

Originally Posted by rahl

name some other group that has pushed for marriage equality. you hear about same sex couples more because they are the only couples taking their case to court.

Like I said, you cant grant rights based upon who whines the loudest.

Originally Posted by rahl

every case in the past five years the courts have heard they have ruled against you.

Always amusing to watch you babble on endlessly about topics you know nothing about. Just from the first page of a google search.

August 9, 2012
A federal district court in Hawaii has upheld the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/...-marriage-ban/

10/12/2012 04:42:27 PM PDT
Court upholds Ala. act banning same-sex marriage
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-...e-sex-marriage

Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Texas appeals court upholds same-sex marriage ban
http://jurist.org/paperchase/2010/09...rriage-ban.php

June 30, 2010
State Supreme Court upholds gay marriage ban
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo.../97469919.html

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Like I said, you cant grant rights based upon who whines the loudest.

Of course you can. the issue before the court is same sex marraige. removing the gender restriction covers every type of couple where a legal kinship does not already exist. If you want to marry your brother, you are going to need to take the issue to court, as it's seperate from same sex marriage.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Always amusing to watch you babble on endlessly about topics you know nothing about. Just from the first page of a google search.

August 9, 2012
A federal district court in Hawaii has upheld the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/...-marriage-ban/

10/12/2012 04:42:27 PM PDT
Court upholds Ala. act banning same-sex marriage
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-...e-sex-marriage

Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Texas appeals court upholds same-sex marriage ban
http://jurist.org/paperchase/2010/09...rriage-ban.php

June 30, 2010
State Supreme Court upholds gay marriage ban
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo.../97469919.html

I of course was talking about federal courts.

Originally Posted by rahl

I of course was talking about federal courts.

Your claim stated no such restriction AND what the (*)(*)(*)(*) kind of court do you think "A federal district court in Hawaii" is? Always amusing to watch you babble on endlessly about topics you know nothing about, and then comes your dishonesty in an attempt to disguise the ignorance.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Your claim stated no such restriction AND what the (*)(*)(*)(*) kind of court do you think "A federal district court in Hawaii" is? Always amusing to watch you babble on endlessly about topics you know nothing about, and then comes your dishonesty in an attempt to disguise the ignorance.

I see you've sunk to your pathetic equivocation again. not unexpected.

Originally Posted by rahl

I see you've sunk to your pathetic equivocation again. not unexpected.

Not sure you understand the word because that would be you engaged in the pathetic equivocation. Stating "every case in the past five years the courts have heard they have ruled against you." And claiming that you were actually talking about Federal Courts.

Originally Posted by DevilMay

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...t-gay-marriage

Why are Congress so out of sync with the population? Before DADT got repealed around 80% of Americans including the majority of REPUBLICAN voters supported its repeal. In the end only 6 Republican senators and 15 out of 175 Republican representatives supported the bill to end DADT.

ENDA.. the act that seeks to ban workplace discrimination on account of sexuality, again a vast majority of Americans support it yet it's been difficult to get even ONE Republican on board. What the hell?

The fact that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage should send a message to congress to get the Respect for Marriage Act passed, but that stands no chance under a Republican controlled house. Why are Republicans simply not listening to the electorate?

Reading:

Meanwhile, 47 percent of respondents say they oppose same-sex marriage

Keep in mind, that it's "under the gun" support. There are laws, forcing us to coexist with gays, there is a mass media hunt, heavy gay propaganda, while anti-gay propaganda is outlawed.
I really doubt that you would get such number, if for example there would be no laws protecting gays and forcing us to tolerate you, anti-gay propaganda.
And what are you going to do with remaining 47%? 47% should suffer because of 2% of gay population? This is how western democracy works!
And it's kinda stupid to say "people re-elected" Obama, who became this time pro-gay, fist election he was aniti, btw, that American people chose him because of exactly that. We all know, that when number of candidates is so low, as 2(!), people are left with no choice as to elect "a least evil". Let's say one is for war, another is for gays. I don't want war more, then gays. So I will elect who is for gays, not because I am pro-gay, it's because I hate war more!
Plus, in US other candidates are discriminated. They are even called "third party". The elections are clearly unfair. Have you ever seen that these "third party" are ever invited for debates with republicans and democrats? No! I have to search online for them. They are ignored by the system. People don't know them, because they are almost never shown, they never show them, because people don't know them. Excellent system!