Young Opponents of Gay Marriage Undaunted by Battle Ahead

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:I believe 34 states have voted and ALL have determined marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. The people have spoken and the majority believes marriage belongs to traditional values.

That must be changing now. The title of this calls it a battle ahead. Same sex marriage is legal in some states already. You said 34 states voted against it. That should be up to those states then. So what if other states allow it.

How can something belong to traditional values anyway? What the hell does that mean? Is burning witches at the stake a traditional value?

It means shoving your pecker up some man's anus is not going to result in children and only result in prostate problems...why do you think the adult diaper market has taken off?

I meant what does "belonging to traditional values" mean. Doesn't really matter. You said those 34 states voted against it. Some states voted for it. Majority ruled. Way it should be.

Majority ruling is a democracy which always leads to tyranny. We live in a Constitutional Republic not a democracy. A democracy is two wolves and a sheep getting together to decide what to eat for lunch. SSM and whether to acknowledge it lies within state rights based on a public vote not federal mandate. If you and your queer partner want to play house and act like everything is cool move to a state that allows that perverted lifestyle.

Make up your mind. You said "The people have spoken and the majority believes marriage belongs to traditional values." & "state rights based on a public vote". It's legal for gays to get married in some states. Yup. They can move to one of them or you can move out if you want.

Do you understand the concept of federalism?

What the ? Get off the fence, and quit switching sides, or avoiding it.
On this gay marriage deal, like you said "it lies within state rights based on a public vote not federal mandate."
I think this gay marriage deal should stay with the states rights. I've said or showed that a few times here.
Make up your mind. What's your stance? Yes or No?

Unfortunately the issue of same sex marriage is not clearly in the States domain due to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. Even if the States retain the right to define marriage as between a man and a woman, the Full Faith and Credit Clause may require those States to recognize same sex marriage. The DOMA clarifies that with Congress expressly giving those States the right to reject those types of marriage.

The case currently before the SCOTUS actually has more to do with $$$ and property and the tax free status given to the survivor of a traditional marriage. I see same sex marriage advocates as willing to jettison hundreds of years of English common law and US Constitutional property law while giving the impression that this is solely about "love".

If marriage can't be defined as exclusively between 1 man and 1 woman, then there really is nothing that should restrict polygamous marriages or consanguineous marriages.

Well Darth? Like I asked,
"What the ? Get off the fence, and quit switching sides, or avoiding it.
On this gay marriage deal, like you said "it lies within state rights based on a public vote not federal mandate."
I think this gay marriage deal should stay with the states rights. I've said or showed that a few times here.
Make up your mind. What's your stance? Yes or No?"

You're still avoiding this. You put up a lot of posts on here. Just going in circles. Make up your mind on it. States or SC?

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Well Darth? Like I asked,
"What the ? Get off the fence, and quit switching sides, or avoiding it.
On this gay marriage deal, like you said "it lies within state rights based on a public vote not federal mandate."
I think this gay marriage deal should stay with the states rights. I've said or showed that a few times here.
Make up your mind. What's your stance? Yes or No?"

You're still avoiding this. You put up a lot of posts on here. Just going in circles. Make up your mind on it. States or SC?

My own little troll...sweet!

Since I have already determined your intelligence level I will attempt to keep this in the simplest of terms. The federal government is a Constitutional Republic meaning their power is limited by the Constitution or supposed to be. When they enact stupid ass laws we are all stuck like with Obamacare. State law on the other hand is also based on a representative republic and often contested items are brought to a vote of the people. Now here is the part you are having trouble with...suppose a state enacts a bunch of stupid ass laws like California because it is filled with brain damaged morons. You can bring it to a vote (Proposition but then they will turn it over to their courts to defeat the will of the people. However, (now pay close attention here) a citizen can leave the screwed up state and move somewhere else that is less stupid (less liberals). Having somewhere else to go because you don't believe in the liberal crap they are feeding people gives you an avenue of choice. When he feds pass a stupid law everyone is stuck with it.

Now I am the first to acknowledge that liberalism is a terrible mental disease which there in no known cure but can you follow any of that son?

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Well Darth? Like I asked,
"What the ? Get off the fence, and quit switching sides, or avoiding it.
On this gay marriage deal, like you said "it lies within state rights based on a public vote not federal mandate."
I think this gay marriage deal should stay with the states rights. I've said or showed that a few times here.
Make up your mind. What's your stance? Yes or No?"

You're still avoiding this. You put up a lot of posts on here. Just going in circles. Make up your mind on it. States or SC?

My own little troll...sweet!

Since I have already determined your intelligence level I will attempt to keep this in the simplest of terms. The federal government is a Constitutional Republic meaning their power is limited by the Constitution or supposed to be. When they enact stupid ass laws we are all stuck like with Obamacare. State law on the other hand is also based on a representative republic and often contested items are brought to a vote of the people. Now here is the part you are having trouble with...suppose a state enacts a bunch of stupid ass laws like California because it is filled with brain damaged morons. You can bring it to a vote (Proposition but then they will turn it over to their courts to defeat the will of the people. However, (now pay close attention here) a citizen can leave the screwed up state and move somewhere else that is less stupid (less liberals). Having somewhere else to go because you don't believe in the liberal crap they are feeding people gives you an avenue of choice. When he feds pass a stupid law everyone is stuck with it.

Now I am the first to acknowledge that liberalism is a terrible mental disease which there in no known cure but can you follow any of that son?

Cop out. Still no stance on the issue.
States rights or SC on this? Which?
I'll make it real easy. SR or SC? Just type one or the other.

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Well Darth? Like I asked,
"What the ? Get off the fence, and quit switching sides, or avoiding it.
On this gay marriage deal, like you said "it lies within state rights based on a public vote not federal mandate."
I think this gay marriage deal should stay with the states rights. I've said or showed that a few times here.
Make up your mind. What's your stance? Yes or No?"

You're still avoiding this. You put up a lot of posts on here. Just going in circles. Make up your mind on it. States or SC?

My own little troll...sweet!

Since I have already determined your intelligence level I will attempt to keep this in the simplest of terms. The federal government is a Constitutional Republic meaning their power is limited by the Constitution or supposed to be. When they enact stupid ass laws we are all stuck like with Obamacare. State law on the other hand is also based on a representative republic and often contested items are brought to a vote of the people. Now here is the part you are having trouble with...suppose a state enacts a bunch of stupid ass laws like California because it is filled with brain damaged morons. You can bring it to a vote (Proposition but then they will turn it over to their courts to defeat the will of the people. However, (now pay close attention here) a citizen can leave the screwed up state and move somewhere else that is less stupid (less liberals). Having somewhere else to go because you don't believe in the liberal crap they are feeding people gives you an avenue of choice. When he feds pass a stupid law everyone is stuck with it.

Now I am the first to acknowledge that liberalism is a terrible mental disease which there in no known cure but can you follow any of that son?

Cop out. Still no stance on the issue.
States rights or SC on this? Which?
I'll make it real easy. SR or SC? Just type one or the other.

I was attempting to educate you so you stop coming across as being ignorant but I can see it is a lost cause. It really doesn't matter which one I "pick" but I will say the Supreme Court has zero authority to rule on this matter. Marriage is a religious ceremony before God between one man and one woman.
If you feel a nee to condone the perversion called Gay I suggest you form your own little organization that accepts pervasive and deviate behaviors and call it whatever you wish except marriage.

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Well Darth? Like I asked,
"What the ? Get off the fence, and quit switching sides, or avoiding it.
On this gay marriage deal, like you said "it lies within state rights based on a public vote not federal mandate."
I think this gay marriage deal should stay with the states rights. I've said or showed that a few times here.
Make up your mind. What's your stance? Yes or No?"

You're still avoiding this. You put up a lot of posts on here. Just going in circles. Make up your mind on it. States or SC?

My own little troll...sweet!

Since I have already determined your intelligence level I will attempt to keep this in the simplest of terms. The federal government is a Constitutional Republic meaning their power is limited by the Constitution or supposed to be. When they enact stupid ass laws we are all stuck like with Obamacare. State law on the other hand is also based on a representative republic and often contested items are brought to a vote of the people. Now here is the part you are having trouble with...suppose a state enacts a bunch of stupid ass laws like California because it is filled with brain damaged morons. You can bring it to a vote (Proposition but then they will turn it over to their courts to defeat the will of the people. However, (now pay close attention here) a citizen can leave the screwed up state and move somewhere else that is less stupid (less liberals). Having somewhere else to go because you don't believe in the liberal crap they are feeding people gives you an avenue of choice. When he feds pass a stupid law everyone is stuck with it.

Now I am the first to acknowledge that liberalism is a terrible mental disease which there in no known cure but can you follow any of that son?

Cop out. Still no stance on the issue.
States rights or SC on this? Which?
I'll make it real easy. SR or SC? Just type one or the other.

I was attempting to educate you so you stop coming across as being ignorant but I can see it is a lost cause. It really doesn't matter which one I "pick" but I will say the Supreme Court has zero authority to rule on this matter. Marriage is a religious ceremony before God between one man and one woman.
If you feel a nee to condone the perversion called Gay I suggest you form your own little organization that accepts pervasive and deviate behaviors and call it whatever you wish except marriage.

I take the conservative stance on this issue & side with the States' Rights. It's OK with me if you still can't make up your mind. Bi-sexuals are like that, too.

I take the conservative stance on this issue & side with the States' Rights. It's OK with me if you still can't make up your mind. Bi-sexuals are like that, too.

Hey Darth, did you make up your mind yet. I figure the SC arguments might have helped you.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Unfortunately the issue of same sex marriage is not clearly in the States domain due to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. Even if the States retain the right to define marriage as between a man and a woman, the Full Faith and Credit Clause may require those States to recognize same sex marriage. The DOMA clarifies that with Congress expressly giving those States the right to reject those types of marriage.

The case currently before the SCOTUS actually has more to do with $$$ and property and the tax free status given to the survivor of a traditional marriage. I see same sex marriage advocates as willing to jettison hundreds of years of English common law and US Constitutional property law while giving the impression that this is solely about "love".

If marriage can't be defined as exclusively between 1 man and 1 woman, then there really is nothing that should restrict polygamous marriages or consanguineous marriages.

Oh, Gomezz, you have nailed the reason why the SCOTUS must be involved in this issue.

... but, the love is NOT pretend.