- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 104,071
- Reaction score
- 84,041
- Location
- Biden's 'Murica
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Ah.
Missed that.
Maybe he's NOT against it then. Wonder if he'll get re-elected?
Seems like he's done an OK job.He seems pretty popular but I don't live in your state.
Um....if you support the concept and practice of civil marriage, you do not denigrate the civil law it represents by calling the license issued "a piece of paper". It makes no sense to supposedly support SSM while putting down the law and structure that makes it possible.This is the opinion I was speaking of. Supporting SSM and what you think about civil marriage does not go hand in hand.
"Rights" are a matter of civil law, marriage is a civil contract, it is completely exclusive to argue there should not be civil marriage in the first place, and the con we are discussing has not expressed the idea that she rejects civil marriage....in the first place.A lot of Libertarians support the right of people to love who they want and marry them but would prefer their be no civil marriage in the first place. The two ideas are NOT mutually exclusive.
This is the result of people who are lazy and do not take the effort, time and energy to make their case to the public to earn their vote instead judge shop till they find a political appointed one of the same stripes to shove it through for them.
Seems like he's done an OK job.
One of the fairly prominent issues heard on the local radio news/talk station for the past 5 years or so in the area I live has been the state of Harrisburg's finances. That seems to be clearing up over the past year, though I'm unsure whether it's in any way due to something the Governor did...
It should be noted that the station in question is located in the city.
In their minds, that's exactly what they were doing.
The ones in CA who voted for Prop 8 were mostly religious people, based on the exit polls. Apparently it was their religion that caused them to vote as they did. I would need to see some evidence that their votes were based on an intent to ignore individual liberties.
I've never voted to ban marriage but it seems pretty obvious that the end result of a ban on gay marriage means that they can't get a marriage license and have their unions recognized as a marriage.
You can't ban prayer because you don't need the government's approval to pray in your shower.
Ah.
Missed that.
Maybe he's NOT against it then. Wonder if he'll get re-elected?
Correct, short of following people into their bedrooms. That didn't work so well, did it?
Proven?That's what I posted.
if they are proven to be unconstitutional, they end up getting overturned.
Proven?
A few pages ago you labeled Judge Walkers decision as "just an opinion", denigrating it.
Suddenly, now....such things are "proof"!
That is some consistency....not a contradiction....in terms....at all.
There you are, using homosexuality as an insult (and you are, since the vast majority of your posts to me are attempts to insult).The good news is with any luck the SCOTUS will agree with you & me, and SSM will be made legal throughout this country, and then you will be cleared to marry your boyfriend in whatever state in the southwest you live in. I will be very happy for you when that happens, gimme, because I think every adult should be able to marry whomever he chooses.
There you are, using homosexuality as an insult (and you are, since the vast majority of your posts to me are attempts to insult).
And this comes as a result of simply pointing out, once again, a contradiction of yours.
No, I said you attempted to insult by labeling someone as homosexual. The application of the label towards someone who has not expressed their orientation is usually done to insult....and again, your posts to me are 100% meant to insult, it is not in your nature to compliment me.....so yes, it is a clear attempt to smear. It is High School chit, and it is so weird seeing someone nearly the same age as me, who claims to have gay friends, who claims to be pro-SSM, act like this.I know a few gay people and they aren't insulted when discussing their preference of same sex versus opposite sex. You're insulted when people assume you're gay? Interesting.
Again, everything is personal for you, you can't stay focused on the point, your ARGUMENT......instead, it is personal.....so you try to use homosexuality as an insult, you make this about "obsession".....you get all defensive....in the wrong way.....because you cannot defend your ARGUMENT.Have you got some friends to go out with tonight so you can get your mind off me for a little while? I worry about you. But my husband and I have plans tonight and I can't give you all my attention for much longer.
No, I said you attempted to insult by labeling someone as homosexual. The application of the label towards someone who has not expressed their orientation is usually done to insult....and again, your posts to me are 100% meant to insult, it is not in your nature to compliment me.....so yes, it is a clear attempt to smear. It is High School chit, and it is so weird seeing someone nearly the same age as me, who claims to have gay friends, who claims to be pro-SSM, act like this.
Again, everything is personal for you, you can't stay focused on the point, your ARGUMENT......instead, it is personal.....so you try to use homosexuality as an insult, you make this about "obsession".....you get all defensive....in the wrong way.....because you cannot defend your ARGUMENT.
Calling someone a homosexual without knowing anything about their sexuality, and you know nothing about me in that regard, is always done to insult, and is not an acknowledging of anything....since again, you know nothing about me in this regard, nor have I expressed it.Wow. You just insulted a whole lot of gay people by telling them that acknowledging their lifestyle is now an insult.
Grab that beer quick. You need it.
Ah.
Missed that.
Maybe he's NOT against it then. Wonder if he'll get re-elected?
He's against it but not contesting the ruling...trying to have it both ways? Not piss off the pro-SSM types by contesting, but can still say he opposes it to those who are against it?Oh he is against still as far as i know, he's made no statement otherwise
I hardley doubt he gets reelected unless somethign horrible comes out about his opponents
That's what I posted.
if they are proven to be unconstitutional, they end up getting overturned.
Too bad in the eyes of the law this is irrelevant because "separation of church and state" and all
Amazing you can't get this simple concept. Move to saudi arabia if you want to live in theocracy
You DO realize that there is no reference to keeping the Church and State seperate in our Constitution, right ?
Of course. But you guys always claim intention of the founding fathers is important, right?
I always thought of the establishment clause as keeping state out of churches business.What our founding fathers wanted is explicitly contained in our Constitution.
You guys need to stop confusing the establishment clause with this whole separation of church and state rhetoric.
What our founding fathers wanted is explicitly contained in our Constitution.
You guys need to stop confusing the establishment clause with this whole seperation of church and state rhetoric.
T.J. said:Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams—who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"—Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."[1]
1.)He's against it but not contesting the ruling...trying to have it both ways? Not piss off the pro-SSM types by contesting, but can still say he opposes it to those who are against it?
2.)Then again, I think most people in PA just don't give a damn about stopping it...what's the point?
3.) If you're opposed to SSM, you very probably aren't homosexual, so...how does it effect you?
4.)It might just be that I don't know anyone overtly opposed...
5.)Personally, I think most people who dislike the idea of SSM tend to think "meh, it's their business".
6.)If he's trying to appeal to those persons, it might be a good move.
7.)Edit: On another note, I just realized you live in Pittsburgh...shows how observant I am...coincidentally I have a RL friend who lives there.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?