(05-28-2014 07:03 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  We can relitigate the issue here over and over again (this is what these message boards are for), but the point of the thread is that marriage equality has won where it actually counts - in the halls of political power. It's only a matter of time until gay marriage is legal in all 50 states.

no, it hasn't won where it counts. The ballot box is where it SHOULD count - and "marriage equality" or whatever you want to call it, has been overwhelmingly DEFEATED in votes by the people. Even in liberal havens like California. The people have spoken - the only place this issue is being "won" is in the courts by liberal judges who have activist agendas.

(05-28-2014 08:45 AM)MonarchManiac Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 07:03 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  We can relitigate the issue here over and over again (this is what these message boards are for), but the point of the thread is that marriage equality has won where it actually counts - in the halls of political power. It's only a matter of time until gay marriage is legal in all 50 states.

no, it hasn't won where it counts. The ballot box is where it SHOULD count - and "marriage equality" or whatever you want to call it, has been overwhelmingly DEFEATED in votes by the people. Even in liberal havens like California. The people have spoken - the only place this issue is being "won" is in the courts by liberal judges who have activist agendas.

You realize that you're gonna make him cry if you keep this up, right?

(05-28-2014 08:45 AM)MonarchManiac Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 07:03 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  We can relitigate the issue here over and over again (this is what these message boards are for), but the point of the thread is that marriage equality has won where it actually counts - in the halls of political power. It's only a matter of time until gay marriage is legal in all 50 states.

no, it hasn't won where it counts. The ballot box is where it SHOULD count - and "marriage equality" or whatever you want to call it, has been overwhelmingly DEFEATED in votes by the people. Even in liberal havens like California. The people have spoken - the only place this issue is being "won" is in the courts by liberal judges who have activist agendas.

Same sex marriage won at the ballot box in Washington, Maryland, and Maine in 2012. It was also passed by legislatures (representatives of the people) in Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and in DC. Republicans in the Indiana legislature recently reversed course and tabled a proposed constitutional amendment that would have banned same sex marriage after an outpouring of opposition from citizens and businesses in the state. Marriage equality is winning on all fronts because of public support.

The most recent polls (2014) put public support between 55% and 59%, and support has risen steadily for the last 20 years. It will likely continue to rise given massive support among those under 30. Even 61% of GOPers under 30 support same sex marriage.

Even GOPers looking towards a 2016 presidential bid are backing away from opposition to marriage equality. The bigots opposing same sex marriage have lost. They may be too prideful or stupid to admit it, but they've lost.

(05-28-2014 09:14 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 08:45 AM)MonarchManiac Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 07:03 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  We can relitigate the issue here over and over again (this is what these message boards are for), but the point of the thread is that marriage equality has won where it actually counts - in the halls of political power. It's only a matter of time until gay marriage is legal in all 50 states.

no, it hasn't won where it counts. The ballot box is where it SHOULD count - and "marriage equality" or whatever you want to call it, has been overwhelmingly DEFEATED in votes by the people. Even in liberal havens like California. The people have spoken - the only place this issue is being "won" is in the courts by liberal judges who have activist agendas.

Same sex marriage won at the ballot box in Washington, Maryland, and Maine in 2012. It was also passed by legislatures (representatives of the people) in Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and in DC. Republicans in the Indiana legislature recently reversed course and tabled a proposed constitutional amendment that would have banned same sex marriage after an outpouring of opposition from citizens and businesses in the state. Marriage equality is winning on all fronts because of public support.

The most recent polls (2014) put public support between 55% and 59%, and support has risen steadily for the last 20 years. It will likely continue to rise given massive support among those under 30. Even 61% of GOPers under 30 support same sex marriage.

Even GOPers looking towards a 2016 presidential bid are backing away from opposition to marriage equality. The bigots opposing same sex marriage have lost. They may be too prideful or stupid to admit it, but they've lost.

I've yet to see support for this from someone below 30 that is a Republican.

(05-28-2014 09:23 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 09:14 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 08:45 AM)MonarchManiac Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 07:03 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  We can relitigate the issue here over and over again (this is what these message boards are for), but the point of the thread is that marriage equality has won where it actually counts - in the halls of political power. It's only a matter of time until gay marriage is legal in all 50 states.

no, it hasn't won where it counts. The ballot box is where it SHOULD count - and "marriage equality" or whatever you want to call it, has been overwhelmingly DEFEATED in votes by the people. Even in liberal havens like California. The people have spoken - the only place this issue is being "won" is in the courts by liberal judges who have activist agendas.

Same sex marriage won at the ballot box in Washington, Maryland, and Maine in 2012. It was also passed by legislatures (representatives of the people) in Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and in DC. Republicans in the Indiana legislature recently reversed course and tabled a proposed constitutional amendment that would have banned same sex marriage after an outpouring of opposition from citizens and businesses in the state. Marriage equality is winning on all fronts because of public support.

The most recent polls (2014) put public support between 55% and 59%, and support has risen steadily for the last 20 years. It will likely continue to rise given massive support among those under 30. Even 61% of GOPers under 30 support same sex marriage.

Even GOPers looking towards a 2016 presidential bid are backing away from opposition to marriage equality. The bigots opposing same sex marriage have lost. They may be too prideful or stupid to admit it, but they've lost.

I've yet to see support for this from someone below 30 that is a Republican.

Me either. Must be a New Jersey thing.

(05-28-2014 09:14 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  The bigots opposing same sex marriage have lost.

There's no place in this society for your hate speech.

(05-28-2014 08:45 AM)MonarchManiac Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 07:03 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  We can relitigate the issue here over and over again (this is what these message boards are for), but the point of the thread is that marriage equality has won where it actually counts - in the halls of political power. It's only a matter of time until gay marriage is legal in all 50 states.

no, it hasn't won where it counts. The ballot box is where it SHOULD count - and "marriage equality" or whatever you want to call it, has been overwhelmingly DEFEATED in votes by the people. Even in liberal havens like California. The people have spoken - the only place this issue is being "won" is in the courts by liberal judges who have activist agendas.

We're on a 4-0 streak. ME, MN, MD, and WA. You guys haven't won anything recently.

(05-28-2014 11:56 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 08:45 AM)MonarchManiac Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 07:03 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  We can relitigate the issue here over and over again (this is what these message boards are for), but the point of the thread is that marriage equality has won where it actually counts - in the halls of political power. It's only a matter of time until gay marriage is legal in all 50 states.

no, it hasn't won where it counts. The ballot box is where it SHOULD count - and "marriage equality" or whatever you want to call it, has been overwhelmingly DEFEATED in votes by the people. Even in liberal havens like California. The people have spoken - the only place this issue is being "won" is in the courts by liberal judges who have activist agendas.

We're on a 4-0 streak. ME, MN, MD, and WA. You guys haven't won anything recently.

You giggly princess post aside, care to address my actual points?

So when losing at the ballot box, it doesn't belong in the voters hands and must be moved to the courts. In states that the voters get it "right" then the will of the people is supreme.

(05-28-2014 12:05 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 11:56 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 08:45 AM)MonarchManiac Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 07:03 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  We can relitigate the issue here over and over again (this is what these message boards are for), but the point of the thread is that marriage equality has won where it actually counts - in the halls of political power. It's only a matter of time until gay marriage is legal in all 50 states.

no, it hasn't won where it counts. The ballot box is where it SHOULD count - and "marriage equality" or whatever you want to call it, has been overwhelmingly DEFEATED in votes by the people. Even in liberal havens like California. The people have spoken - the only place this issue is being "won" is in the courts by liberal judges who have activist agendas.

We're on a 4-0 streak. ME, MN, MD, and WA. You guys haven't won anything recently.

You giggly princess post aside, care to address my actual points?

With his irrelevant retort, obviously he has no answer for your points. And it's all northern states that have fallen for the gay agenda like we should be surprised... Ole Tom is still batting below .050 in the South where people still have balls to stand for what they believe in.

(05-27-2014 11:44 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  yep.

15 years ago republicans were fierce opponents of civil unions.

today they are grabbing on to that stance as their last resort.

Gays will never accept civil unions. I know this b/c that's exactly what happened here in CT. They got the right to get married, but b/c the word marriage wasn't part of the equation, the gays pitched a world-class hissy fit. Smash cut to a year (or so) later and they got their word.

Of course not, It's "separate but equal"...that's been tried before.

(05-28-2014 12:06 PM)Paul M Wrote:  So when losing at the ballot box, it doesn't belong in the voters hands and must be moved to the courts. In states that the voters get it "right" then the will of the people is supreme.

Therein lies the rub.

Right now, the quickest way to guarantee gay marriage in your state is to have your legislature ban it.

How's that for a paradox? Don't want it? Don't ban it.

Before I clicked this link, I said to myself: "I bet defCONN is in this thread, making an ass of himself."

Lo and behold, I was right. I should get checked for signs of ESP.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(05-27-2014 11:06 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Marriage is the union of two unrelated consenting adults. It provides stability for the couple and benefits for society.

Tom, phrase marriage used to refer to a union of two unrelated consenting adults of which one was male and one was female. I find it telling that you only dislike the parts of the marriage law that negatively impact you but kept in the parts about "two," "unrelated," and "consenting." Do you not see the left's evolution to eventually want the removal of the words "two" and "unrelated?" I do.

There is no stopping an evolving definition.

(05-28-2014 12:15 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:44 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  yep.

15 years ago republicans were fierce opponents of civil unions.

today they are grabbing on to that stance as their last resort.

Gays will never accept civil unions. I know this b/c that's exactly what happened here in CT. They got the right to get married, but b/c the word marriage wasn't part of the equation, the gays pitched a world-class hissy fit. Smash cut to a year (or so) later and they got their word.

Of course not, It's "separate but equal"...that's been tried before.

*patiently waits to see if Fitbud comes along and calls UofMemphis a racist for using "separate but equal" in a post*

(05-28-2014 12:44 PM)Paul M Wrote:  There is no stopping an evolving definition.

Hey, at least we finally got a definition. That's something, right?
At any rate, in terms of the State sanctioned benefits that the Marriage Equality proponents want, the number 2 is exclusive. Unrelated is a little more grey because currently cousins can marry. The use of the word adult is very key. Contracts can only be entered into by adults so when people start saying next up people will be marrying kids, cows or trees they hurt their argument.
It's that 2 where equality issues arise. If more than 2 adults of either or same sex want to marry, why would the Marriage Equality crowd be opposed?

(05-28-2014 12:50 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 12:44 PM)Paul M Wrote:  There is no stopping an evolving definition.

Hey, at least we finally got a definition. That's something, right?
At any rate, in terms of the State sanctioned benefits that the Marriage Equality proponents want, the number 2 is exclusive. Unrelated is a little more grey because currently cousins can marry. The use of the word adult is very key. Contracts can only be entered into by adults so when people start saying next up people will be marrying kids, cows or trees they hurt their argument.
It's that 2 where equality issues arise. If more than 2 adults of either or same sex want to marry, why would the Marriage Equality crowd be opposed?

If "marriage" can be redefined, why not "related" or "adult"?

(05-28-2014 12:57 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 12:50 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 12:44 PM)Paul M Wrote:  There is no stopping an evolving definition.

Hey, at least we finally got a definition. That's something, right?
At any rate, in terms of the State sanctioned benefits that the Marriage Equality proponents want, the number 2 is exclusive. Unrelated is a little more grey because currently cousins can marry. The use of the word adult is very key. Contracts can only be entered into by adults so when people start saying next up people will be marrying kids, cows or trees they hurt their argument.
It's that 2 where equality issues arise. If more than 2 adults of either or same sex want to marry, why would the Marriage Equality crowd be opposed?

If "marriage" can be redefined, why not "related" or "adult"?

Don't give the titbags any ideas...

(05-28-2014 12:57 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 12:50 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 12:44 PM)Paul M Wrote:  There is no stopping an evolving definition.

Hey, at least we finally got a definition. That's something, right?
At any rate, in terms of the State sanctioned benefits that the Marriage Equality proponents want, the number 2 is exclusive. Unrelated is a little more grey because currently cousins can marry. The use of the word adult is very key. Contracts can only be entered into by adults so when people start saying next up people will be marrying kids, cows or trees they hurt their argument.
It's that 2 where equality issues arise. If more than 2 adults of either or same sex want to marry, why would the Marriage Equality crowd be opposed?

If "marriage" can be redefined, why not "related" or "adult"?

Why not...18 being an adult is just an arbitrary number/age anyway.