Why should not homo couples have the same marriage rights as heteros?

Typically brilliant retort from the cheap seats.

 

I too am an atheist, but I also tend to believe that people come back to learn the lessons that they failed to learn in their last life. That's not religion. That is karma. You my boy will be in for a rough ride. You will learn what it's like to be treated with callousness and cruelty. To be disparaged and ridiculed just for who you are. I only hope that you are cursed with the ability to remember who and what you were in your past life so that you will know why you are suffering

 

What silliness. Marriage isnt limited to men and women in order to disparage and ridicule homosexuals. Marriage is so limited because only women give birth and only men are responsible for them doing so. Has nothing to do with their homosexuality or heterosexuality. It is their relative genders.

 

Marriage isn't limited to men and women.

Procreation is irrelevant to who can marry. It's why you keep losing in court.

 

Federal Appeals Court In Cincinnati To Hear Four States’ Marriage Cases In August

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-appeals-court-in-cincinnati-to-hear-marriage-cases

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals is ready to move forward on marriage cases pending before the court from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.

On Monday, the court announced that oral arguments in all of the cases — challenges to bans on same-sex couples’ marriages or recognition of those marriages in each state in the circuit — are set for 1 p.m. Aug. 6 in Cincinnati

Be prepared!!!

 

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker doesn’t want to talk about equal marriage, at least not so much anymore. ”I don’t think the Republican Party is fighting it,” Walker said last month when asked about the issue. ”I’m not saying it’s not important, but Republicans haven’t been talking about this. We’ve been talking about economic and fiscal issues. It’s those on the left that are pushing it.” Now it’s totally weird for a guy who is on the record as being pretty into his state’s ban on equal marriage and is currently defending it in court to say he’s done fighting the changing tides, but it’s also the new GOP line at a moment when they are falling increasingly out of step with the public on everything from LGBTQ rights to contraception.



http://www.salon.com/2014/08/07/gop..._issues_how_tables_turned_on_religious_right/

 

I say Homophobes (or Homo's for short) should have equal rights to marry their partners too

 

Only in your delusion. In the real world here in the US in most states it is limited to men and women.

 

Following federal court decisions striking down marriage equality bans in Oregon and Pennsylvania, marriage equality is currently the law of the land in nineteen U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

Today nearly 44 percent of the U.S. population lives in a state with marriage equality. Check out a state-by-state breakdown below.


State Population* Percent of U.S. Population*
California 37,253,956 12.07%
Connecticut 3,574,097 1.16%
Delaware 897,934 0.29%
District of Columbia 601,723 0.19%
Hawaii 1,360,301 0.44%
Illinois 12,830,632 4.15%
Iowa 3,046,355 0.99%
Maine 1,328,361 0.43%
Maryland 5,773,552 1.87%
Massachusetts 6,547,629 2.12%
Minnesota 5,303,925 1.72%
New Hampshire 1,316,470 0.43%
New Jersey 8,791,894 2.84%
New Mexico 2,059,179 0.67%
New York 19,378,102 6.28%
Oregon 3,831,074 1.24%
Pennsylvania 12,702,379 4.11%
Rhode Island 1,052,567 0.34%
Vermont 625,741 0.20%
Washington 6,724,540 2.18%

TOTAL 135,000,411 43.72%

http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/percent-of-population-living-in-states-with-marriage-equality

Following a federal judge's decision that gay couples in Idaho can legally marry as of Friday, the number of states that allow same-sex marriage jumps to 19. But despite being fewer than half of the states, back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that just about half of the U.S. gay population lives in a state that allows gay marriage. And if you consider states that have same-sex marriage decisions on hold, that percentage is poised to pass 60 percent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ajority-of-gay-americans-being-able-to-marry/

 

Folks , I found it! The source of 90% of the equine excrement that is being presented as "arguments" against marriage equality all in one article. Note that every one has been kicked out of one court or another, so why people keep trying them I'll never know. Enjoy!

 

No, That article was just written. The briefs the articles were written about, also were just recently written. It isn't the source of the argument,

1. The bans do not discriminate based on sexual orientation.
According to Utah, the state’s laws banning same-sex marriage “do not classify based on orientation; they classify based on sexual complementariness.” Because “the creation of new life requires both a mother and a father,”

That argument has been made since the 70s when a couple of gay people first got the idea they wanted to be married and made the argument to the court. From 1971

 

Perhaps you were unaware that we are up to 50 states now. The remaining 31 would in fact be "most states... limited to men and women".

 

When its activist judges creating a right of gay marriage, out of thin air, banning as unconstitutional, constitutional referendums within states to limit marriage to a man and a woman, it ceases to be a political issue to be resolved by politics. What does it matter if a politician supports gay marriage or not. That is generally dictated by the courts. Politics put Wisconsins limitation to men and women into the constitution. Now its a question of what the courts will dictate.

 

In other words- how judges interpret the Constitution.

 

Are you serious? A 1942 case about forced sterilization? You are really getting disparate! "Marriage and procreation . How does that show that procreation is essential to marriage and how does that negate the numerous times that procreation has been shot down by the courts since then in same sex marriage cases. You are really pathetic.

 

Yes it is a question of what the courts will dictate. And I think that you know which way that will go. You might as well get over it and join us on the right side of history in the 21st century, or die an angry old bigoted fool. Read my signature line

 

You keep editing out the parts of my post that you don't like

I can smell the fear and desperation. Pathetic!

 

No silly. I am quoting your silly Thinkprogress article YOU posted

Actually, its a 1971 case about gay marriage, quoting a 1942 supreme court case about forced sterilization and the violation of the individuals right to "marriage and procreation"

It shows how truly full of (*)(*)(*)(*) you are claiming to have found the "source" of the arguments for marriage limited to men and women. Your 2014 Thinkprogress article IS NOT the "source", demonstrated by the same arguments made 43 years earlier in Baker V Nelson.

 

No, I quote the only portion of your post that has any relevance to the post of mine that you responded to. One single state with marriage limited to men and women refutes Rahls claim and supports mine.

 

Go away you silly pest. You are like a horsefly at a family picnic

 

You've said a lot in such a short sentence as it often turns out that many homophobes are closeted homosexuals who overcompensate for their personal insecurities. Almost always they are Republicans.

 

??? YOU are the one who cant resist responding to my posts with your silly nonsense. I will respond to your silly nonsense you direct to me. If you cant deal with it, don't respond to my posts.

 

nope. marriage is recognized at the FEDERAL level as being between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

 

nope. the fact that one state recognizes same sex marriage, and the FEDERAL government does, refutes your claim of marriage limited to men and women.

 

I made no representations whatsoever as to the Federal governments recognition of marriage, sooooo what does your "nope" apply to?