never said i wanted to talk to her... 8^) my point is simply because you want something doesn't mean it's your RIGHT, let alone somebody else es responsibility to pay for it
Posted on 07/06/2014 5:10:26 AM PDT by Salman
The U.S. Constitution protects gay people’s right to marry the person they love. It does not, however, protect them from getting fired for doing so. Throughout the first decade of marriage equality, most states that legalized gay marriage also proscribed anti-gay employment discrimination, rendering this legal dissonance moot. But as more and more states find marriage equality foisted upon them by a judicial mandate, this discordance in rights presents something of a ticking time bomb for the LGBT movement.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
It is in the penumbra somewhere.
Even the perversions of Ancient Rome did not recognise a gay relationship as a legal marriage. We have outdone the most perverse societies of yore.
Author needs to check his premises.
“The U.S. Constitution protects gay people’s right to marry the person they love.”
I stopped reading at the first line.
Amazing how today’s authors will flat out lie in their attempt to distort reality around their perverse proclivities. This author is a liar, willfully and knowingly trying to deceive others. Dismiss him.
Homosexuality is a judgement on America.
This needs to be pointed out consistently - homosexuality will not just bring judgement upon our country; homosexuality IS the judgement. Romans 1:26 starts with “For this reason” and continues “God gave them up to vile passions.” “..men with men committing what is shameful”; so this is a judgement upon our society.
It also continues and says that they give approval to others for more and more evil acts. We see this today with our legislatures accepting
homosexual marriages and the teaching of it as acceptable in the schools.
Note also that Romans 1:32 points out that those who approve of such conduct are just as guilty as those who engage in it.
The liberals have there own Constitution it’s the only place you can find it.
Ignoring this erroneous claim about "The Constitution", a person may marry the person "they" love PROVIDED THAT:
-They aren't closely related
-They are of legal age to consent
-They are not already married
-They are of opposite gender
----
There are plenty of marriage partners who are available to others and just not "you".
Very disturbing article, a true window into the homofascist mindset. “one we impose gay marriage on them” “we achieved or ends through the courts”
“Mark Joseph Stern is a writer for Slate. He covers science, the law, and LGBTQ issues”
He doesn’t understand basic biology or law, but he’s got the pink power issues covered!
The Supreme Court never said that homosexuals had a “Right” to marry. It only said that states could not deny federal benefits to homosexuals that were legally married in other states.
This entire chain of events started in 2004 when three judges in Massachusetts “ordered” the state legislature to approve homo marriage. Thousands of degenerates from other states flocked to Massachusetts to get married then went back to live in their own states. They returned home filing lawsuits against their state to legally recognize the sham marriage. So now this is where we are with this mess.
They are NOT “gay”, they are filthy homosexuals, and they should be referred to as such.
“Thousands of degenerates from other states flocked to Massachusetts to get married then went back to live in their own states.”
And now they’re having troubles getting divorced in their home states.
.
Yeah well ... our “Conservative” SCOTUS (no they aren’t. Corporate is NOT Conservative) will soon make them a protected class and it will be unconstitutional.
Does anybody really believe that homosexual couples will get fired from a job for marrying a same sex partner????
If this ever happens, a lawsuit will be filed, and the courts will rule such an action to be illegal. Punitive damages will result.
Technically, maybe this could happen. Author is scare mongering. I’m saying that realistically, in this politically correct culture of ours, no employer would dare fire a homosexual employee who married a same sex partner. It just wouldn’t happen.
In fact, few employers dare fire minority peoples due to fears of a civil rights violation. The same is true of homosexuals nowadays.
A man “married” to another man just indicates that my expenses related to providing health insurance are likely to go through the roof. Providing HIV treatment is VERY expensive, and homosexual men have lots of other long-term health issues.
After all, what's good for the goose should be good for the gander, IF they're going for "EQUAL rights."
Mark
Scarlett J. is great, as long as she keeps her yap shut, or is only repeating those things screenwriters have drafted for her. Once she tries talking for herself, she gets silly (unintentionally) very quickly.
Mark
On the other hand, unless an animal rights whacko is on the court, human/animal marriages probably aren't in our future, as there's no way for an animal to give informed consent or agree to the contractual portions of the "marriage.
However, I do disagree with your point on procreation. I believe a man and a woman should be allowed to marry, even if they're NOT able to procreate, either due to biological reasons or age.
But for societal good, then yes, I do agree with you that for the good of society, and humanity in general, that a two parent (M&F) family is the preferential way to go.
Mark
It reminds me of the Monty Python bit in Life of Brian, where Eric Idle wants the right to have a baby. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R79yYo2aOZs Mark
never said i wanted to talk to her... 8^) my point is simply because you want something doesn't mean it's your RIGHT, let alone somebody else es responsibility to pay for it
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.