Mitt's out! (interstate, crimes, racist, black president)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
States issue marriage licenses, you don't have to get a marriage license in every state, so it is already a federal issue.
Just give it up, we get it, you are against gays getting married.
LMAO!! I could care less. My point is where in the constitution it gives the feds the power to tell the states how to define marriage or define any social cultural change?
give it up? case close?.....just because a few activist judges think otherwise?
4. Times have changed even in the 6 years since the California ban has changed. Romeny was in the majjority of people 6 years ago. Not anymore, especially when it comes down to Amending the Constitution
Anyway, about to head out for the night so any response from me will have to wait until tomorrow
wow things changed that much in 6 years???? amazing!!!.....keep repeating what Hollywood and the media narrative is.
If the Tea party had not beat him up so badly during the primaries, Mitt Romney may well have won the election. Unfortunately, the USA got more of Obama.
So what lessons will be learned by this? Hopefully with the primaries coming up, moderates like Jeb Bush or Christy will not be castigated as a devil incarnate as Romney was by the tea partiers earlier.
By adopting a take no prisoners approach and no compromises which images that that the NRA has used for the past decade or so, has not served the USA well. Be careful Tea Partiers, what you ask for you may get exactly the opposite. Obama proved that.
The right wing ideology, whether that be through the tea baggers or that flip-flopping Frankenstein Mitt Romney, is repulsive to the well-being and continued progression of this country. He lost because he ran into a far superior man, with a far superior ideology, in President Barack Obama. Blowhard Conservatives can't run from this reality. Pretending to be moderate is not going to help elect another Bush.
Romney stinks as does his ideology. He's not even a has-been. He is a NEVER-WAS.
Where is your proof of why Romney lost the last election? 5-10% controlled the entire election? Sorry, but no it isn't true. There are far more Americans opposed to gay marriage than there are those who are for it. You even citied the latter as only being 5-10% . I see math wasn't your strong point.
You are completely wrong.
The majority of Americans (55% to be exact) SUPPORT gay marriage. I googled it for you.
35 states now have gay marriage legalized. This year, the Supreme Court is going to take up the issue and hopefully make it a nationwide policy, as expected. It will be a major victory for all Americans -- gay and straight.
What I meant by 5-10% was that about 5-10% of the entire population is gay, and probably 5-10% of the voting population is gay as well. Had that 5-10% voted for Romney instead of Obama, then Romney would have won in 2012. Thankfully he didn't.
We will continue to keep voting Democrat until the Republican party changes its platform to support same sex marriages permanently, because it's the moral thing to do, and the majority of Americans agree, as evident in polls galore.
The right wing ideology, whether that be through the tea baggers or that flip-flopping Frankenstein Mitt Romney, is repulsive to the well-being and continued progression of this country. He lost because he ran into a far superior man, with a far superior ideology, in President Barack Obama. Blowhard Conservatives can't run from this reality. Pretending to be moderate is not going to help elect another Bush.
Romney stinks as does his ideology. He's not even a has-been. He is a NEVER-WAS.
Are you a plant? You always say glowing things about Obama without substantiation. And then you disappear.
What is so superior about Obama's ideology? In fact, what IS his ideology and why is it "far superior"?
35 states now have gay marriage legalized. This year, the Supreme Court is going to take up the issue and hopefully make it a nationwide policy, as expected. It will be a major victory for all Americans -- gay and straight.
What I meant by 5-10% was that about 5-10% of the entire population is gay, and probably 5-10% of the voting population is gay as well. Had that 5-10% voted for Romney instead of Obama, then Romney would have won in 2012. Thankfully he didn't.
We will continue to keep voting Democrat until the Republican party changes its platform to support same sex marriages permanently, because it's the moral thing to do, and the majority of Americans agree, as evident in polls galore.
From your poll - "As has been the case in the past, support for marriage equality is higher among younger Americans; the older an American is, the less likely he or she is to support marriage for same-sex couples. Currently, adults between the ages of 18 and 29 are nearly twice as likely to support marriage equality as adults aged of 65 and older"
I see, so change your point of view (bullying) or we will destroy you. Is that the deal? I guess an opinion differing from liberals is unacceptable. So much for their tolerance. The GOP doesn't think it is the moral thing to do. What makes you think you're right and they are wrong? There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees any right to a same sex marriage. As I asked, what's next will it will be a right to marry your dog, your own siblings or offspring? The list goes on and on.
From your poll - "As has been the case in the past, support for marriage equality is higher among younger Americans; the older an American is, the less likely he or she is to support marriage for same-sex couples. Currently, adults between the ages of 18 and 29 are nearly twice as likely to support marriage equality as adults aged of 65 and older"
I see, so change your point of view (bullying) or we will destroy you. Is that the deal? I guess an opinion differing from liberals is unacceptable. So much for their tolerance. The GOP doesn't think it is the moral thing to do. What makes you think you're right and they are wrong? There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees any right to a same sex marriage. As I asked, what's next will it will be a right to marry your dog, your own siblings or offspring? The list goes on and on.
You can't be serious.
I'm not saying that a differing opinion is unacceptable. What I'm saying is, that in order for the Republican party ideology to begin to succeed at attracting people who traditionally vote Democratic because of gay marriage, they would literally have to change their platform to support gay marriage. It's not bullying. I don't care. I'll continue voting Democratic as long as the two parties differ in their position on this issue. However, if for some reason the Republican party DOES support gay marriage, then I will consider voting for them.
Your downward spiral argument is a complete joke. Gay marriage is not the same as marrying a dog or siblings, etc. Gay marriage is a union between two people of the same sex. It shouldn't even be called "gay" marriage. It's just marriage. Keeping gay marriage illegal does absolutely NOTHING to strengthen the family unit. Without gay marriage, gays will still have sex with each other, have long term relationships with each other and carry on with their lives. They aren't suddenly going to become attracted to the opposite sex and marry them. As I gay person myself, I can tell you now....that would NEVER happen. And what about the fact that nearly HALF of straight marriages end in DIVORCE? Or that there are many straight marriages in which they have no children.
The bottom line is that people get married to someone else because they love them and want to make their commitment official. The reason why the government is involved is because of complex issues such as custody of children, joint financial interests, healthcare decisions, and the like.
There is absolutely no valid argument for or against marriage equality. Sorry.
He was a advocate for Civil Rights and his stance for civil rights was in direct opposition to the tenants of the Mormon church.
When you say "civil rights," I'm assuming you're referring to civil rights for African-Americans. The Mormon Church has never denied "civil rights" to African-Americans, but for many years did deny them the right to hold priesthood authority in the Church. I'm not really sure what George Romney's view of that particular Church policy was, but it's really kind of misleading to imply that his views on civil rights were "in direct opposition to the tenets of the Mormon Church."
Best president that never was? Thanks for nothing, Tea Party
Poor Willard.
Now he'll just have to sit in his seaside California mansion with his hundreds of millions of dollars and stew over what never could have happened. He can always play with the new car elevator if he gets bored.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pure nonsense
You always say glowing things about Obama without substantiation. And then you disappear.
Best president that never was? Thanks for nothing, Tea Party
