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.
Yeah, maybe in another time it was supposed to, but ask the voters in CA... what went wrong (hint = involving black robes).
Hint: If every voter in a state voted in favor of a ballot measure that was unconstitutional, it wouldn't matter that it passed with 100% support. Unconstitutional means unconstitutional.
See, now you, too, have the right to marry another man. You should rejoice that your freedom has been expanded. After all, that's where we live, right? The Land of the Free.
New Mexico gave ALL it's residents more freedom. They didn't say that heterosexuals were not allowed to marry someone of the same gender. If they had, then you would have been right in claiming that they bestowed special rights. Alas, same-sex marriage is open to all.
Homosexuals already had the right to marry, the same as people who did not choose to be gay did.
Hint: If every voter in a state voted in favor of a ballot measure that was unconstitutional, it wouldn't matter that it passed with 100% support. Unconstitutional means unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court of the United States has never ruled on the constitutionality of marriage laws that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Homosexuals already had the right to marry, the same as people who did not choose to be gay did.
I've said it before - the only people who can say with any authority that you can possibly choose to be gay are those capable of "choosing" it themselves.
Wrong. Those were civil rights issues which were rightly corrected by the Republican Party despite resistance from Democrats who wanted to keep the franchise a white male club - and those same Democrats defended Jim Crow, kicking and screaming when Republicans(the party of Lincoln) passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Really?
Democrats in the House supported the original House version of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by a vote of 152-96.
Democrats in the Senate supported the Senate version (the version that would be passed and signed) of the bill 46-21.
House Democrats supported the Senate version of the bill 153-91.
Northern Democrats in the House supported it 145-9 (94%), a higher rate than Republicans either North or South (85% for Northern Reps in the House 0% for Southern Reps in the House), in the House, the Dems even got 7 Southern representatives to support it, the Reps got 0.
In the Senate, Northern Democrats supported it 45-1 (98%) a higher margin than Republicans from either North (84%) or South (0%).
I've said it before - the only people who can say with any authority that you can possibly choose to be gay are those capable of "choosing" it themselves.
Homosexuals already had the right to marry, the same as people who did not choose to be gay did.
Sure. And now heterosexuals have the right to marry people of the same sex, too.
Freedom has been expanded! That's what you want, right? Freedom. Government out of our business.
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.
