Gay Marriage Gets Thumbs Up in Nation's Capital

[Lakewooder]

Originally Posted by go phillies

Another reason (among the many) that I'm glad I don't live in DC.

Catfish are jumpin'
That paddle wheel thumpin'
Black water keeps rollin' on past just the same

Old black water, keep on rollin'

[AeroGuyDC]

Originally Posted by wehotex

Ca is not as liberal as you think. although the coastal areas and major cities are "blue", the rest of the state is "cherry red". the CA campaign was fraught with outright deception and lies perpetrated by the mormons, catholics and other right wing fanactics. that's why Prop 8 went to defeat.

I could give a ******* if CA is conservative or liberal. All I know is the ******* Speaker of the House is from California. If a state can spew out such liberal stupidity from its loins, and keep re-electing her, then the whole ******* state must be a farce. Which we all know California is.

Can you tell I hate Nancy Pelosi and everything she stands for?

As for the DC gay vote, it still has a couple hurdles to pass, but it is likely to become law sometime next year.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC

If a state can spew out such liberal stupidity from its loins, and keep re-electing her,

The state doesn't elect members of Congress. She is elected by the 8th District of California, and that's it.

then the whole ******* state must be a farce. Which we all know California is.

Yeah, right. The 8th largest economy in the world is a "farce".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...es_nominal_GDP

[AxisMundi]

Originally Posted by Nomander

Incorrect. Marriage has had inclusions to its coverage over the years as societies grew and more civilized issues came about concerning the legalities of such contracts, it has not been "redefined".

Words matter because they are the foundation of proper understanding. This is why slang does not exist in legal realms as a method to establish meaning.

It matters not what the average person thinks, they will call it what they will regardless of its legal understanding. That's fine, nobody cares about ignorant use of words in the informal realms.

Civil Union is more appropriate and it should be assessed as such in the legal world.

We have had this discussion over and over, I am simply stating that if they keep pushing in this direction AND continue to use corrupt bodies of the elect to enforce it on the people against the peoples will, then it will result in a backlash to homosexuals in general.

There has been a lot of people lost in support for this movement due to their actions of ignoring proper ways to establish and conduct a grievance. Marriage being changed to meet emotional demands is childish and immature.

You ask, why should the word matter? I explained a proper valid reason that is not based on emotion or bias. It is simply a fact of the word.

What reason exists in support of a change that is not based on emotional grounds? Is there a logical and valid reason to support the change rather than attend to a more proper declaration such as a civil union?

One man, one woman.
One man, several women.
One man, several woman and or men.
One man, one man.
Arranged only.
For love.
To cement political/business ties.
To preserve a line of nobility.
Not present in a society.

Some of the "definitions" of marriage. One cannot "redefine the definition" of a subject that has never HAD one definition, not even in this Nation.

And as I pointed out earlier, which you ignored, "civil unions" are in no way, shape, or form considered "equal".

Religion has never held title to either the practice of, nor term, marriage.