Senate approves historic legislation to protect same-sex marriages

PostmodernProphet said:
because lib'ruls feel they are entitled to redefine the English language to fulfill their political agenda.......
Click to expand...

I do not really care what you call it, but when you use a word in legislation that gives privileges to certain people who engage in a civil contract, you cannot discriminate against homosexuals.
 
Jarod said:
I do not really care what you call it, but when you use a word in legislation that gives privileges to certain people who engage in a civil contract, you cannot discriminate against homosexuals.
Click to expand...
Liberals do feel they are entitled to redefine the English language to fulfill their political agenda...just as PmP said.

For centuries marriage was reserved to a man and a woman.

Now we have to accept that it's between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

What next, a man marries his dog?
 
Last edited:
Jarod said:
I do not really care what you call it, but when you use a word in legislation that gives privileges to certain people who engage in a civil contract, you cannot discriminate against homosexuals.
Click to expand...

This. It has nothing to do with religion or morality. No clergy is required to perform a gay marriage ceremony. It is as simple as you described it. Marriage is a contract between the married couple and the government that provides benefits to the individuals who are married. Denying those benefits to two individuals solely on the basis of their sexual preference is constitutionally protected (at least until the scumbags on SCOTUS take that away).
 
Earl said:
Liberals do feel they are entitled to redefine the English language to fulfill their political agenda...just as PmP said.

For centuries marriage was reserved to a man and a woman.

Now we have to accept that it's between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

What next, a man marries his dog?
Click to expand...

You see, that’s how progress works. Forever europeans considered Black people as lesser people. Americans consider them to be people that could be owned, but we improved and moved forward.

Centuries of defining something one way, does not make it correct or OK.

For centuries, many people thought the earth was the center of the universe, now we know better.
 
guno said:
The Senate on Tuesday approved legislation to codify protections for lawful same-sex and interracial marriages, marking a historic win for Democrats anxious to secure the rights amid growing concern that a conservative Supreme Court majority could take them away.


The Respect for Marriage Act had been largely expected to pass after it earned essential support from 12 Republicans during a key test vote just before Thanksgiving, putting it on a glide path to President Joe Biden's desk later this month. The bill next heads to the House, which is expected to vote on it next week -- as early as Tuesday -- before Biden signs it.

Codifying same-sex marriage into federal law became a top priority for Democrats in light of the Supreme Court's decision in June to overrule its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision guaranteeing a constitutional right to abortion nationwide.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...A14I1vD?cvid=ba3c459564d047c493f4bdb502134142
Click to expand...

..But it hasn't passed the House yet. ;)

Furthermore it is very unlikely to. It's bullshit legislation that does nothing good for the people of our country.
 
Jarod said:
You see, that’s how progress works. Forever europeans considered Black people as lesser people. Americans consider them to be people that could be owned, but we improved and moved forward.

Centuries of defining something one way, does not make it correct or OK.

For centuries, many people thought the earth was the center of the universe, now we know better.
Click to expand...

Your poor grammar fails you again.

"Americans consider them to be people that could be owned, but we improved and moved forward."

Had you used the past tense, your sentence would be correct ie. Americans considered them to be people that could be owned, but we improved and moved forward.

For decades, people thought that there was a Constitutional right to abortion.

Decades of defining something one way, does not make it correct or OK.

Now we know better.

The Supreme Court may need to rule on this "law" which isn't law til the House rules on it.
 
Last edited:
Jarod said:
I do not really care what you call it, but when you use a word in legislation that gives privileges to certain people who engage in a civil contract, you cannot discriminate against homosexuals.
Click to expand...

fuck them.....its not a real marriage and never will be....
 
Jarod said:
The laws of the United States of America.
Click to expand...

agreed.....the laws passed by the idiots in control of the government at the time they were passed require us to pretend that gay marriages are like real ones......we've covered this.......the next time someone else controls the government the laws may change.......it happens......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
agreed.....the laws passed by the idiots in control of the government at the time they were passed require us to pretend that gay marriages are like real ones......we've covered this.......the next time someone else controls the government the laws may change.......it happens......
Click to expand...

It is literally the legal definition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top