Unanimous ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Only **'s support same sex marriage.

[PlatyPius 5]

Only **'s support same sex marriage.

That is SUCH an insightful and intelligent comment.

Obviously, Mags is a man and I'm a **.....

(and there's no apostrophe in "homos", cretin.)

I'm not bound to accept the view of the Supremes as my own. The Supremes also gave us Plessy v. Ferguson. The fact remains that if marriage is a right, you wouldn't need government to be married, but you do, so it isn't. Even after the Loving case, states still had anti-miscegnation laws on the books until 2000. If you want to get into court cases and how marriage laws evolved, I can do that. Legal and historical research is what I do most days.

Back up here - your original gripe was that you couldn't understand why non-gays would take issue with gay rights and I explained to you the logic. No matter how hard you try to paint this as some kind of liberal movement vs. a national awaking to the injustice of laws that discriminate based on someone's sexual orientation, the truth is in plain sight. In the tradition of the struggle for women's right to vote, for desegregation and to end laws against inter-racial marriages, we Americans fight fiercly for the very freedom and liberties our country was founded on. It's just too bad that can't see beyond your own subjectivity to see that this struggle for gay marriage is following a long tradition of justice for all.

See that brick wall over there? It has more intelligence and is more open to logic than VW.....

ie: don't bother.

Edited April 4, 2009 by PlatyPius

[sj5 4]

Good for them.

Edited April 4, 2009 by sj5

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Only **'s support same sex marriage.

That is SUCH an insightful and intelligent comment.

Obviously, Mags is a man and I'm a **.....

(and there's no apostrophe in "homos", cretin.)

I'm not bound to accept the view of the Supremes as my own. The Supremes also gave us Plessy v. Ferguson. The fact remains that if marriage is a right, you wouldn't need government to be married, but you do, so it isn't. Even after the Loving case, states still had anti-miscegnation laws on the books until 2000. If you want to get into court cases and how marriage laws evolved, I can do that. Legal and historical research is what I do most days.

Back up here - your original gripe was that you couldn't understand why non-gays would take issue with gay rights and I explained to you the logic. No matter how hard you try to paint this as some kind of liberal movement vs. a national awaking to the injustice of laws that discriminate based on someone's sexual orientation, the truth is in plain sight. In the tradition of the struggle for women's right to vote, for desegregation and to end laws against inter-racial marriages, we Americans fight fiercly for the very freedom and liberties our country was founded on. It's just too bad that can't see beyond your own subjectivity to see that this struggle for gay marriage is following a long tradition of justice for all.

See that brick wall over there? It has more intelligence and is more open to logic than VW.....

ie: don't bother.

That's the kind of response you offer when you run out of logic.

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

Only **'s support same sex marriage.

you may be onto something there (no pun intended)

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=128140

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Only **'s support same sex marriage.

That is SUCH an insightful and intelligent comment.

Obviously, Mags is a man and I'm a **.....

(and there's no apostrophe in "homos", cretin.)

[

It wasn't meant to be insightful or intelligent.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Only **'s support same sex marriage.

you may be onto something there (no pun intended)

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=128140

What if a gay illegal marries a gay citizen; would they be eligible for a waiver?

[PlatyPius 5]

Only **'s support same sex marriage.

That is SUCH an insightful and intelligent comment.

Obviously, Mags is a man and I'm a **.....

(and there's no apostrophe in "homos", cretin.)

I'm not bound to accept the view of the Supremes as my own. The Supremes also gave us Plessy v. Ferguson. The fact remains that if marriage is a right, you wouldn't need government to be married, but you do, so it isn't. Even after the Loving case, states still had anti-miscegnation laws on the books until 2000. If you want to get into court cases and how marriage laws evolved, I can do that. Legal and historical research is what I do most days.

Back up here - your original gripe was that you couldn't understand why non-gays would take issue with gay rights and I explained to you the logic. No matter how hard you try to paint this as some kind of liberal movement vs. a national awaking to the injustice of laws that discriminate based on someone's sexual orientation, the truth is in plain sight. In the tradition of the struggle for women's right to vote, for desegregation and to end laws against inter-racial marriages, we Americans fight fiercly for the very freedom and liberties our country was founded on. It's just too bad that can't see beyond your own subjectivity to see that this struggle for gay marriage is following a long tradition of justice for all.

See that brick wall over there? It has more intelligence and is more open to logic than VW.....

ie: don't bother.

That's the kind of response you offer when you run out of logic.

No, that's the kind of response I give when I remember that logic is your kryptonite and that I'm just wasting my time. You will never answer a question. You will never give a valid reason for being.....you. I had plenty of logic. That's how I arrived at the POV that I have. You are the anti-logic, and after a while, my mind grows numb and I have to just walk away and forget you exist for a few weeks. But then I see an ad for Rush Limbaugh, and I'm reminded of your existence again....

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Only **'s support same sex marriage.

you may be onto something there (no pun intended)

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=128140

What if a gay illegal marries a gay citizen; would they be eligible for a waiver?

Maybe not, but they could get in state tuition in Maryland

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

Only **'s support same sex marriage.

you may be onto something there (no pun intended)

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=128140

What if a gay illegal marries a gay citizen; would they be eligible for a waiver?

Maybe not, but they could get in state tuition in Maryland

and an aide position with barney frank

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Only **'s support same sex marriage.

you may be onto something there (no pun intended)

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=128140

What if a gay illegal marries a gay citizen; would they be eligible for a waiver?

Maybe not, but they could get in state tuition in Maryland

and an aide position with barney frank

MA was the first state to legalize same sex marriage, and Barney eats his corn the long way.

[fozzie 41]

I'm not bound to accept the view of the Supremes as my own. The Supremes also gave us Plessy v. Ferguson. The fact remains that if marriage is a right, you wouldn't need government to be married, but you do, so it isn't. Even after the Loving case, states still had anti-miscegnation laws on the books until 2000. If you want to get into court cases and how marriage laws evolved, I can do that. Legal and historical research is what I do most days.

Back up here - your original gripe was that you couldn't understand why non-gays would take issue with gay rights and I explained to you the logic. No matter how hard you try to paint this as some kind of liberal movement vs. a national awaking to the injustice of laws that discriminate based on someone's sexual orientation, the truth is in plain sight. In the tradition of the struggle for women's right to vote, for desegregation and to end laws against inter-racial marriages, we Americans fight fiercly for the very freedom and liberties our country was founded on. It's just too bad that can't see beyond your own subjectivity to see that this struggle for gay marriage is following a long tradition of justice for all.

It's a terrible injustice to grant rights on the basis of whom you like to **. In no way is this analygous to the strugge of women or racial minorites. As a woman and a racial minority, I strongly object to that comparison as manipulative and self-serving.

You think that because you still believe that being homosexual is a lifestyle choice. Its not. They are born that way so yes it is the same as racial discrimination (unless race is a choice too. Michael Jackson has grayed the issue somewhat).

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

Only **'s support same sex marriage.

you may be onto something there (no pun intended)

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=128140

What if a gay illegal marries a gay citizen; would they be eligible for a waiver?

Maybe not, but they could get in state tuition in Maryland

and an aide position with barney frank

MA was the first state to legalize same sex marriage, and Barney eats his corn the long way.

but what does he do with the cob?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Only **'s support same sex marriage.

you may be onto something there (no pun intended)

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=128140

What if a gay illegal marries a gay citizen; would they be eligible for a waiver?

Maybe not, but they could get in state tuition in Maryland

and an aide position with barney frank

I can't find that position in the Kama Sutra.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I'm not bound to accept the view of the Supremes as my own. The Supremes also gave us Plessy v. Ferguson. The fact remains that if marriage is a right, you wouldn't need government to be married, but you do, so it isn't. Even after the Loving case, states still had anti-miscegnation laws on the books until 2000. If you want to get into court cases and how marriage laws evolved, I can do that. Legal and historical research is what I do most days.

Back up here - your original gripe was that you couldn't understand why non-gays would take issue with gay rights and I explained to you the logic. No matter how hard you try to paint this as some kind of liberal movement vs. a national awaking to the injustice of laws that discriminate based on someone's sexual orientation, the truth is in plain sight. In the tradition of the struggle for women's right to vote, for desegregation and to end laws against inter-racial marriages, we Americans fight fiercly for the very freedom and liberties our country was founded on. It's just too bad that can't see beyond your own subjectivity to see that this struggle for gay marriage is following a long tradition of justice for all.

It's a terrible injustice to grant rights on the basis of whom you like to **. In no way is this analygous to the strugge of women or racial minorites. As a woman and a racial minority, I strongly object to that comparison as manipulative and self-serving.

You think that because you still believe that being homosexual is a lifestyle choice. Its not. They are born that way so yes it is the same as racial discrimination (unless race is a choice too. Michael Jackson has grayed the issue somewhat).

Why put words in my mouth? I believe they were born that way, at least most are. That still doesn't change my views.

PS- race is a social construct, not a concrete biological fact.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Barza Woman