Posted on 01/06/2015 1:09:50 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Jeb has keen political insight like Wolf Blitzer answers on Jeopardy!
Lifetime commitment?
Yeah, when they celebrate their 50th Anniversary together, I’ll give them respect for their lifetime commitment to each other.
Maybe even on their 25th Anniversary I will.
Not before then.
OMG will that fool never shut up? Go away Jeb. I’ll vote for Hitlery before I ever support you.
I can’t figure out why I’m supposed to respect a man for playing with another man’s private parts, or sticking things in places they are only inconveniently stuck. Even if Christian (and most other forms of) morality were not part of the equation, it would seem to be a neutral matter, at best, with some regard for the obvious mental and physical health issues. I don’t “respect” normal people for having sex or even for getting married. I might be happy for them, I might not. I respect people for their integrity, their achievements, their ability to deal with adversity, etc ... People who are worthy of respect in one area might be completely unworthy of respect in several others. What the hell does Jeb mean? Why do I have to respect them? Why do they “deserve” it?
So a lifetime commitment is the test, Jeb? What if one man and five or six women make a lifetime commitment together? Should they be able to get married? What if a mother makes a lifetime commitment to her son? Should they be allowed to get married? More muddle-headed nonsense from a shallow thinker, just like all the other Bushes.
The fact is, legislature after legislature, in a demonstration of “democracy”, passed laws against homosexual marriage.
It’s the fascist COURTS that are overruling the beloved process of democracy and shoving the sodomite agenda down our throats.
Just wanted to forward to you an example of what most conservatives think of the courts.
My golden retriever deserves respect. But that doesn’t mean I’d allow him to marry. Especially another male golden retriever.
And here is another example of what a conservative thinks of the courts.
Jeb believes that Deviants will reserve themselves to just one other Deviant FOREVER. Yeah, and dogs will do the same, Jeb.
People degrading the concept of marriage do not deserve respect.
Respect? Respect this moral depravity? This evil perversion?
Just go burn in hell, Jeb, you POS!!!! My God, how I despise bastards like you. Go choke to death!
Let's no even get into the fact that some folks actually believe Rand Paul is Conservative.
Do you (collective “you,” not 2ndDivisionVet) understand how very real the Jeb Bush threat is? Is it worth supporting the one-percenter over a Ted Cruz when a loss means Bush/Christie/Paul?
Two faggots committing to sodomize each other deserve contempt, Jeb.
Oh gawd nooooo..........
People like PapaNew are the reason WHY people like Jeb can get elected and sugar-coat the queer marriage agenda.
20 years ago he got it right. Now he is pretending there is no difference.
Look, I am willing to tolerate behavior I disagree with....do it all the time in a society that is pluralistic.
I do not agree with society forcing me to endorse, celebrate, and equate that behavior with what marriage has been for centuries.
The Judeo-Christian faith does not endorse such activities, and now this pagan society is ramming it down our throats. That is wickedness.
Two gay people wanna pretend they have a healthy relationship and give each other shared property rights, etc.? As far as I know that has NEVER been a problem.
The gay lobby is seeking more than that--it is seeking validation and endorsement from those who disagree with the behavior (see: bakers and photographers who are Bible believing Christians). And sadly some of the courts have gone along with the fascists.
Egocentric village idiot.
We don't need to demand that society redefine any institution to recognize our special relationship.
That is just it, either a civil union or a marriage is at its foundation, a contract between two people for a long-term commitment. Now, most contracts are written, for the most part including those of civil unions, and have enforceable clauses, open to review by disinterested parties that make a decision as to the intent of those clauses. Marriages differ from most contracts, in that most of the terms are UNWRITTEN, and are only interpreted by an edict from a court specializing in this branch of civil law. Using this large body of case law, the individual circumstances of each marriage may be examined when there is some contention as to the degree of commitment each of the parties has to maintaining that contract, and the adjudication is administered accordingly.
If you want messy, the various interpretations of just what “marriage” means are fertile ground.
Do these same-sex couples really want to complicate their lives that much?
“Is it worth supporting the one-percenter over a Ted Cruz when a loss means Bush/Christie/Paul?”
Is it the same as supporting the one-percenter?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.