Think the polygamists are feeling left out of this wildly widening definition of marriage?
Aren’t marriages supposed to be happy?
Oh, he meant homosexual. Why didn’t he say so?
Yes, and the ban on marriage of fathers to daughters, men to 8 year old boys, and women to dogs is also unconstitutional according to the Obamacrats.
If it is a "states rights" issue, then WHAT is Barack going to be "fighting for" as President? The President has no say in matters of state.
Scenario:
2 arsenokoits get married and then adopt a young child (male).
At the age of 18, they divorce with one of the “parents” entering into marriage with the adopted child. They adopt a child.
THAT’S WHAT i’M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. SINCE WHEN CAN A JUDGE MAKE LAW.
Not surprising since there’s a rumor that he’s been pole vaulting with Rev. Wrong.
what a tangled web he weaves...
They'll try, but they won't be able to keep this bottled up. It's gonna be the gift that keeps on giving, all summmer long.
Will someone please explain to me once again how this man will win in November? In arnoldfornia 3 of 5 are against it and gay “marriage” will be just another log on the fire. barack mcgovern can bring down lots of rats with him IF the GOP can find a message.
Homosexuals need to keep in mind, however, that the good news of the gospel is not about how God despises same-sex sexual relationships. In fact, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 indicates that certain members of that church had been slaves to such relationships but had been cleansed in Jesus' name. So these former homosexuals had evidently repented and accepted God's grace to straighten their lives out.
John 3:16
Revelation 3:20
So he’s for states rights “”..and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage...”” Yet is happy about a court overturning a law on the books supported by the people. Either you support the people in the state or not.
This post (<-click), while addressing taxes, helps to explain why government "leaders" like Obama are actually in contempt of the Constitution that they have sworn to defend, foolishly following in the footsteps of FDR's dirty federal spending politics. In fact, the article referenced below shows that Obama is the #1 federal spending proposer in the Senate for '08; Clinton is #2.
Obama, a big-shot federal spenderThe people need to reconnect with the Founder's division of federal and state government powers. The people then need to wise up to the major problem that the federal government is not operating within the restraints of the federal Constitution, particularly where constitutionally unauthorized federal spending is concerned.
The bottom line is that the people need to send big-shot, Constitution-ignoring federal spenders like Obama home as opposed to trying to send people like him to the Oval Office. The people need to get in the faces of the feds, demanding a stop to constitutionally unauthorized federal spending while appropriately lowering federal taxes - or get out of DC.
Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law,....
The Obama Edsel rolls on......
How can anyone enjoy a natural right, bestowed by "Nature's God," to engage in unnatural acts? The idea is self-contradictory, not that anyone believes in contradictions anymore.
“Same-Sex Unions”
This phrase is disturbing on so many levels...
Sooo.... Have the Cal Supreme Court geniuses defined consumation for same-sex couples? If not, why not? Aren't same-sex marriages supposed to be equal to true marriages? If so, then what is the purpose of such a "consumation"? Is it subjective (perverse) pleasure? If so, then by this definition of marriage, any interpersonal act that begets pleasure is a "marital act."
The absurdities are endless. It takes years of schooling and never having worked to get this stupid. What complete and utter idiots.