I'm voting for Jeb! </barf>
Sorry Jeb. God beat you and the states to it, when He created, defined, and instituted marriage at the beginning of the creation.
We can probably safely state that his actual view is likely 180° out from his statement here.
Especially considering he went full tard on common core and other liberal feel good buzzwords.
He got lit up for it, and now he wants to pull a snow job to seem like he isn’t all that bad.
What a putz.
who’s jeb bush?
Good for Bush, but duh?
Sorry Jeb, no sale.
Jeb could promise me a new Porsche and he still wouldn’t get my vote.
GOD'S not a lawyer neither and He authored the situation .... lawyers have NOTHING to do with a LOT of the questions America is facing today.
He’s pulling a McCain. Utter BS.
Why is Jeb accepting the premise of these questions?
No wonder conservatives are going to stay home.
He should have been honest and said, It’s not yet.
In fact my advise would be for him not to bother trying.
lol
nice try Jeb.
But sorry, we aren’t buying what your selling!
He said, “I don’t, but ...”
That doesn’t sound like someone with a moral compass, but someone who wants to get elected and then get all wishy washy on marriage.
I too am more than a little annoyed by that term. I prefer “genuine marriage”, as it is more accurate.
Ooh, his lib base is not going to like this
Watching an entitled GOP rings liberal candidacy. What a s storm
(When page opens, click on "Jackson bushes".)
“'I don’t, but I’m not a lawyer [emphasis added], and clearly this has been accelerated at a warp pace,' he said."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Contrary to Jeb’s PC implication that you need to be a lawyer to understand the Constitution, the Supreme Court has clarified that the Constitution was written so that us ordinary folks could understand it.
“3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition.” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
Noting that the only sex-based right that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect is voting rights as evidenced by the 19th Amendment, the basic question about the constitutionality of the so-called “right” to gay marriage is the following.
What is the age of the youngest grade school student who can read the Constitution and conclude that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage, the states therefor free to make laws which prohibit gay marriage?
Finally, note that if the 17th Amendment had never been ratified then there would probably be all different faces on the Supreme Court at this time. And if such was the case, then patriots probably wouldn’t have to be concerned about pro-gay activist justices wrongly trying to legislate the so-called “right” to gay marriage from the bench.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear and activist justices along with it.
“It’s marriage, to call it any other name means there are other types of marriage, which there’s not.”
I agree with what you are trying to say. Only a man and woman bound together can make a “marriage.”
However, to me the term “traditional” means more than just a male and female married. It means it is a lifetime commitment to be “traditional.” Divorces are rare and not a something ever quickly considered or granted easily by law - there is no such thing a “no fault” divorce. “Traditional” marriage is not something you do after living with (a pre-marital sexual arrangement) another...it is what you do before any sex. In a “traditional” marriage world, sex is reserved for marriage only. A legal marriage is a license to engage in sex with that one other person of the opposite gender...and gives it the blessings and protection of law. It protects the couple, their children and family, and it protects the society they live in.
So, to me, “traditional marriage” does have meaning. I wished it did for many more.