You’re not “restricting” marriage. The union of a heterosexual couple is simply what marriage is. It’s like saying the government has restricted pregnancy to women and that it’s inconsistent with the 14th amendment.

Shump on November 26, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Brilliant comparison.

The bottom line is that government can no more deem pervert unions ‘marriage’ than it can deem a dog’s tail to be a leg, to borrow from an old joke. ‘Civil unions’ were an attempt to meet them halfway, but that wasn’t good enough for the rainbow mafia.

It simply is true. Sure not everyone in the GOP is thrilled with that idea either. But Bush came out in support of them while president. Long before Obama ‘evolved’.

Actually, it’s not true and you’d know that if you followed the history of all this as well as what each of these amendments state along with what its proponents were pushing. Bush may have expressed support for civil unions, on a state level, but never did anything about them on the Federal level nor did he do anything about his own party which pushed efforts to ban them in most of the states which have adopted these amendments. As for Obama, he’s a tool and just like Romney would say or do anything if he believed it were politically advantageous to him.

If you weren’t more interested in using the issue as a political wedge than accomplishing a goal, you could have utilized that.

MechanicalBill on November 26, 2012 at 10:22 AM

I’m not certain whether to be more stunned or amused at the audacity of your statement here in light of how the GOP has exploited this for political purposes since at least 2004 – not to mention how gays in general have been one of their favorite boogeymen for most of my life.

That’s simply not true. Putting aside the alleged inadequacies of civil unions, the GOP has fought efforts to enact them in just about every state where they have been proposed. Indeed, in most of the 32 states where amendments have passed the GOP and its soc-con allies have backed explicit prohibitions of not just same-sex marriage but also civil unions/DPs.

JohnAGJ on November 26, 2012 at 8:22 AM

It simply is true. Sure not everyone in the GOP is thrilled with that idea either. But Bush came out in support of them while president. Long before Obama ‘evolved’. If you weren’t more interested in using the issue as a political wedge than accomplishing a goal, you could have utilized that.

I don’t see how restricting marriage to heterosexual couples is consistent with the 14th Amendment.

eaglescout_1998 on November 25, 2012 at 11:37 PM

You’re not “restricting” marriage. The union of a heterosexual couple is simply what marriage is. It’s like saying the government has restricted pregnancy to women and that it’s inconsistent with the 14th amendment. In neither case is the government restricting anything. It’s simply acknowledging what is.

Slippery slope it is. And they don’t even see it, do they? Oh noes.

tommy71 on November 26, 2012 at 8:50 AM

They don’t see it? Just look at the liberal f*ckwit who spit on someone who dared to point out the end result of sanctioning perversion.

Though he is right about one thing, IMHO: if the SCOTUS is our last hope than we really have lost the battle, and now we’re relying on emergency measures.

If you go to that horrifying display of sodomite depravity (and San Francisco tradition) known as the Folsom Street Fair, you can buy a “Baby Jesus butt plug” so I am guessing the answer is #3: they just like poking their collective thumb in the eye of religion.

Odysseus on November 26, 2012 at 8:34 AM

Yes, because we all know that gays are exactly alike and agree with everything another gay person does just because they are also gay. Why, it’s just like the liberal stereotype of troglodyte Christians that folks like Bill Maher just love to hype. Yep, there are no other Christians than these and everyone knows they are all the alike.

Way to miss the point bucko.

Here’s what’s at stake: if the SCOTUS greenlights pervert ‘marriage’, it blows to hell all the state-level efforts to ban it, and the floodgates will be opened a la Roe, where one decision unleashed a tidal wave of wickedness. Get it now?

MelonCollie on November 26, 2012 at 8:19 AM

Back atcha. I understood your point, but you apparently missed mine. The very fact that you have to rely so heavily upon these is an indication that you are losing the cultural battle. I’m not suggesting giving up that effort, even though I strongly disagree with you and wouldn’t mind if you did, just that you fighting a losing war unless you change people’s hearts and minds on this matter. Until then you will be constantly putting out brush fires as they keep cropping up all over and they’ll eventually overrun you.

It’s not clear if they just really love word, nanny government could give the acceptance their parents won’t, they want to insist on putting a thumb in the eye of the traditional and religious, or they like the attention. But for a group that once fought successfully to get government out of the bedroom, they seem to want to bring it back in with enthusiasm.

MechanicalBill on November 26, 2012 at 12:45 AM

If you go to that horrifying display of sodomite depravity (and San Francisco tradition) known as the Folsom Street Fair, you can buy a “Baby Jesus butt plug” so I am guessing the answer is #3: they just like poking their collective thumb in the eye of religion.

But gays have been offered “civil unions” by both parties. That would have let everyone have their cake.

MechanicalBill on November 26, 2012 at 12:45 AM

That’s simply not true. Putting aside the alleged inadequacies of civil unions, the GOP has fought efforts to enact them in just about every state where they have been proposed. Indeed, in most of the 32 states where amendments have passed the GOP and its soc-con allies have backed explicit prohibitions of not just same-sex marriage but also civil unions/DPs.