Another state just says no

[hedgehog]

:0074 Why is it so hard for you people to understand, the majority in this country do not want homosexual marriages...



http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-14/gay-marriage-Colorado-Republicans/54964500/1

 

[ImFeklhr]

Wait 10 years.
As our parents die and our kids grow up, states are gonna start just saying yes. (just an expression, because I'll never have kids and my parents are never going to die!)

I wish I could find the link that showed that support for gay marriage is going up 0.5%-1% per year. Basically laid out scenarios where its a forgone conclusion that the votes will flip in favor of gay marriage in short order.

Question for you hedge: Would you move to a no-gay marriage state if your state allowed gay marriage? Or would you just stay put and live with it? And what about when all states allow it? What tools will you use to cope?

 

[Cie]

:0074 Why is it so hard for you people to understand, the majority in this country do not want homosexual marriages...



http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-14/gay-marriage-Colorado-Republicans/54964500/1

At one time the majority were cool with Jim Crow laws. How absurd is that now?

Anyway, IMF is right. I haven't asked him, but can assure you that my dad is against gay marriage. Most in that generation are. Less are opposed in my generation, and there will be even less opposition in my children's generation.

 

[Chadman]

Did you even read your own article? Do you know why this "state" said "no?"

Hope this helps, from the article:

Republicans assigned the bill to House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee, which was likely to reject it. The panel voted 5-4 along party lines to kill the measure.

This did not even come to vote as I read this, and in the article it said there was enough support in the legislature to pass it.

Hardly a "state" saying "no," as you put it. It was a Republican party line committee vote to keep it from being a state vote. Not surprising, and far from any kind of STATEment.

 

[Tora!Tora!Tora!]

Did you even read your own article? Do you know why this "state" said "no?"

Hope this helps, from the article:

Republicans assigned the bill to House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee, which was likely to reject it. The panel voted 5-4 along party lines to kill the measure.

This did not even come to vote as I read this, and in the article it said there was enough support in the legislature to pass it.

Hardly a "state" saying "no," as you put it. It was a Republican party line committee vote to keep it from being a state vote. Not surprising, and far from any kind of STATEment.

You lost, get over it!









.

 

[Skulnik]

You lost, get over it!









.

:mj07:

 

[hedgehog]

Did you even read your own article? Do you know why this "state" said "no?"

Hope this helps, from the article:

Republicans assigned the bill to House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee, which was likely to reject it. The panel voted 5-4 along party lines to kill the measure.

This did not even come to vote as I read this, and in the article it said there was enough support in the legislature to pass it.

Hardly a "state" saying "no," as you put it. It was a Republican party line committee vote to keep it from being a state vote. Not surprising, and far from any kind of STATEment.

Republicans stopped it, thankfully...it's a matter semantics

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

Did you even read your own article? Do you know why this "state" said "no?"

Hope this helps, from the article:

Republicans assigned the bill to House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee, which was likely to reject it. The panel voted 5-4 along party lines to kill the measure.

This did not even come to vote as I read this, and in the article it said there was enough support in the legislature to pass it.

Hardly a "state" saying "no," as you put it. It was a Republican party line committee vote to keep it from being a state vote. Not surprising, and far from any kind of STATEment.

Republicans stopped it, thankfully...it's a matter semantics

:facepalm: :mj07: :facepalm:

 

[Chadman]

You lost, get over it!.

I didn't lose anything, nor would I have won anything. This wasn't about me. I was just making a comment about what actually happened in response to his claim. Thanks for your insight, though...

 

[bleedingpurple]

It was just a bunch of bigots voting.

:0008

 

[Skulnik]

It was just a bunch of bigots voting.

:0008

The Bigots Voted and they LOST.

:nono:

 

[MadJack]

I didn't lose anything, nor would I have won anything. This wasn't about me. I was just making a comment about what actually happened in response to his claim. Thanks for your insight, though...

:lol:

 

[bleedingpurple]

The Bigots Voted and they LOST.

:nono:

:mj07:

 

[Tora!Tora!Tora!]

I didn't lose anything, nor would I have won anything. This wasn't about me. I was just making a comment about what actually happened in response to his claim. Thanks for your insight, though...

Psy 101 ; All actions have a component of self.
Your comment was about you whether directly or indirectly.
Better get back to school.

 

[hedgehog]

Let me get this straight with you libs...

If someone doesn't agree with you then we are bigots or racists

I don't give a shit what other people do behind closed doors its not my business, I just do not think they should be able to get married and have the same rights as married heterosexual couples :shrug:

maybe we should outlaw all marriages since divorce rate is over 50%

What is wrong with differing opinions?

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

Let me get this straight with you libs...

If someone doesn't agree with you then we are bigots or racists

I don't give a shit what other people do behind closed doors its not my business, I just do not think they should be able to get married and have the same rights as married heterosexual couples :shrug:

maybe we should outlaw all marriages since divorce rate is over 50%

What is wrong with differing opinions?

Let me get this straight with you cupcake fattie...

You're a bigot. Nuff said. TIA.

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

Psy 101 ; All actions have a component of self.
Your comment was about you whether directly or indirectly.
Better get back to school.

You forgot your youtube evidence.

 

[hedman]

Hedgy,

How about using your Gun argument for marriages.

Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

Gays dont ruin the sanctity of marriage, people who divorce do.

I really am confused how these backward necks get all up in arms about their guns and their constitutional rights, including civil liberties and due process, but ask them about someone different then them you get the following:

No Abortion - cause I know whats right for all women

Food Stamps - Drug test these poor lazy people

Gay Marriage - not on my watch, I dont want to ruin my kids perception of a marriage, with one that might actually work.

Fucking Joke!!

And the whole So If I disagree with you I'm a racist and a bigot, let's set that straight. It's not because you disagree with anyone it's because your views and posts make you a racist bigot.

You are scared to call your own girlfriend a Mexican, because in your racist mind Mexican is derogatory. Fucking priceless homes.

 

[Tora!Tora!Tora!]

You forgot your youtube evidence.

Finally your boy is seeing the light! :142smilie

<iframe src='http://widget.newsinc.com/single.html?WID=2&VID=23623466&freewheel=69016&sitesection=breitbartprivate' height='320' width='425' scrolling='no' frameborder='0' marginwidth='0' marginheight='0'></iframe>









.

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

Finally your boy is seeing the light! :142smilie

<iframe src='http://widget.newsinc.com/single.html?WID=2&VID=23623466&freewheel=69016&sitesection=breitbartprivate' height='320' width='425' scrolling='no' frameborder='0' marginwidth='0' marginheight='0'></iframe>









.

How has anything I have ever posted contradicted what was said in this clip?