Typical righty, lumping somebody's views on an issue with others without them even stating it. I stated your comment to prove my point, which I did. Obcourse I was very alarmed with the way she threw her child, and I am also alarmed about the home invasion. It's not the specific acts, its your comments we are talking about here.

Don't tell me what I do or don't know. I don't know the founding fathers or what they thought of gay marriage, there's really no documentation in regards to that. However, I do believe they thought that the constitution could be changed in the future in keeping with the times. An example of this are abolishing slavery. But who the fuck are you to get on your high horse and say what's immoral and what isn't?

I've read enough of your posts to have a pretty good idea of your views. Honestly, I'd bet you really were more offended by my comments than the actions of those people who elicited them. They'd never admit it, but I swear many liberals consider racism (or what they consider to be racism) more alarming than murder, assault, etc.

Thanks oli. I took constitutional law in college, during my "maybe I should go to law school phase".

You couldn't be more wrong on that even if you tried. I think most people on here would have great ideas on your views (Religious conservative with a capital R) on many issues, since you always gracefully chime in with them whenever you get a chance. You have probably never even experienced/witnessed/or seen racism in your bubble and thus toss it aside like it doesnt exist anymore.

Oh, that's right, guys like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, or John Adams would have been just peachy keen with things like abortion and gay marriage.

And enough with this "keep up with the times" bullshit. If something is wrong, it's wrong, regardless of what year it is. And I'm not talking just morally, which I know you don't care about, but also legally. Once again, if states want to enact laws to allow gay marriage, so be it. But to argue there's any Constitutional basis for it is a lie. Just like the argument supporting abortion.

You've been around long enough to know I can't stand the Republicans almost as much as I can't stand the Democrats. I've said many times I'm an independent conservative. You, on the other hand, are a dyed in the wool partisan Democrat.

You should know I am not strictly a partisan Democrat. You on the other hand are a die hard conservative through the end, no matter how much you want to paint yourself as an independent. Your views prove otherwise.

In pretty much every political discussion on these forums, your default setting is liberal/Democrat.

As for myself, I certainly am a die hard conservative. But that's not the same as being a partisan Republican. I'm independent because I adhere to neither political party.

You know my personal views on these things. However I am in favor of gay marriage being left up to the states, but there is absolutely nothing in the constitution suggesting gay marriage is illegal or immoral. That's your view not George washingtons. A lot of things that we know to be wrong now weren't considered so back in the 18th century (no voting for women, slavery, etc) which is why one of the quotes dap posted has Madison stating that the constitution should be open to change.

I'm sure you would love to live in the 1950s ivy. You're a white religious guy living in Utah. But not blacks, women, gays, or Hispanics and many others. Today's world isn't perfect but id take it over 1953 any day

Your default 100% of the time is religious conservative in every one of your posts.

Ive already stated on here before a few times I have voted for more Republicans than Democrats in my lifetime and I work for arguably the most popular Republican in the nation. That shoots your idea of my default views in the water. You on the other hand have done nothing to prove otherwise.

No disagreement there. But I'm not a political partisan hack.



I really don't know how that could be, considering how you come down on everything. Sorry, I ain't buying it. At least not the voting thing.

It's called voting on the issues, regardless of party. I vote strictly on the issues, period. You should try it sometime.

If I actually voted, it would be on the issues. Like I keep saying, I adhere to neither party. But I'm willing to bet you're a registered Democrat.

The unconstitutional Morality Quarantine that was DOMA is no more.

You have no way of knowing that because you have no frame of reference. Neither do I for that matter (I didn't slide into the world until 1959).

Don't get me wrong, Joe. You know where I stand. As long as the government doesn't try to stick it down my Church's throat, I have no problem with gay marriages in City Hall or wherever. Because the truth is, as a Catholic, I had to be married in a Church anyway. So even City Hall marriages between straight people don't count in the eyes of the Church. And they don't bother me, so why should two guys (or girls) bother me?

But as far as referencing an earlier time period, you just wait thirty years until you're my age. I GUARANTEE you'll look back at the present as a "better" time, even if it isn't. It's just human nature to long for your youth through rose colored glasses .

Don't, for a second, think that couldn't happen. They had to twist the meaning of the Constitution just to get this far. Don't think that the same corrupt lawyers and judges won't do the same to go even further, given enough time.

I'll jump off that bridge when I come to it. Either that or just move to Italy. You think dual citizenship was cheap under Berlcusconi?

I just listened to Mark Levin's broadcast. In regard to today's SCOTUS decision, he referred to the Court's decision then corrected himself to say five members of the Court. Then he stated that we live in a post-Constitutional period.

This is a non issue in my opinion. hopefully the mainstream media conversation will focus on economic news/ federal debt/ Bernake leaving / high unemployment / QE3 running out etc.

Since 1888. More than a dozen times since 1888 the Supreme Court has recognized marriage as a fundamental right. It's nothing less than that. It is among the most intimate and personal choices a person makes and is central to the liberty guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. It's substantive due process, a vital Constitutright. I'd advise you to familiarize yourself with it.

Uh...then why did this country outlaw polygamy? Isn't that form a marriage a fundamental right, especially considering it has a first amendment basis with freedom of religion?

Bottom line, when it comes to the kind of marriage you like, you're quick to invoke the Constitution (though it doesn't apply and should be left up to the states). When it's not the kind you like, you don't make a peep. If this had been a polygamist marriage case going to the Supreme Court, instead of a gay marriage case, you and a lot of others here would have been arguing against polygamist marriage and saying there was no Constitutional basis for it. Your hypocrisy is so transparent it's not even funny.

I'll answer this. Ivy I don't a shit what two consenting two adults do behind closed doors. That includes polygamy. Fuck it, I don't care. I can't speak for all the other "libs" but I can speak for me. You know what's hypocrisy? You hardcore conservatives preaching for less government, yet you want to decide what Americans can and can't do in their bedrooms or in a marriage ceremony. That my friend is hypocrisy at its greatest. Nosing in on that is BS stacked a mile high. That includes the government intruding in on the Catholic Church. Leave it alone

I love how there's like five threads going on for the same issue, and we haven't even gotten into the abortion and immigration battles going on around the country right now.

@ IvyLeague, there is no significant support for polygamy in this nation or any other in the world outside of Africa and the Middle East, and thus that point of your argument is moot. Mostly because it's not possible to share marital rights and responsibilities equally between more than 2 people. Every first world nation on Earth says marriage is between TWO consenting adults. Period.

The great emancipator Abraham Lincoln almost sent the country to war with Mormons over that very issue, and if not for the war against the Confederacy indeed he would have. But let's not pretend states such as Utah, Arizona and others in fact don't "turn a blind eye" to FLDS polygamy where children (girls as young as 12) are married off against their will to much older men.

I could give a flying horse turd who wants to marry who, as long as those involved are consenting adults. That includes polygamy. I will admit that I think polygamy is weird, but only to the extent that I'm unable to understand why any man would wanna subject himself to more than one woman. One woman is more than enough for me, let me tell ya!

In case you hadn't noticed, nobody was kicking down the doors of homosexuals and saying what they could or couldn't do. The problem was created when they started trying to redefine marriage. Also, don't necessarily lump me in with all the "less government" conservatives. Government has it's place. But not in recognizing or giving sanction to gay marriages.



Wow. Talk about missing the point. So what if there is no significant support for polygamy? The whole argument of the gay marriage supporters is that they deserve the right to marry despite being a minority. That their right is based on the Constitution and not on public opinion. Of course, neither is correct. But in the case of polygamy, while there isn't widespread support, there is constitutional grounds when it comes to freedom of religion. By the way, Mr. Revisionist History, virtually every nation on earth, for millenia, has considered marriage to be between one man and one woman. Seriously, if you're going to enter this conversation, at least make a half-decent comment. Sheesh.



You're going by pure assumption that he would have sent the country "to war with the Mormons" if not for the Confederacy. Furthermore, officials in Utah and Arizona have hardly "turned a blind eye" to polygamists, especially those (like Warren Jeffs and his followers) who have married underage girls. I could give you several examples.

Once again, if you're going to get into this, know what you're talking about. Don't come here talking out of your ass. And don't try to make up some ridiculous, lying argument for gay marriage while, at the same time, trying to argue polygamy should still be outlawed.

Since I actually vote, unlike you (which I don't believe). I would be stupid not to be a registered Democrat in NYS, particularly if I want to vote in the primaries. NYS operates under a closed primary system, meaning only voters affiliated with a particular party may vote in its primary. The Democratic primary is the most contentious one with the most candidates and thus I want my vote to count. Now the general election thats a different story, I give every candidate a chance. Whoever I feel has the best ideas on the issues I care about, gets my vote. Doesnt matter if their from the Tea party, Communist party, the rent is too damm high party, Democratic, or Republican.

I've never voted in my life. Not once. In general elections, it's certainly pointless, as Utah is the most solidly Republican state in the union. There's more reason to vote locally though not much. Certain family members give me a hard time about it. I just don't like being put in the position where I have to vote for the lesser of two evils, which is usually the case.

Ivy, some of us know precisely what we speak of and haven't been brainwashed by a fringe cult that almost everyone in this country regards as clinically insane.

Abraham Lincoln supported the condemnation of Mormon plural marriage as a “relic of barbarism" and opposed statehood for Utah unless the Church renounced polygamy. In his 1857 speech on the Dred Scott case he said it was “probable” the Mormons were in “open rebellion” against the federal government. He then stated that therefore he was open to the idea of abolishing Utah as a territory and said the Saints should be “somehow coerced to obedience”. (Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings, 1832-1858, New York: Rutgers University Press, 1989, p. 390).

This is all after the Utah war took place in which several later Civil War generals (i.e Albert Sidney Johnston) and statesmen participated in. So please, save the ad hominems for the rest of the Kool Aid drinkers.

And 'so what if there is no significant support for polygamy?' This is the still the government by the people, of the people, and for the people, right? Every poll in this nation says there's more support in favor of same sex marriage than those opposing it, and it grows everyday. Polygamy isn't even a blip on the radar screen.

And it really doesn't matter what people thought of this 1,000 years ago or even 100 years ago, we've advanced on every other social issue so why not this one?

So now you speak for everyone, huh? You're speaking for yourself. Nothing more.



And this equates to him going to war with the Mormons?



Tell that to the people of California. And once again, you can't agree with the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage (which they say is based on the Constitution) and then turn around and say polygamy should remain illegal based on some public opinion argument. Hell, at least other libs here are being somewhat consistent by saying they would allow polygamy. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.



You and other gay marriage supporters like to quote these polls, which are often conflicting. Last I checked, far more states have ban gay marriage than allow it. Which is precisely why gay marriage supporters have to go through the courts. They know they will lose in the court of public opinion most of the time.



Hardly. Divorce is around 50%. Ever increasing numbers of children are born out of wedlock. As well as raised without a mother in the home. The feminist movement has about sex without consequences - the worst thing to happen to women. How many diseases have been spread about by people fornicating like animals? 50+ million abortions in this country since Roe v. Wade. Attempts to get tax-payer funded sex changes. The minimization of the differing identities and roles of men and women. Women in combat, as well as SEALS and Rangers for God's sake. Reverse racism in the form of affirmative action. And now federally recognized gay marriage.

What planet are you living on?