To be honest I don't think many on here have a true understanding of AK's position. Yeah, I know, he throws out insults at most here who don't agree with his ideas, but that isn't unique to him or to either side of the debate. I do not really think he's opposed to same sex couples gaining access to marriage. Not at all. What he's not in favor of are end runs and legal gymnastics getting around democratic approaches. I believe he sees it as a state's rights issue more than a federal one.<quoted text>
May? He is talking about 7 other than the ones with bans currently in place, he is counting on California legislature agreeing with such a measure LOL and Nevada... saying he only needs 7 is a joke, he won’t even get the current 31 that have bans in place ... and some of those bans won’t be in place for long, that 31 is a declining number.
Is there a place we can put down a wager on that not happening?
( chuckle )
It is a pipe dream for him, but just a joke, it doesn’t have the support to pass
He makes a few good points on matters but it appears, to me anyway, that the intent behind them isn't received. If I tell you that by stepping off the curb in heavy traffic that there is a good chance you'll get hit, it is not the same as stating I want you to get hit. Ergo the warning about mandates handed down through the judiciary while many aren't ready to accept them may lead to quite the backlash. There are some fairly conservative areas in many states that have good resources and are quite capable of influencing outcomes both in legislative actions and elections.
What is better? Acceptance through force or through enlightenment?