Same-Sex-Marriage Fight Shifts Back T...

Same-Sex-Marriage Fight Shifts Back To States

There are 115 comments on the National Public Radio story from Jun 26, 2013, titled Same-Sex-Marriage Fight Shifts Back To States. In it, National Public Radio reports that:

The dual victories the Supreme Court handed to gay-marriage supporters Wednesday seemed to temporarily shift the focus of the fight from Washington to the states.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at National Public Radio.

First Prev
of 6
Next Last
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#109 Jul 2, 2013
Le Jimbo = low information voter.

/that's a euphemism
senior citizen

Granite City, IL

#110 Jul 2, 2013
OkieDarren wrote:
<quoted text>
God says it's a marriage, and no amount of hate and stupidity from you and your Klan will change that.
Prove GOD says it's a marriage.
1 post removed

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#112 Jul 2, 2013
tea-baggage wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama doesn't have to worry about the vote poopie. He’ll never be on a ballot again. And the young voters aren't so young that they don’t remember what Bush/Cheney and the GOP did just a few years ago with illegal spying - starting unnecessary wars and trashing our environment and economy.
You disingenuously try to portray this as a one party problem. The voters don’t believe that for a minute – not even the youngest ones.
2014 will be about the economy and boner’s house of obstructionist fools has a terrible record there. Be worried poopie – be VERY worried.
Your point of obstrutionism with Reid still with 28 House bills passed by bipartisian vote in his bottom drawer is the key to obstructionism and combats your lies quite well. ObamaCare was passed with trickery and bribes, so your idea of obstuructionism or fillibustering is just what the founding fathers put the those in the rules for idiot. To prevent a one party government like obama's first two years of greed and spending.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#113 Jul 2, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Your point of obstrutionism with Reid still with 28 House bills passed by bipartisian vote in his bottom drawer is the key to obstructionism and combats your lies quite well. ObamaCare was passed with trickery and bribes, so your idea of obstuructionism or fillibustering is just what the founding fathers put the those in the rules for idiot. To prevent a one party government like obama's first two years of greed and spending.
Translation: my party lost the election, and I am still butthirt over it. Now everything they did that I liked I hate because the other guys are doing it.
conservative crapola

Kutztown, PA

#114 Jul 2, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>
reid protects us from likes of you reds. Life is a bitch. Ain't she?

hahahahahahahahaha

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#115 Jul 2, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
Well you can bribe liberal judges and politicians to buy your votes if they make laws against nature and God, but it is only marriage in the eyes of the foolish and stupid. Without natures definition, not ever Darwins theory would work.
What kind of cheese should we serve with such a pitiful little whine? Claiming to speak for God and Nature as backing up your futility, not helping, just desperate and pathetic at this point in the conversation. Your opinion, it still matters not one whit and it really don't matter who you claim endorses it. Sorry.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#116 Jul 3, 2013
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation: my party lost the election, and I am still butthirt over it. Now everything they did that I liked I hate because the other guys are doing it.
Translation, your powder be wet boy, it won't fire a BB two feet. Elections are won and lost, but the election of a marxist that is transitioning our country into debt ridden third world status is criminal. If you don't see it, you aren't american.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#117 Jul 3, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>What kind of cheese should we serve with such a pitiful little whine? Claiming to speak for God and Nature as backing up your futility, not helping, just desperate and pathetic at this point in the conversation. Your opinion, it still matters not one whit and it really don't matter who you claim endorses it. Sorry.
When you start you statement which is already at a loss because it is an unfactual attack, then lying about something I didn't say or claim makes you the whiner pookie and down right worthless. Well ride on little doggie Yippi KY KY KY

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#118 Jul 3, 2013
conservative crapola wrote:
<quoted text>
reid protects us from likes of you reds. Life is a bitch. Ain't she?
hahahahahahahahaha
CORNEL WEST: Obama Pushing Blacks to 'Back of Bus' in Favor of Gays...

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#119 Jul 3, 2013
Civil rights cant be voted on.....As long as this does not become voted thing were ok.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#120 Jul 3, 2013
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a thread about same-sex marriage. My post was speculation about people like you, people that think they can deny equal protection of the law to others and call themselves American.
You fail at being American.
You are not denied equal protection under the law, and never have been. You are asking the world to change the definition of marriage so you can get uncle sugars money, nothing more, nothing less.

“Emblem of the Brave and True”

Since: Sep 10

Los Angeles, CA

#121 Jul 3, 2013
Is the definition of marriage uniform worldwide? Is every wedding, marriage, family role traditionally unchanged throughout recorded history. Of course not. Gays arent changing the definition of marriage worldwide. Gays are making sure they are not prohibited from enjoying it by all these new ammendments that legislate definitions on marriage. Gay opponents have redefined marriage by having it defined and made law. They have changed a private ceremony joining two people in the presence of their higher power into a public affair centered around religiously decided immoralities of their private sexual behaviors with one another. Maybe its time for a constitutional ammendment banning marriages of two people who had sex already thereby keeping the sanctity of a traditional marriage.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#122 Jul 3, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Translation, your powder be wet boy, it won't fire a BB two feet. Elections are won and lost, but the election of a marxist that is transitioning our country into debt ridden third world status is criminal. If you don't see it, you aren't american.
Spare me the redneck idioms, I'm from the rural South. You will lost that contest.

I see now that you are one of those neo-McCarthyist loonies, so trying to explain what the law is to you in nonpartisan terms is pointless and futile. So perhaps I'll just troll you instead.

If you fail to understand even the basic fundamental concepts of our constitutional system of government, then you fail at being American.

So maybe, for a change, you should post something that doesn't make you look like an ignorant, ideologically drunk moonbat.

I bet you don't even have an accurate concept of what a Marxist is.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#123 Jul 3, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>You are not denied equal protection under the law, and never have been. You are asking the world to change the definition of marriage so you can get uncle sugars money, nothing more, nothing less.
No, of course I am not denied equal protection under the law. I'm an educated upper middle class heterosexual married WASP male, so when would I get the chance?

EP exists, like other civil rights, to ensure that certain fundamental rights are available to everyone, regardless of who happens to be in the majority at the time. Like other civil rights, it is there to protect against hte tyranny of the majority.

So when you talk about court decisions on civil rights usurping the will of the majority (which you don't have anyway), you prove to anyone reading your posts that you are truly ignorant of how civil rights work in the US.

That's not a political opinion, Jimbob. It's reality.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#124 Jul 3, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
When you start you statement which is already at a loss because it is an unfactual attack, then lying about something I didn't say or claim makes you the whiner pookie and down right worthless. Well ride on little doggie Yippi KY KY KY
"Unfactual" attack pumpkin? Lying about what you whined? Sweetie, you claimed that God and Nature shared you point of view, I just tried to disabuse of such silliness. Nature laughs at you and I doubt God even knows you.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min woodtick57 1,383,033
News Former President Clinton to campaign for Hillar... 1 min wowed 42
News States ratchet up transgender battle with lawsu... 1 min Clayton 5
News Trump ad hurls sexual-assault accusations again... 1 min PauldenZangpo0521 68
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 min NO HILLARY 2016 224,894
News Voters have trust issues with Hillary Clinton? ... (Jul '15) 2 min hal 6,062
News Protesters clash with police outside Trump rall... 2 min Curtain Rod 117
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 7 min JCK 384,016
News House takes action against Confederate flag, a ... 25 min Denny CranesPlace 213
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 28 min spocko 512
More from around the web