same Sex marriage

[francisco acosta]

 

Why is this topic all over the news lately?, why is everybody from both sides of the aisle like Sen Rob Portman, Justice Roberts, Hillary Clinton, Sen Kay Hagan “evolving” on the issue?.

We have bigger problems and the liberals and rinos have been beating this drum for a couple of weeks now. It puzzles me, liberals don't need their votes because the gay community votes democrat no matter how many times they only get empty promises and doesn't make any sense for republicans because they will anger a big sector of their constituents

What made me wonder was the big push in social media by moveon.org, what is the role of George Soros on this?. I have two theories:

Like in the amnesty to illegal aliens issue, they are trying to convince the republicans that is a good idea, because you know that the democrats are such nice guys and like to give republicans advice in how to steal voters from them. I predict that abortion is going to be next,  some rino will say that the party has to “evolve” to win...mine as well put Hillary in the republican ticket.

Same sex marriage has been struck down by voters most of the time it has been in the ballot, they are trying to circumvent the will of the voters by taking it to the supreme court.. If it's recognize by scotus, does it becomes the law of the land?, if it does. what happens when some churches refuses to marry them, its the church violating their court given civil rights?, but what happens to the 1st amendment then?. Can the federal government then mandate the church to marry same sex couples like they are forcing them now to provide birth control to their employees? What happens if they don't?

I think the people behind this agenda are misleading and playing with the feelings of a lot of people while trying to further erode our family structure and religion.  No opposite party, no traditional family cell and no religion means further growth of the underclass needed by them to retain power and with no religion, there is a void that can easily be filled by the state with proper indoctrination.

Panem et circenses

[Patricia M. McBride]

Francisco, it is a sad state of affairs when the republicans allowed themselves to be co-opted into this degradation of morals.  I was highly disappointed when they made the announcement about gay rights.  This is less than 2% of the population, and certainly personally I have no truck with gays, but it is being made to sound like it is a huge proportion of our population when it is not.  I also disagree  with the statement that they don't have equal rights.........they do have the same rights as anyone else and can marry.  They just can't marry someone of the same sex, or their dog, or a tree.  Defining marriage as the bible does is not stopping gays from having any relationship they want to have, it simply says no to allowing the degrading of marriage to include any union someone chooses.............and dogs and trees could be next.  

[amanda choate]

Francisco, nothing the Supremes decide will effect a church's decision to marry or not marry someone.

If you are saying we need to protect marriage, well then out of wedlock sex and divorce are of much graver dangers to the institution of marriage. We should outlaw these two things first before we make it say that some people cannot exercise their own free will and that the state knows better who should be able to join together.

And we can't use the Bible as a resource because half the characters in that book either had multiple wives or were married to family members.