Obama switching positions.

[hog88]

We will see if/how it affects his support within the minority groups. Most of them are largely anti-gay marriage.

I just think that now that the cat is out of the bag he has to propose something allowing gay marriage at the federal level. Otherwise his jesture is empty.

 

[slh1089]

But pursuit of happiness is a right and it could be argued that this is taking that away.

 

[golfballs]

But pursuit of happiness is a right and it could be argued that this is taking that away.

That's a difficult argument to make

 

[volinbham]

But pursuit of happiness is a right and it could be argued that this is taking that away.

Then anything that makes me happy should be legal.

 

[utvolpj]

Then anything that makes me happy should be legal.

as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others and I don't have to pay for it when you're doing it/done

 

[slh1089]

Then anything that makes me happy should be legal.

In this case it is legal for one group but not another.

 

[slh1089]

as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others and I don't have to pay for it when you're doing it/done

Bazzinga

 

[golfballs]

as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others and I don't have to pay for it when you're doing it/done

Sex w the cadaver of a dead spouse?

 

[therealUT]

But pursuit of happiness is a right and it could be argued that this is taking that away.

Not by anyone who understands the origin of the phrase "the pursuit of happiness".

 

[volinbham]

as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others and I don't have to pay for it when you're doing it/done

Again we are talking should vs "is". The pursuit of happiness right is never read this broadly and I doubt the founders intended for it to be.

In this case it is legal for one group but not another.

Legal in the sense that privileges are attached. There are hundreds of instances in our laws where certain groups get privilege while others don't and they are not all unconstitutional under the "pursuit of happiness" right

 

[golfballs]

In this case it is legal for one group but not another.

That's the issue, IMO

 

[utvolpj]

Sex w the cadaver of a dead spouse?

pretty sure that doesn't affect me one bit. Does it you?

 

[hog88]

as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others and I don't have to pay for it when you're doing it/done

Indirectly you may have to pay for it with increased taxes to cover the additional spousal benefits opened up for federal/state workers.

 

[utvolpj]

Indirectly you may have to pay for it with increased taxes to cover the additional spousal benefits opened up for federal/state workers.

then either give up all benefits or suck it up like you would if the were in a hetero marriage. Frankly they shouldn't get any benefits from my tax money besides a paycheck anyway.

cut out the fraud and we save money anyway

 

[golfballs]

pretty sure that doesn't affect me one bit. Does it you?

Just checking :hi:

 

[hog88]

then either give up all benefits or suck it up like you would if the were in a hetero marriage. Frankly they shouldn't get any benefits from my tax money besides a paycheck anyway.

cut out the fraud and we save money anyway

What??

 

[golfballs]

However, there's no doubt that gay marriage has an impact on society. Those who argue against it say it has a negative affect, therefore should be outlawed. Same reason as a lot of laws that are currently in place.

 

[slh1089]

Not by anyone who understands the origin of the phrase "the pursuit of happiness".

I think i have a decent grasp.

 

[volinbham]

As a 14 year old my pursuit of happiness was violated by the inability to buy liquor and drive and vote.

 

[slh1089]

However, there's no doubt that gay marriage has an impact on society. Those who argue against it say it has a negative affect, therefore should be outlawed. Same reason as a lot of laws that are currently in place.

What is the negative aspect?

 

[slh1089]

As a 14 year old my pursuit of happiness was violated by the inability to buy liquor and drive and vote.

Those risk the safety of others.

 

[therealUT]

I think i have a decent grasp.

Then you understand that it is a Lockean allusion to property and property rights; it is not an allusion to sentiment, pleasure, and/or satisfaction.

 

[volinbham]

What is the negative aspect?

dirty, dirty buttsecks

 

[volinbham]

Those risk the safety of others.

According to who? That's the standard? Crap we need a whole bunch of new laws then.

 

[slh1089]

Then you understand that it is a Lockean allusion to property and property rights.

Yes, however some have argued that that may not be 100% correct. What sucks is we don't have TJ or George Mason sitting around to help us out.