"Since running for governor in 2002, Romney has said he supports "domestic partnerships" for same-sex couples that include "the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship."
What else they might include is not entirely clear, and this is the tricky part for a candidate trying to keep social conservatives happy without alienating swing voters by seeming intolerant or insensitive to the problems gay couples face because of their unequal legal treatment. "
At the very least, Sullum has actually acknowledged that gay couples face unequal legal treatment. That is a start for conservatives. It also shows how cynical and political Romney's stance is.
Last Thursday, the day after President Obama finally endorsed gay marriage, his campaign released a video that faults his presumptive Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, for not doing likewise.
"President Obama is moving us forward," the ad says. "Mitt Romney would take us back."
In a sense, Obama is the one going back, returning to a position he took as a political novice in 1996. But the same changes in public opinion that made it thinkable for him to stop equivocating on gay marriage present a challenge to Romney as he repositions himself for the general election.
Sixteen years ago, when Obama...
they can marry another person of the opposite sex the same as any other person.
That IS the definition of "marriage";man-woman,it's been that way for several thousand years.
This is all about the REDEFINITION of "marriage" to be something it's never been,and thus FORCING other states to recognize the abomination via Article IV,sec 1.
"and the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,Records,and Proceedings shall be proved,and the Effect thereof."
Congress "prescribed the manner" by enacting DOMA.
THAT alone allows DOMA to be Constitutional.
Congress is SPECIFICALLY given the power to decide,and they did.
Live with it,or seek help,get well,and return to normal.
Since homosexuality is an unhealthy,destructive behavior(and a mental illness),there's no valid reason why it should be accommodated,enabled or encouraged by rearranging society to suit the homos.
Some hysterical homosexuals really wanted the straight nomenclature.
They enter a civil union, then sue because they wanted straight verbiage.
So now, to prevent lawsuits from self-loathing homosexuals we must
keep rights away from the proud categorie too.
You believe in denying rights, then, I guess. This says everything I need to know, Kevlar. Thanks.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299944/gay-divorcees-charles-c-w-cooke
they can marry another person of the opposite sex the same as any other person.
That IS the definition of "marriage";man-woman,it's been that way for several thousand years.
This is all about the REDEFINITION of "marriage" to be something it's never been,and thus FORCING other states to recognize the abomination via Article IV,sec 1.
"and the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,Records,and Proceedings shall be proved,and the Effect thereof."
Congress "prescribed the manner" by enacting DOMA.
THAT alone allows DOMA to be Constitutional.
Congress is SPECIFICALLY given the power to decide,and they did.
Would you agree with this?
North of the border...Gay Pride is alive and well.