In response to:

Redefining Marriage Sign of a Lost Society

towntarded Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 12:24 AM
It doesn't matter to these people. They just won't hear that civil rights-and this is clearly as civil rights issue, and is being viewed as such, are not to be put up to popular vote and that the courts right this wrong when judicial action occurs. We (smart people) all know how this will play out, and the obvious abridgement will not stand to judicial scrutiny.
Dreadnaught011 Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 2:15 PM

Suck it in, fagoot, suck it down. What a lamebrain! "The polls!"
towntarded Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 12:42 AM
I know. And it's just too rich that we won finally at the polls. Now they will forever have to shut up about how they always win the popular vote.

Soak it in, bigots. SOAK.IT.IN.
David3036 Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 12:33 AM
When the opponents of marriage equality lost in the courts, they claimed that judges were legislating from the bench. When legislators began to pass gay-marriage laws they claimed that the laws passed by elected representatives did not reflect "the will of the people." Now that they are losing in the polls and at the ballot boxes, where will they go next? I have already heard the irrelevant argument that morality is God-given and not subject to a popularity contest.

Isn't that what we've been saying all along, but with a different view of "morality"?

One significant development in the recent election was votes in four states approving same sex marriage initiatives. Until now, all previous state referenda to approve same sex marriage – 32 of them - failed.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page – a place where conservatives usually turn for intellectual capital – saw this as cause for celebration.

According to the Journal, marriage definition should come from voters, not from court orders. Americans, they argue, have “shown themselves more than capable of changing their views on gay marriage the democratic way.”

In other words, our definition of marriage should follow process, not...