General Discussion

Kellerfeller

(397 posts)

15. I support consistency and logic.

Fri Feb 24, 2012, 05:23 PM

Feb 2012

Either I support leaving the definition of marriage as it is and traditionally has been or we need to open it up to all. Opening it up for specific groups with no logical basis isn't fair.

For example, some say strictly defining it as a man and woman is arbitrary an unfair. Others can just as legitimately say there is nothing magical about the number two.

On edit: Oops, I forgot to add that your position scares me. It gives license to any official to not perform part of their duties if they have a political statement to make.

On 2nd edit: stupid typos...

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

44 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Gay Texas judge refuses to wed straight couples [View all] William769 Feb 2012 OP

While I support why she's doing this Drale Feb 2012 #1

she. xchrom Feb 2012 #3

I support why she is doing it and I also applaud why she is doing it. William769 Feb 2012 #4

I'm curious Kellerfeller Feb 2012 #11

I can't speak for William, but sure. I would support that judge. morningfog Feb 2012 #12

I'm curious as well maddezmom Feb 2012 #14

I support consistency and logic. Kellerfeller Feb 2012 #15

Don't be scared, you must not have read the article. morningfog Feb 2012 #21

The fact that it is not a required duty Kellerfeller Feb 2012 #29

I'm going to map out how I understand your reasoning. morningfog Feb 2012 #31

Ding Ding bongbong Feb 2012 #34

In your opinion, is allowing same-sex marriage... 2ndAmForComputers Feb 2012 #39

I don't see an issue with more than two people in a marriage. moriah Feb 2012 #43

I know you are ppr'd, but by "traditional" do you mean between people of the same skin color or uppityperson Feb 2012 #44

I'm curious also. William769 Feb 2012 #13

You didn't ask a question Kellerfeller Feb 2012 #16

Let me make it simple for you. William769 Feb 2012 #17

See my other response Kellerfeller Feb 2012 #18

You think your cute with your answers. William769 Feb 2012 #19

Post removed Post removed Feb 2012 #20

Let me cut through the bullshit. morningfog Feb 2012 #22

Then you are consistent Kellerfeller Feb 2012 #24

God cries when you hide your candle under a bushel. sudopod Feb 2012 #27

I'll take your answer as a no on marriage equality. William769 Feb 2012 #23

And I interpret you answer as "no" on marriage equality as well Kellerfeller Feb 2012 #25

You can't come out and support gay and lesbians right to marry, can you? morningfog Feb 2012 #26

She isn't refusing to do a part of her job that is mandatory or required. morningfog Feb 2012 #28

You ARE going to bring up man-on-dog and box turtles any minute now, aren't you? 2ndAmForComputers Feb 2012 #40

Ah, you're against. Thanks for the clarification. 2ndAmForComputers Feb 2012 #38

Plural marriage is illegal to ALL... thus, no discrimination. Luminous Animal Feb 2012 #30

We have a winner! etherealtruth Feb 2012 #33

No, wait, let me guess. 2ndAmForComputers Feb 2012 #37

Sorry- apples and oranges w8liftinglady Feb 2012 #42

I don't think this would be considered a part of her job responsibilities... joeybee12 Feb 2012 #5

I see it rather as a judge who is simply applying a consistent ethical standard... LanternWaste Feb 2012 #6

50% of the people voted to deny marriage in Cali and Wis. Evasporque Feb 2012 #9

Not bigots bongbong Feb 2012 #32

Screw that. Each and everybody who voted for Prop H8 and similar abominations is a bigot. PERIOD. 2ndAmForComputers Feb 2012 #36

Nope, they're bigots. (nt) Posteritatis Feb 2012 #41

Let me assuage your concern. 2ndAmForComputers Feb 2012 #35

Good Ohio Joe Feb 2012 #2

... William769 Feb 2012 #10

Perfect. bowens43 Feb 2012 #7

K&R. I suppose, in theory, she could argue that constitutional law prohibits her from discriminatin closeupready Feb 2012 #8