Submitted by SearchingBleach t3_z8joqc in springfieldMO
Comments
Conscious_Ad7105 t1_iydcgz6 wrote
The ONLY thing I can think of is that like so many other bills ,there was something else buried in the bill that made it unpalatable to the others. But if that's the case they should have said so. It's more likely, as you all have stated, they're pandering to their Neanderthal base. Otherwise, there is zero reason to vote against this, obviously.
Apprehensive_Rip8351 t1_iydmg5y wrote
From what I've seen is the argument is the supreme court isn't going to over turn it so there is no reason to pass a new law. But they said the same thing about abortion.
Conscious_Ad7105 t1_iydmkzg wrote
Agreed
KSIChancho t1_iydmyqj wrote
This. And also he probably voted it down based on the same sex thing. How could anyone even legally stop an interracial marriage?
RollOutTheGuillotine t1_iyeam0u wrote
If overturned they could stop an interracial marriage just like they would a same sex one. It would become nullified and simply not recognized under the eyes of the law anymore. There have been a lot of legal conversations about what would happen to same sex spouses if Obergefell v Hodges was overturned and I assume the same would apply to Loving v Virginia.
KSIChancho t1_iyel3t2 wrote
But what makes a relationship interracial? Lol like my wife and I are white but I’m way darker than her and probably have a different racial background if you go back to the early 1900s. So is there some graph that says you’re too dark for this person? Or you’re too light skinned to marry this person?
axeman1293 t1_iyeqd79 wrote
One drop
Infernal_Arugula t1_iyf2cny wrote
Whatever the state law banning it says interracial is. If Loving v. Virginia were to be overturned, states would be free to pass laws banning marriages between whatever definition of different races they want to. One drop was the common historical formulation, but who knows what kind of whacky ideas conservative lawmakers would come up with today.
RollOutTheGuillotine t1_iyellmr wrote
I'm not an attorney and I don't know how racists enforce dumbass laws. I can't help you with your questions, friend.
KSIChancho t1_iyen69h wrote
But that’s my point. I think people are looking at this as an easy way to say “ha! Look at the racist and bigoted people!” Instead of objectively finding out the truth. I have no doubt some of these people are okay with being racist and bigoted but some of them may have had very good reasons to shoot this down. We have no idea
Infernal_Arugula t1_iyf2pdn wrote
We do have a good idea. The original bill passed by the house was objected to by many senators for not having enough protection for religious freedom. The current version the senate just passed added protections for religious non profits to not have to officiate or recognize same sex unions. Several of the senators listed above came up with their own amendments that they wanted added that would have afforded even more protection to religious organizations/businesses who want to discriminate against same sex marriages, but those amendments were rejected when Chuck Schumer realized he could get a filibuster proof majority with the way the bill is written now.
NoodlesrTuff1256 t1_iyehfwx wrote
What would Clarence and Ginni Thomas do if 'Loving v. Virginia' were overturned?
RollOutTheGuillotine t1_iyei5f7 wrote
Cry about it, I reckon? I have no idea. There's a lot of internalized hate within the government. And I'm not trying to say it's been likely to have been overturned, but like the other user said, we thought the same of Roe. And LvV used RvW as precedence, as did OvH. That's why people have been concerned.
ialsohaveadobro t1_iyeboil wrote
I agree with the other commenter but I want to add that it is true that changing the law wouldn't prevent people from having marriage ceremonies, though. I knew people who were in same-sex marriages before Obergefell (in a red state).
They had their ceremonies and celebrations just the same as usual. It's just that when the rubber hits the road and, say, one of them ends up in the hospital and the other isn't allowed to visit because they're not "really" married-- situations like that-- you see how the legal rights and affects of a state-recognized marriage are unjustly missing.
mrs_bookdragon t1_iyf81qi wrote
And also benefits that come with being married. Like health benefits, insurance, etc.
oldamy t1_iye8sr4 wrote
The bill is very straight forward and only a few pages long. The senate added religious exemption to it- of course- to get the R vote.
Heil_Hipster t1_iydno4s wrote
They probably did. It's just that whoever made this little infographic didn't mention that because it would make the Republicans not look so bad. The intention behind this is to make Republicans look bad. That's the same reason they included the interracial marriage part in this bill. It puts Republicans in a position where if they vote no on the bill, they can say that they voted against interracial marriage even though the Republicans were more than likely actually voting against gay marriage, which is bad still but is not received as badly as voting against interracial marriage.
No_Lies_Detected t1_iydq49h wrote
So you are fully in-the-know of all Republicans and what they mean when they vote for or against a bill? You must be clairvoyant.
SharksForArms t1_iyduj04 wrote
I mean, he is describing an extremely common tactic in Congress. There isn't any clairvoyance required to see it.
No_Lies_Detected t1_iydw3hx wrote
No he is.
He can tell these Senators are only voting against the same sex portion. They aren't really racist and voting against interracial marriage! These are some good Christian people by gawd! And they would never do that. They will commit crimes, cheat on their spouses, take huge donations that influence their vote, vote against veterans needs, but enrich themselves on the current military industrial complex (that's where the money is, not helping vets).
But racism? That is where they draw the line and /u/Heil_Hipster knows it!
Heil_Hipster t1_iydweks wrote
I never said they were good people. They are just voting with their base. They're base does not want same sex marriage and so they voted that way, consequences be damned. They want to be reelected. This is not some situation where I think they are good people.
No_Lies_Detected t1_iydx6bj wrote
> Sure technically. But he was Voting against same-sex marriage, not interracial marriage.
Their base does want interracial marriage though? You KNOW this for a fact. So it has to just be the gay thing and not the racist thing! Got it!
Heil_Hipster t1_iydxtow wrote
I mean more than likely, yes. Considering one of the guys who voted against it has an Asian wife, I would say that he is not actually against interracial marriage. If you were trying to make Republicans look racist, would you not include interracial marriage in a bill that you knew they would vote against because of same-sex marriage being included? It's a very clever strategic move.
No_Lies_Detected t1_iydyf4h wrote
I should trust you internet stranger! I'm sure you know your way around racism.
And if your argument really held water, then wouldn't ALL Republicans vote against it? Or was it just these special few that really understood that it was just voting against same sex marriage and not the racist part?
Heil_Hipster t1_iyds01a wrote
No. I don't know this for sure. I suppose I like to assume the best about people.
Kosherporkchops t1_iyckxti wrote
Maybe hypocrisy is her kink?
ICareAboutNihilism t1_iydxka4 wrote
I mean, I hate McConnell, but let's be real here, he's voting against the gay marriage portion of the bill, which is inextricably linked to the interracial portion.
It's like saying someone is pro-murder because they voted against a bill outlawing murder while legalizing rape.
Now granted, both of Mitch's positions are terrible here, but we don't need to give them ammo with lazy statements that are easily disproven like "Mirch is a hypocrite for voting against interracial marriage" when it is more nuanced than that.
Kosherporkchops t1_iye25ne wrote
Absolutely, the vast majority of senators voting against this bill aren’t opposing interracial marriage, and definitely not publicly. It’s all about the gay marriage part of it. The irony is just amusing
Netzapper t1_iycp8b6 wrote
They know the rules don't apply to them.
kcintrovert t1_iydmxd7 wrote
Considering she's married to him in the first place, I doubt there's anything he can do that she doesn't already support or turn a blind eye to.
jttIII t1_iyd8jtd wrote
It's almost like this exact observation should give you pause to ask and think... "Wait, is there more to this and their logic and rationale at a fundamental level I don't understand rather than just the sound bite I'm running with?"
SillyNluv t1_iyc1jly wrote
Obligatory Fuck Josh Hawley and the rest of these jackasses, too.
uNRAted_squirt t1_iydu6am wrote
/r/fuckjoshhawley
Successful_Hunter235 t1_iyciybi wrote
Fuck Josh Hawley and fuck all the assholes that think this vote is OK.
jaybird8171 t1_iydc1cp wrote
It’s a real who’s who of assholes!
Almost_Dr_VH t1_iyezjbu wrote
I knew it, I’m surrounded by assholes!
throwawayyyycuk t1_iydjp5k wrote
Well, yeah, he does have an agenda you know
Fuck josh hawley, and fuck Schmitt too, can’t wait to see what sort of fuckshit that blight does in the senate
Embarrassed_Tennis95 t1_iycs9fr wrote
How very Josh “track star” Hawley of him 😒 Fucking disgrace.
StrongPlan3 t1_iydd3no wrote
I just don't understand how marriage is even a governmental issue. At the state or federal level. Marriage permits have their origins in the caste system. Preventing the aristocrats from marrying commoners.
Need to get govt out of our fucking lives. Yet people keep inviting it in and wonder how shit like this happens.
CrazyAzian99 t1_iydndrn wrote
Taxes, Social Security Benefits, etc.
MidwayBoy t1_iydh4yn wrote
It’s a government issue because of transfer of property upon death and taxes
StrongPlan3 t1_iydhhsm wrote
Another issue that government should have no part in. The crown was excluded from death taxes upon the death of queen Elizabeth because it was depreciate the wealth of the crown. Another example of rules for thee, not for me.
StrongPlan3 t1_iydic71 wrote
I know English bureaucracy was a poor example. However, it was recent and more transparent than financial events that occur here. We all know the state and it's representatives find ways to exclude themselves from taxes we the people have to pay.
Apprehensive_Rip8351 t1_iydnbkp wrote
The government has to set up some institutions like marriage or else the courts would constantly be clogged with people individually suing to protect their interests. Same goes for a lot of libertarian arguments like getting rid of he EPA.
StrongPlan3 t1_iydup3j wrote
The divorce courts are already clogged. If people choose to go through a church or other religious institution to sanctify their marriage, let them. I don't see why I have to seek the crowns approval and why I have to pay them for a permit. People also sue to protect their interests as is. People need to be accountable for their actions, we can't advocate for govt to solve all problems as that gives govt the power to cause a lot of problems.
[deleted] t1_iydj0xb wrote
[removed]
Low_Tourist t1_iydeyzg wrote
Because without government interference, adults marry young children.
Apprehensive_Rip8351 t1_iydmw1n wrote
that isn't why. In fact marriage legalizes pedophilia in a lot of cases (missouri was the destination wedding spot of child brides until SVU did an episode about it in like 2018).
StrongPlan3 t1_iydf504 wrote
Interesting, pretty sure that still happens. Even with govt interference. The only difference is now govt can interfere more.
Illustrious-Leave406 t1_iycw4nv wrote
American trash. Their hearts are full of hate.
No-Move09 t1_iyd1e2j wrote
He’s a fucking idiot
agonypants t1_iyd2qns wrote
It's not just stupidity though. In the case of Hawley, there's also his pure, unadulterated evil.
No-Move09 t1_iyd42da wrote
Some dumbass at college was going to a Hawley rally and suggested I come because it “would be a good opportunity to meet my senator”
Better_Artichoke_723 t1_iyd8nr7 wrote
Well he is going to be a speaker at the stronger mens conference hosted by James River in April. I would love if people were there protesting while he is speaking
Wheres_Wally t1_iyd69pw wrote
while the axiom, never attribute to malice what can be best be explained by stupidity is usually true, this is a case where the inverse is more true.
x_phencyclidine_x t1_iydacb9 wrote
I don't see why everyone finds this so surprising. He's a Conservative Republican
[deleted] t1_iyebhra wrote
[deleted]
Goge97 t1_iyef0fw wrote
Moved here FROM California. Certainly not for the politics! Whatever happened to holding different options regardless of where you live?
There is no litmus test of political opinion, race, ethnicity, gender, religion and so on to have the freedom to live where you want in the US!
Goge97 t1_iyednb3 wrote
Come on, Josh. Just try to knock down my marriage of 51 years.
icnoevil t1_iyd4ke2 wrote
Big surprise that Lady G voted against it.
Low_Tourist t1_iydfvef wrote
Cotton too
Nervous_Stage_2137 t1_iydd27t wrote
Wow, look at that list, imagine my surprise.
MOStateWineGuy t1_iydmmxi wrote
He is the scum of the earth. So is our Secretary of State. Such an embarrassing party. "Christians."
WheresYourTegridy t1_iye9x0j wrote
Fuck Josh Hawley
peeweezers t1_iyeg07j wrote
What vermin.
pimusic t1_iyetbut wrote
If every single one of these guys just fucked off forever, our country would be in such a better place.
fjikima t1_iyeymz7 wrote
What a bunch of embarrassing fucks
Dawnydiesel t1_iyd9707 wrote
I guess I’m a Pollyanna - I see progress that there’s just the one Senator who voted against. Not saying Hawley isn’t a yucky person by any means, but I dig the progress.
ColonelKasteen t1_iydan5d wrote
Roy Blunt voted for it because he's retiring and doesn't have to pander to a legitimately evil base for the last couple months of his career.
HueyDueynLouie t1_iye0wyt wrote
This smells like the don’t say gay bill. Why do they be like this
2Have15min t1_iyeh2qg wrote
Read the dang bill people
Seymour---Butz t1_iyf9txg wrote
Outlets should troll Hawley and start listing him under Virginia
Trai_Ellis_Dee t1_iydte8e wrote
Treasonous POS
[deleted] t1_iydvk1a wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iydwkza wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iyeywz5 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iyd1rzx wrote
[deleted]
Wheres_Wally t1_iyd6cwd wrote
why are you against either outside of being a bigot?
Round_Patience3029 t1_iyfaods wrote
To keep their jobs.
Chapos_sub_capt t1_iyddydr wrote
I would love to know if this was clearly written only to protect marriage or did they try and stick a bunch of other things in there
No_Lies_Detected t1_iyds07h wrote
Everytime. EVERY-FUCKING-SINGLE-TIME I read shit like this I wonder why people don't look at the bill being proposed? It's readily available as /u/ladnar016 pointed out.
Then I remember the poor of an excuse of an education system that allows anyone with a pulse to graduate - because if the schools numbers are bad with testing and graduation rates, the government withholds funding to those schools (like less money is going to help attract better teachers and supplies needed to better a child's education, but I digress)
And so the education system produces poorly equipped adults, and they are ill-equipped to properly think for themselves. They are easily manipulated and brainwashed by whatever inept conman is placed in front of them - especially via television.
Then I realize this failure of society produces rubes like you.
Cold417 t1_iye3dmp wrote
They don't really care to know. You can't quibble around if you have the facts.
Chapos_sub_capt t1_iye6odp wrote
Go fuck yourself you self righteous piece of shit. I guaranteed if your water, plumbing, or electrical did not work, or if your roof collapsed you would need an alleged rube to come and save your pathetic ass. By the way I totally support the bill at face value, but the scumbag politicians always load other bullshit into them
WheresYourTegridy t1_iyea75n wrote
But when you can’t read a fucking piece of legislation your lazy ass asks this sub how to read it for you. The irony in your dumbass comment.
Chapos_sub_capt t1_iyeaytq wrote
Deep down inside you realize if things get a little crazy you’re completely useless. Your self worth comes from your perceived fugazi mental intelligence and talking down to strangers on the internet
WheresYourTegridy t1_iyeij7g wrote
“Talking down to strangers on the internet” you’re god damn right. It’s the internet, bub. I’m not sure why you take inventory on strangers punching you down if it’s “useless”
Chapos_sub_capt t1_iyeist6 wrote
I already won this conversation guy
WheresYourTegridy t1_iyf2rnl wrote
I’ll call you when I need my plumbing fixed. See how fast you turn into a yes-man then.. guy
Infernal_Arugula t1_iyf3nxf wrote
“the scumbag politicians always load other bullshit into them” this is often true but in this case you are wrong. If you actually took the minimal time and effort to read the bill you would see that it is very straightforward and that it actually does LESS than what most of the public understands it to do, not more.
decimatetheweak1s t1_iydh352 wrote
You know it was all pork. They just name these bills and put something everyone wants/sounds good as the name of the bill….and then fill it with pork.
ladnar016 t1_iydj44p wrote
The text of the bill is readily available and short enough that you could have read it in the time you made an unsupported comment - https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text
Heil_Hipster t1_iydne8v wrote
Sure technically. But he was Voting against same-sex marriage, not interracial marriage. Interracial marriage was just included on the same bill so that people who voted against it looked bad and could be accused of voting against interracial marriage. For the record, I think both should obviously be legal. I'm not saying it's cool to vote against gay marriage. I'm just telling you what is most likely really happening here. Those are both proposed in the same bill so if you vote against one, you vote against the other
Legendary_Wombat t1_iydoi45 wrote
They voted against forcing churches to perform them. I thought we were supposed to honor the separation between church and state.
LifeRocks114 t1_iydqeff wrote
because it was already in the language of the bill that religious organizations don't have to recognize them. As in, the very bill they voted against already had a religious exemption in it
CashBanoocasBack t1_iydqx9n wrote
Except this bill doesn't force religious institutions to perform any such service. This is about legally recognizing these marriages.
​
From the text of the bill:
SEC. 6. NO IMPACT ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND CONSCIENCE.
...
(b) Goods Or Services.—Consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text
n2thetaboo t1_iyetmzb wrote
Interracial marriage has been constitutionally protected since 1967. Is it fair to assume that the interracial marriage aspect of this is to project race in to the discussion and, therefore, ascribe these people as racist?
Infernal_Arugula t1_iyf3y8e wrote
Abortion was constitutionally protected since 1973 and now it no longer is. Brain dead argument
Easttexassingle t1_iyed9s7 wrote
I’m sure some are actually against interracial and gay marriage, BUT, the reason they voted against it is because for example, a gay couple came to a catholic priest, or anyone else who personally doesn’t believe in gay marriage, and asked them to perform the ceremony, they are naturally going to refuse. This bill would have made them both criminally and civilly liable. That’s not right. I don’t care who marries who, but don’t try to force your beliefs down others throats.
Infernal_Arugula t1_iyf3tjt wrote
You’re just wrong. The bill in its current form that the senate just voted on has specific exceptions for religious nonprofits, which would obviously include churches.
No_Lies_Detected t1_iyezdfk wrote
I don't suppose you see the hypocrisy in what you just posted?
417sadboi t1_iycqhet wrote
FedexJames t1_iycqvid wrote
What else was in the bill?
No_Lies_Detected t1_iycs0c4 wrote
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/all-info
See for yourself.
Quick summary? No additional riders for outlandish spending. Because you REALLY care about that.
FedexJames t1_iycsiyj wrote
I am surprised
KabIoski t1_iycyqiw wrote
Now that your main concern was addressed, will you contact your congresspeople to support the bill, or was that not your real objection?
ehoneygut t1_iycs8q7 wrote
Typically, there is a lot of nonsense added to bills like this. In this case, seemingly nothing but what the headline eludes to. Its pretty darn short if you want to read it.
No_Lies_Detected t1_iycr96l wrote
Doesn't fucking matter.
FedexJames t1_iycruoc wrote
It does matter. Congress likes to do shit like that. Then they can say look how backwards are opponents are. I bet there’s a bunch of spending hidden in there somewhere. I think I’m congress it should be one topic per bill. It would make things a lot better.
No_Lies_Detected t1_iycsikd wrote
Hey look, I also provided a link to the full bill and all amendments.
Let me sum up you take "I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS BILL, BUT IM OUTRAGED AND IT SHOULDN'T PASS BECAUSE THERE HAS TO BE ADDITIONAL SPENDING ADDED THAT WILL WASTE $0.00001 OF EACH OF MY PAYCHECKS-ARRRRRR!!!"
I get it. Reading is hard, and just reacting without doing any research into what you are upset about is really easy!
FedexJames t1_iycsoy6 wrote
Amazing that you got all of that out of the simple question of what else was in the bill. Calm down.
No_Lies_Detected t1_iyctmvv wrote
It's obvious that you didn't look into it at all. You just decided that there was additional shit in the bill. Thus your question "what else is in it?" Like it fucking matters when you are talking about taking away rights of people who love each other.
Mr FedEx guy - do you have the same outrage on other bills? You ask this about the BILLIONS wasted on the military budget? (I'm a vet, before you spout any bullshit about not knowing anything about the military budget. I saw millions wasted where I was stationed in one unit, and that was just 1 very, verysmall part of the spending - it happens all throughout the military)
I bet you are probably fine with that.
[deleted] t1_iyd4ocx wrote
[deleted]
Entire_Case7685 t1_iycwv0j wrote
Y’all seriously need to do you own research instead of relying on some Reddit post. 🤦🏾♂️ smh
FrankTankly t1_iyd0m2g wrote
Are you implying that Josh Hawley voted for the Respect for Marriage Act? Because he didn’t. It’s all public information, there isn’t really any “research” to be done here.
huscarlaxe t1_iyepui9 wrote
I suspect he is using research too mean OANN, Fox, and r/conspiracytheory
elevationbrew t1_iyd8oox wrote
Hawley doesn’t believe the federal government has the right to make such laws. As in; it’s none of the government’s fucking business who you marry. Which is a much healthier way to look at life.
Spackleberry t1_iydbk0d wrote
Without laws like this, many states will ban marriage equality.
elevationbrew t1_iydcejf wrote
If that’s what the voters of the state vote for.
No_Lies_Detected t1_iydd86c wrote
By your logic, I think the federal government should give up all military assets to individual states. That way each state could vote if they wish to participate in a war or "special operation"
I think the federal government should relinquish rights to distribution of funds. Let each state make due with what they bring in! (I love this one)
Spackleberry t1_iydl8ee wrote
>If that’s what the voters of the state vote for.
Then they would be wrong and should be overridden by Congress.
FrankTankly t1_iydmh7g wrote
Really? Because Hawley responded to a letter from me indicating that he thought that this particular piece of legislation would negatively impact people that hold traditional conservative and religious values.
How’s that square up with what you’ve said? I agree it’s none of the governments business who I marry, which is why they’ve made a law preventing the ability to discriminate based on race or gender.
Sure seems like that’s them staying out of my private life to me.
elevationbrew t1_iydn7b7 wrote
Post it. Put your ass on the line.
FrankTankly t1_iydvdts wrote
I’ll gladly put mine on the line if you’ll stop talking out of yours.
Edited to add: “I have serious concerns about what this law would mean for the religious liberty rights of Americans who hold traditional, religious views on marriage.”
Straight from his mouth, in case you didn’t feel like reading.
No_Lies_Detected t1_iye2vpt wrote
So which religion is he referring to? It seems this country has a large variety of religions that people worship. Are all of these religions against same sex and interracial marriage? 🤔
Or get this - and it may be a stretch for me to consider this. Hawley is an evangelical Christian and he is pushing those values on to everyone - even those that do not worship in the same manner he does.
Is that even a possibility?!?! /s
FrankTankly t1_iye3prx wrote
Lol, yes, he is clearly concerned about ALL religions, obviously.
Can’t wait for a well thought out, level headed response from the person I responded to. Anyyyyyy minute now I’m sure…
No_Lies_Detected t1_iydbubf wrote
I call Bullshit.
[deleted] t1_iydj7b5 wrote
[removed]
SearchingBleach OP t1_iyd1h51 wrote
Youre a fucking Idiot
lokisilvertongue t1_iydb0c5 wrote
Okay, here’s an article on it: https://newrepublic.com/post/169183/full-list-republicans-voted-protecting-marriage-equality
lordsatyrn t1_iycsi9b wrote
Yes because same-sex marriage and interracial marriage is under great threat…said no one. Hence, the votes against it. Also, the addition of interracial marriage into this bill is a ploy to once again make it about race; to divide and conquer.
No_Lies_Detected t1_iycu7l7 wrote
It's very obvious to ascertain your level of intelligence on this matter. Being that oblivious to something/not being capable of understand the gravity of these decisions must be difficult. I can't imagine going through life with that level of ignorance. Sorry.
[deleted] t1_iycugoz wrote
[removed]
KabIoski t1_iycyl08 wrote
A couple years ago, this guy would have said voting to protect the right to choose was silly because that isn't under threat.
[deleted] t1_iycyqne wrote
[removed]
AnarchoCapitalist123 t1_iycy26r wrote
Good stuff! Thanks for a list of real conservatives who recognize that the family unit is the central structure of our society and its descruction will mean our society's distruction.
eva-cybele t1_iyd0bkf wrote
How did you manage to spell destruction wrong two different ways in the same sentence
agonypants t1_iyd30rk wrote
Maybe he's a Russian troll? Or a Republican? Who can tell the difference these days?
KabIoski t1_iycyyio wrote
If gay and interracial marriage threaten the family unit, why does the family unit still exist after decades of both being legal?
FrankTankly t1_iyd0rkt wrote
“Gay people and people in interracial marriages don’t deserve the same rights as me.”
Just come out and say it, have the courage of your conviction.
[deleted] t1_iydhx3l wrote
[removed]
kstravlr12 t1_iyd7i71 wrote
Here’s what I don’t get: in order to be married you have to be a) not already married, b) over 18, c) of sound mind, and not related to the proposed partner. NO WHERE does it say you have to love that person, or live with that person, or want to be intimate with that person , or frankly, even KNOW that person. I can marry some random person from the opposite sex that I’ve never met, but I can’t marry my best friend from childhood that has cancer and needs my insurance just because they are the same sex as me? How is that NOT discrimination based on sex?
DemWookieeCheeks t1_iydaxsp wrote
Also see: green card marriages, which have occurred forever. Where is the war on that?
kstravlr12 t1_iydsdjn wrote
Right?
YourTokenGinger t1_iydyit7 wrote
[Citation Needed]
[deleted] t1_iye8ohb wrote
[removed]
sametimenplace t1_iye5a21 wrote
lol all these people put one response and never say anything back. what a coward
tdawg-1551 t1_iycgy9a wrote
What's even more funny is Mitch McConnell, who is in an interracial marriage. How is he not divorced as soon as gets home?