|
Post by gyeonghwa on Dec 12, 2011 15:55:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Dec 12, 2011 16:00:31 GMT -5
I think at the time the Constitution was written, the Constitution said absolutely nothing at all about marriage.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Dec 12, 2011 16:05:24 GMT -5
He's right. The Constitution was written at a time when marriage was between a man and a woman, and homosexuality was often forbidden by law. And we should respect it because, after all, the Founders put it right there in the Constitution. Right?
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Dec 12, 2011 17:45:31 GMT -5
Saw this earlier today. For one my state has produced someone that doesn't suck. Didn't know that the Tea Party was trying to repeal same-sex marriage, though. Shit.
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Dec 12, 2011 17:48:33 GMT -5
During the founding fathers day, marriage was between one white and one white woman and arranged by her white father.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Dec 12, 2011 18:18:59 GMT -5
He's right. The Constitution was written at a time when marriage was between a man and a woman, and homosexuality was often forbidden by law. And we should respect it because, after all, the Founders put it right there in the Constitution. Right? Well slavery was legal and well practiced when the Constitution was written, why was that changed? We should follow all the old laws and never change anything because that makes us more free
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Dec 12, 2011 18:29:10 GMT -5
Didn't he sign a bill mandating judges to validate SSM or something like that?
Flip flop flip
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Dec 12, 2011 18:29:38 GMT -5
Also back in the time when the Constitution was written, black people didn't count as a full person.
Ironbite-we should go back to that YOU'RE A FUCKING RETARD!
|
|
|
Post by gyeonghwa on Dec 12, 2011 19:04:26 GMT -5
Saw this earlier today. For one my state has produced someone that doesn't suck. Didn't know that the Tea Party was trying to repeal same-sex marriage, though. Shit. OM NOM NOM has been constantly attacking NH to repeal it by supporting anyone who can help them.
|
|
|
Post by Meshakhad on Dec 12, 2011 19:13:59 GMT -5
In the eighteenth century men wore flamboyantly coiffured wigs and high heels--should we maintain that because it was the norm when the Almighty Constitution was written? For politicians? Frak yeah! That would be HILARIOUS.
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Dec 12, 2011 20:02:08 GMT -5
When the Constitution was written, "marriage" in the USA was between a man and a woman, but the woman could be as young as 13 (as well as your first cousin if you felt so inclined). They also both had to be white, or if they were both black, they had to be able to legally prove they weren't slaves.
So what I guess ol' Mitt is saying is that he is all for mixed-gender, same-race, non-slave, possibly same-family, possibly statutory-rapey marriage. Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Dec 12, 2011 20:14:19 GMT -5
THAT'S HOW GOD INTENDED MARRIAGE TO BE!
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Dec 12, 2011 20:50:28 GMT -5
The intellectual dishonesty of this argument never fails to irk me. Deep down, these people have to know that it's total bullshit, but it's easier to repeat the "This is what the founding fathers would have wanted" mantra than it is to confront their prejudices, which is only reinforced when assholes like Romney pander to them.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Dec 12, 2011 20:57:17 GMT -5
I'd like to hear why the supreme court can't change THAT in specific.
I, too, would like to see this incident inspire a reality show called "Republican Third Wheel."
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Dec 13, 2011 1:10:52 GMT -5
Oh, if the world were in any way just or proper, before sitting down at that table, Romney would have quipped "Room for one more?"
|
|