Evan Wolfson Does not Know What Marriage is

True marriage equality is a man(50%) and a woman (50%). Same sex marriage on the other end is 100 % sexist and discriminate against the opposite sex. Same sex marriage strips children's human rights to a mother and a father and creates more fatherless and motherless homes. Evan Wofson does not know the true value of a woman. He wants to redefine marriage to fit his sexual disorientation and as a lawyer, he assemble a montage of arguments that create a false reality. He was in Portland on November 3rd promoting his gay religion at the SEIU Local 49 when NoOn1 lost their campaign to overturn marriage.

• Category

  News & Politics

[M1GarandMan3005]

The reason why people are going to overturn SSM bans is because of the LGBT has moles inside society to indoctrinate the people that it's all about LOVE. That's why conservatives are losing the argument because their case denies the dumb shits the right to practice their OWN lusts, rather than see what was intended in biology to begin with. Before you know it, they're brainwashing kids into thinking something STD ridden is a safe alternative. Compassion, in now our worst enemy.

[clipsryan]

Interesting how you assume a single parent can't provide what their children need and use sexism for your argument like the sexist conservatives that want 1950s gender roles. Having two parents (of any gender) isn't a human right, it's something a parentless child couldn't give a shit about aslong as they have a loving parent. Marrige wasn't evented by the founding fathers or christianity so if you conservatives want to keep on showing your hypocrisy atleast admit when you're wrong.

[kenballer00]

let me be more clearer on the state objectives. its there to PROMOTE procreation into a monogamous environment where there is two biological married parents because it has been deemed by the government to be the BEST thing for kids and society as a whole through history, science, and sheer common sense. this is almost the complete opposite with same sex unions.

lastly, if religious liberty is not being infringed by SSM being legalized, then, neither is sexual liberty or privacy

[zulmia]

What was the second objective you're talking about? It can't be biblical marriage, because I'm apparently changing the subject when i bring that up. If you're talking about the two objectives of 1) raising kids and 2) stable relationships, then I've already shown (and you apparently agree) that does not preclude SSM in the slightest.

We've already gone over religious liberty, and how that's not infringed upon if SSM is legalized. So I'm hard pressed to figure out your point.

[kenballer00]

now you are just trying to change the subject. i was just explaining and showing how the state does both objectives at the same time and not just one. the point overall is that it is a reciprocal situation when it comes to sexual or religious liberty. as the U.S supreme court said in Baker:

"The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation"

[zulmia]

I guess we're reverting to argumentum ad verecundiam now.

So you think that "biblical marriage" should be what our government defines as civil marriage? Does that mean we should no longer allow non-Abrahamic religious leaders to perform civil marriage? Or will we as just long as they follow Abrahamic religious protocols?

[kenballer00]

the point of the quote is that yes its there to promote stable relationships, but thats not all. its there to promote procreation within these stable heterosexual unions. this quote from the U.S supreme courts summary decision in Baker v. Nelson: "The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis"

both cases reference biblical marriage to signify both objectives

[kenballer00]

this case says it all. In Murphy v. Ramsey (1885) 114 U.S. 15, 45, the U.S. Supreme Court stated:

"....the coordinate state of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one MAN and one WOMAN in the holy state of matrimony; the sure

foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization"

[zulmia]

Yes, if the main purpose of civil marriage is to promote a stable environment for kids (which I'm merely conceding for the sake of argument), then there is no reason to restrict same sex couples from getting married. I'm glad we're finally agreeing.

[kenballer00]

i have never been able to say it because i never said it in the first place that same sex parents in a marriage would not provide excellent care