BearMtnHIB wrote: If 2 women can marry legally because their civil rights are being violated- then logic would follow that my civil rights and my girlfriends civil rights are also being violated.
BearMtnHIB wrote: No one will address the moral dilemma and legal morality of allowing 2 women to marry for civil rights issues - but not allowing my 3 girlfriends to legally marry me?
You are all morally bankrupt- even the "so called" conservative posters here today.
The law protects the mentally infirm in the case of your 3 girlfriends.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
BearMtnHIB wrote: No one will address the moral dilemma and legal morality of allowing 2 women to marry for civil rights issues - but not allowing my 3 girlfriends to legally marry me?
You are all morally bankrupt- even the "so called" conservative posters here today.
The law protects the mentally infirm in the case of your 3 girlfriends.
I guess me and my girlfriends will just continue to fornicate - even though our civil rights are being violated by the state and all you bigoted neanderthal posters here on this thread.
I don't much care what you and your concubines do. But let us know if you sue...I'd still like to buy a ticket....
But just think, if you DO decide to marry one of your concubines, (and keep the other two on the side for fornication, of course), you and the one you married will get 1,138 rights, privileges and tax-breaks that a same-sex couple would not get....
I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
Republicans have been running a radio ad campaign attacking Hickenlooper this morning, saying essentially we have more important things to worry about than civil unions, like this economy....but if the economy was more important, why didn't the legislature extend the current session on their own?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Yeah, it was more important to kill the session...and the 30+ outstanding economic bills...than to allow something to pass that might allow equal rights to all of our citizens...
BearMtnHIB wrote: All 3 of my girlfriends want to have the benefit of my health insurance- but I can only do one (at a time).
Are my girlfriends civil rights being violated because they all can't get on my insurance. I mean one of my girlfriends is a lawyer, and she has good insurance too- but the other 2 don't have any insurance.
Why is the homo's civil rights being violated- but my 2 girlfriends who are not lawyers - are their civil rights being violated?
Should we file a law suit for violating our civil rights?
Only if you're planning on marrying all three...which would be Romney-style polygamy.
Romney has never been a polygamist...that would be Obama's father.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
FredHayek wrote: Republicans have been running a radio ad campaign attacking Hickenlooper this morning, saying essentially we have more important things to worry about than civil unions, like this economy....but if the economy was more important, why didn't the legislature extend the current session on their own?
If you listen to that radio commercial... you will notice that they ARE NOT SAYING CIVIL UNIONS... the language of the ad says SAME SEX MARRIAGE which is not the truth. I heard that ad 4 times today while I was taking a short trip to the store between some programming I had to do this morning. The ad is not merely deceptive, it is outright lying... the state representatives are not trying to pass a gay marriage bill.
Almost makes you want to become a liberal... ah... forget that... Lady Jazzer is on that side... I'll defer on this issue, but actually being in the same political party as Lady Jazzer makes me want to puke.
rofllol 
