I didn't have to. Hiliar has no core beliefs. If there's a sentiment to undo marriage, she'd get behind it if it polls well. Evolve?
I'll admit it, I was originally for civil unions. Now I'm fine with anyone getting married who wants to get married.
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07...super-delegates-declare-winner-through-media/ Perfect End to Democratic Primary: Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary: The nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous establishment insiders and donors whose identities the media organization — incredibly — conceals. The decisive edifice of superdelegates is itself anti-democratic and inherently corrupt: designed to prevent actual voters from making choices that the party establishment dislikes. But for a party run by insiders and funded by corporate interests, it’s only fitting that its nomination process ends with such an ignominious, awkward, and undemocratic sputter.
It is curious why the AP would make this announcement the day before the final primaries. Why not let the people vote?
Because the whole theme to me has been from day 1. Fall in line. Vote for Hillary. Fall in line. Not a damn chance.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/here...estions-the-media-just-asked-hillary-clinton/ Hillary Clinton finally succumbed to pressure and gave the press a chance to ask her questions on the campaign trail, leaving her vulnerable to questions on the State Department’s report on how she broke rules with her private email server or maybe a question about how her brother-in-law was arrested for a DUI just thirty minutes away from where she held her campaign event. The press, however, didn’t ask about either of those things. One third of the questions were focused on whether Clinton truly grasped the fact that she is poised to make history as the first woman to win a major party’s nomination. Here are the questions that Clinton was forced to respond to during her press conference: Question #1: “No matter what happens tomorrow, the convention in Philadelphia will be contested, Bernie Sanders said. Is there anything to do to change that at this point?” Question #2: “Secretary Clinton, is it setting in that you might be making some serious history here tomorrow?” Question #3: “Irrespective to this primary, do you support getting rid of superdelegates?” (Note: Clinton said that “superdelegates have always followed the will of the voters” and that she expects them “to do so this time,” which is what Bernie Sanders has been arguing for the whole time.) Question #4: “Do you think [Bernie Sanders] should concede as you did in 2008?” Question #5: “Secretary, last night when you took stage in Sacramento, there was a woman standing next to me who was absolutely sobbing. She said, ‘you know, it’s time, it’s past time’. You see the women, you see people here. And people just come up to you and they get tears in their eyes. Do you feel the weight of what this means for people?” Question #6: “Do you expect the president’s endorsement as soon as this week?” (gimme a break. First chance the press gets to ask Hiliar questions THIS YEAR, and these are the best they can do?)
I'm so much more advanced than you. I think even people who don't want to get married must get married. Marriage for all! barfo
Hillary is the first woman in the USA to be at the top of a major party ticket for President. But you already knew that I assume.
Good. For a second i thought what if she agreed to be bernies vp? Then republicans would have no chance to fix this country. Now the victory is inevitable.
My views changed. I remember wanting obama before his first term because i was still a product of liberal public school. It was later that year i taught myself to think critically by reading and disecting what i read. I had never read for pleashre before. I read 1984 and atlas shrugged and the bible and my views changed to a conservative leaning libertarian. Do i hate gays or gay marriage because of that? No. I realized i didnt think government had any place governing social issues. I felt if we simply followed the constitution originally we would realize that equality was already there it just wasnt being applied. We need less legislature, not more. But that doesnt satisfy liberals, because they need handouts, wheter it be monitarily or just a social "win"
Nope, my view is still the same. Marriage is the joining of a man and a woman. Just as it say in Matthew, and all other major religions. The Constitution does not give the Federal Government a stand on marriage for good reason, it shouldn't be in the business of marriage. I think the SC misstepped getting into the business of defining word marriage. Rather silly actually, there are definitions of the word already, several from 5000 to 2000 years old. Now the SC comes with another, entirely different? Not a prophet among them either.
I agree. I dont thin the state should issue a marriage license at all. That would solve the whole debate. Marriage is a religious tradition and the state has no business granting them or telling religious institutions they have to grant them.
So if you don't believe in god you can't get married? Everlasting life in heaven isn't enough? You now want marriage all to yourself?
