will and sound mind on both sides of this issue. i agree with the president. so i m not going to call you names and i m not going to say you re ignorant, that you don t understand, but up until the year 2000, no political community on the face of the earth had ever defined marriage as anything other than a male/female relationship. i think there s good reason for that. you have your facts down. you are really a great recorder where does the american constitution say that a same sex couple can t get married? the constitution doesn t. which is why the supreme court shouldn t say that. just to clarify, you have assumed that that is the position, that america should adopt. i think that citizens in 41 states have defined marriage as union between a man and woman and the u.s. federal government has done that in the defense of marriage act. if you want to change those laws, we can have a discussion, we can take a vote, we can let the democratic process work its way out. but i thin
i agree with the president. so i m not going to call you names and i m not going to say you re ignorant, that you don t understand, but up until the year 2000, no political community on the face of the earth had ever defined marriage as anything other than a male/female relationship. i think there s good reason for that. you have your facts down. you are really a great recorder where does the american constitution say that a same sex couple can t get married? the constitution doesn t. which is why the supreme court shouldn t say that. just to clarify, you have assumed that that is the position, that america should adopt. i think that citizens in 41 states have defined marriage as union between a man and woman and the u.s. federal government has done that in the defense of marriage act. if you want to change those laws, we can have a discussion, we can take a vote, we can let the democratic process work its way out. but i think the constitutional question before the court ri
really understood why the government does need to get involved, why it does need to be legal on a federal level, if you really understood that, there is no way that you would sit there and say what you are saying right now. that assumes that i m ignorant. i don t assume anything badly about you. i just think we disagree. president obama himself has said that there are people of good will and sound mind on both sides of this issue. i agree with the president. so i m not going to call you names and i m not going to say you re ignorant, that you don t understand, but up until the year 2000, no political community on the face of the earth had ever defined marriage as anything other than a male/female relationship. i think there s good reason for that. you have your facts down. you are really a great recorder where does the american constitution say that a same sex couple can t get married? the constitution doesn t. which is why the supreme court
marriage. now more than ever according to the article, they identify themselves as part of the pro-marriage movement and see themselves at the beginning of a long political struggle, much like the battle over abortion. if they can begin shifting the terms of the debate away from gay rights and towards the meaning of marriage, they say, they have a chance to survive short-term defeats. what s the meaning of marriage, ryan, to you beyond just a union of a man and a woman? well, you know, marriage isn t just about the desires of adults. marriage is also about the needs of children. the reason government s in the marriage business in the first places is to connect men and women together as husband and wife to take care of their children as father and mother. in all of the best social science we have is consistently showing that children do best when raised by their biological married mother and father. and that s what every child deserves and the supreme court shouldn t shut down this co
republican primaries, by definition paul ryan said this tonight. i believe paul ryan is right. the democratic party, the clinton formulation on this issue was safe, legal, and rare. i think that s where a lot of americans are on the issue. if you want to have less abortions, then you want to have more contraception. more access to contraception means less abortions. that s part of the problem that the party has had as a message construct with women all over the country. excommunicated from the republican party if you keep talking about that. that s nowhere the church is on contraception. that s the problem. the tough thing with ryan s answer in that regard, he s in conflict with his own faith. i thought it was remarkable tonight to see two catholics on there with two totally different views about how this should be run. about making policy out of your religious believes. i ve got to correct this. i m not saying it s radical he s against roe versus wade. i m saying for him