Attempts to Roll Back Marriage Equality since the Trump Election.

[EvilCat Breath]

The essence of compromise is everyone being disappointed in the end result. Georgia has to recognize out of state marriages as always, but controls who it issues them to.

Georgian SSM opponents are butthurt they have to recognize out of state SSM's, Pro SSM georigans are butthurt that gay georgians would have to travel to get married.

And the constitution is respected overall.

The constitution is already respected.

Georgian couples can get married in Georgia.

Where does the federal constitution say marriage laws are covered by the feds?

Feel free to read Loving v. Virginia and find out.

Not applicable. allowing two people of the same sex to marry is such a radical change to the concept of marriage, that it can not be considered constitutionally "equal".t.

Either marriage laws are covered by the constitution or they are not.

Make up your mind.

According to the Constitution they are not.

 

[martybegan]

If someone does not want to go to a gay wedding, they should not be forced by law to go..

And no one is forced to go to any wedding.

Of course if your business is a business that goes to weddings- your business has to follow the same rules as every other business.

i.e. BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE, YOU PEASANT.

ain't we such a brave person when using the government's gun to force and bully others around.....

Serve that fucking n*gger, you gas station attendent!

What you call 'bullying' others call civil rights protections that have been around for 50 years.

Gasoline provision is a point of sale, fungible commodity, and considering travel is a protected right, the attendant and owner could be required to provide said product regardless of their feelings.

You keep forgetting that pesky first amendment, that guarantees free exercise of Religion.

You keep forgetting that Christians still have to follow the law and don't get a special exemption.

Yes- that meant that Christian business owners couldn't deny gas to blacks by claiming that their religion didn't allow them to associate with blacks.

They would have a much harder time proving their harm is greater than the harm done to a person trying to fuel their vehicle, considering providing gasoline is hard to consider as a sinful act, or condoning anything.

Making a contracted cake for a ceremony celebrating something one finds sinful can be construed as blocking free exercise, and considering they are plenty of other bakers available, the person's religious rights in this case supersede someone else's "right" to buy a cake.

 

[martybegan]

The essence of compromise is everyone being disappointed in the end result. Georgia has to recognize out of state marriages as always, but controls who it issues them to.

Georgian SSM opponents are butthurt they have to recognize out of state SSM's, Pro SSM georigans are butthurt that gay georgians would have to travel to get married.

And the constitution is respected overall.

The constitution is already respected.

Georgian couples can get married in Georgia.

Where does the federal constitution say marriage laws are covered by the feds?

Feel free to read Loving v. Virginia and find out.

Not applicable. allowing two people of the same sex to marry is such a radical change to the concept of marriage, that it can not be considered constitutionally "equal".t.

Either marriage laws are covered by the constitution or they are not.

Make up your mind.

In the case of loving, it was about extra conditions being applied to the marriage contract, mostly on the books either before the civil war in the slave codes, or after reconstruction under Jim Crow. Marriages between races, while uncommon were accepted in many locations, word wide. The same cannot be said of SSM, which is a phenomenon of the past few decades with no precedent.

Thus such a radical change should be implemented by the State legislatures, which have constitutional authority over it. Using the Courts is a perversion of constitutional process in this case, not so in Loving.

 

[Syriusly]

The constitution is already respected.

Georgian couples can get married in Georgia.

Where does the federal constitution say marriage laws are covered by the feds?

Feel free to read Loving v. Virginia and find out.

Not applicable. allowing two people of the same sex to marry is such a radical change to the concept of marriage, that it can not be considered constitutionally "equal".t.

Either marriage laws are covered by the constitution or they are not.

Make up your mind.

In the case of loving, it was about extra conditions being applied to the marriage contract, mostly on the books either before the civil war in the slave codes, or after reconstruction under Jim Crow. Marriages between races, while uncommon were accepted in many locations, word wide. The same cannot be said of SSM, which is a phenomenon of the past few decades with no precedent.

Thus such a radical change should be implemented by the State legislatures, which have constitutional authority over it. Using the Courts is a perversion of constitutional process in this case, not so in Loving.

So just to be clear- you now agree that marriage is covered by the Constitution.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Gays don't want equality. They want specialiality with the right of veto over anything they don't like. What they don't like are people who refuse to live their own lives according to their own decisions.

And YOU don't want the right of veto over anything YOU don't like?? That "special rights" is a stale joke without a punch line.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The constitution is already respected.

Georgian couples can get married in Georgia.

Where does the federal constitution say marriage laws are covered by the feds?

Feel free to read Loving v. Virginia and find out.

Not applicable. allowing two people of the same sex to marry is such a radical change to the concept of marriage, that it can not be considered constitutionally "equal".t.

Either marriage laws are covered by the constitution or they are not.

Make up your mind.

In the case of loving, it was about extra conditions being applied to the marriage contract, mostly on the books either before the civil war in the slave codes, or after reconstruction under Jim Crow. Marriages between races, while uncommon were accepted in many locations, word wide. The same cannot be said of SSM, which is a phenomenon of the past few decades with no precedent.

Thus such a radical change should be implemented by the State legislatures, which have constitutional authority over it. Using the Courts is a perversion of constitutional process in this case, not so in Loving.

Wrong, as usual!! Same-Sex Unions throughout Time: A History of Gay Marriage

 

[Syriusly]

And no one is forced to go to any wedding.

Of course if your business is a business that goes to weddings- your business has to follow the same rules as every other business.

i.e. BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE, YOU PEASANT.

ain't we such a brave person when using the government's gun to force and bully others around.....

Serve that fucking n*gger, you gas station attendent!

What you call 'bullying' others call civil rights protections that have been around for 50 years.

Gasoline provision is a point of sale, fungible commodity, and considering travel is a protected right, the attendant and owner could be required to provide said product regardless of their feelings.

You keep forgetting that pesky first amendment, that guarantees free exercise of Religion.

You keep forgetting that Christians still have to follow the law and don't get a special exemption.

Yes- that meant that Christian business owners couldn't deny gas to blacks by claiming that their religion didn't allow them to associate with blacks.

They would have a much harder time proving their harm is greater than the harm done to a person trying to fuel their vehicle, considering providing gasoline is hard to consider as a sinful act, or condoning anything.

Making a contracted cake for a ceremony celebrating something one finds sinful can be construed as blocking free exercise, and considering they are plenty of other bakers available, the person's religious rights in this case supersede someone else's "right" to buy a cake.

They don't have to prove that their harm is 'greater'- the law doesn't care which harm is greater- only that there is harm.

Serving gas to a person of another race, if the server believes that doing business with someone of another race is sinful could be construed as blocking free exercise- but it isn't.

But I do fully support the rights of the business owners to pursue changing the law- just like gay couples denied their marriage rights, they can go to court and claim that their rights are being violated.

And if they win, then the state law will be overturned- just like the unconstitutional anti-gay marriage laws.

 

[Syriusly]

The constitution is already respected.

Georgian couples can get married in Georgia.

Where does the federal constitution say marriage laws are covered by the feds?

Feel free to read Loving v. Virginia and find out.

Not applicable. allowing two people of the same sex to marry is such a radical change to the concept of marriage, that it can not be considered constitutionally "equal".t.

Either marriage laws are covered by the constitution or they are not.

Make up your mind.

According to the Constitution they are not.

Who to believe? You or the Supreme Court?

I will go with the Supreme Court.

 

[martybegan]

Where does the federal constitution say marriage laws are covered by the feds?

Feel free to read Loving v. Virginia and find out.

Not applicable. allowing two people of the same sex to marry is such a radical change to the concept of marriage, that it can not be considered constitutionally "equal".t.

Either marriage laws are covered by the constitution or they are not.

Make up your mind.

In the case of loving, it was about extra conditions being applied to the marriage contract, mostly on the books either before the civil war in the slave codes, or after reconstruction under Jim Crow. Marriages between races, while uncommon were accepted in many locations, word wide. The same cannot be said of SSM, which is a phenomenon of the past few decades with no precedent.

Thus such a radical change should be implemented by the State legislatures, which have constitutional authority over it. Using the Courts is a perversion of constitutional process in this case, not so in Loving.

So just to be clear- you now agree that marriage is covered by the Constitution.

Equal protection is, Marriage isn't. Where we disagree is if SSM is considered equal to OSM via judicial action.

I say it isn't. Only State Legislatures can make it so.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Gays don't want equality. They want specialiality with the right of veto over anything they don't like. What they don't like are people who refuse to live their own lives according to their own decisions.

And YOU don't want the right of veto over anything YOU don't like?? That "special rights" is a stale joke without a punch line.

I want the right of veto over anything I do. I reserve the right of self determination.

 

[martybegan]

i.e. BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE, YOU PEASANT.

ain't we such a brave person when using the government's gun to force and bully others around.....

Serve that fucking n*gger, you gas station attendent!

What you call 'bullying' others call civil rights protections that have been around for 50 years.

Gasoline provision is a point of sale, fungible commodity, and considering travel is a protected right, the attendant and owner could be required to provide said product regardless of their feelings.

You keep forgetting that pesky first amendment, that guarantees free exercise of Religion.

You keep forgetting that Christians still have to follow the law and don't get a special exemption.

Yes- that meant that Christian business owners couldn't deny gas to blacks by claiming that their religion didn't allow them to associate with blacks.

They would have a much harder time proving their harm is greater than the harm done to a person trying to fuel their vehicle, considering providing gasoline is hard to consider as a sinful act, or condoning anything.

Making a contracted cake for a ceremony celebrating something one finds sinful can be construed as blocking free exercise, and considering they are plenty of other bakers available, the person's religious rights in this case supersede someone else's "right" to buy a cake.

They don't have to prove that their harm is 'greater'- the law doesn't care which harm is greater- only that there is harm.

Serving gas to a person of another race, if the server believes that doing business with someone of another race is sinful could be construed as blocking free exercise- but it isn't.

But I do fully support the rights of the business owners to pursue changing the law- just like gay couples denied their marriage rights, they can go to court and claim that their rights are being violated.

And if they win, then the state law will be overturned- just like the unconstitutional anti-gay marriage laws.

Denying SSM at the State level was never unconstitutional, it was un-asshole-progressive-un-elected-lawyers-stitutional.

And yes, when you make a law ruin someone and fine them $143k, there had better be some actual harm, not butt hurt.

You progressives really are a bunch of wussies.

OH NOES!!! THEY MADE ME FEEL BAD! RUIN THEM!!!!

And then you throw in your asshole need to let government do your dirty work.

 

[Syriusly]

Feel free to read Loving v. Virginia and find out.

Not applicable. allowing two people of the same sex to marry is such a radical change to the concept of marriage, that it can not be considered constitutionally "equal".t.

Either marriage laws are covered by the constitution or they are not.

Make up your mind.

In the case of loving, it was about extra conditions being applied to the marriage contract, mostly on the books either before the civil war in the slave codes, or after reconstruction under Jim Crow. Marriages between races, while uncommon were accepted in many locations, word wide. The same cannot be said of SSM, which is a phenomenon of the past few decades with no precedent.

Thus such a radical change should be implemented by the State legislatures, which have constitutional authority over it. Using the Courts is a perversion of constitutional process in this case, not so in Loving.

So just to be clear- you now agree that marriage is covered by the Constitution.

Equal protection is, Marriage isn't. Where we disagree is if SSM is considered equal to OSM via judicial action.
.

Well its a good thing then that Obergefell was based on Equal Protection.

The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection

Of course Obergefell also goes into detail as to the Constitutional right to marriage

Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. For example, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, invalidated bans on interracial unions, and Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, held that prisoners could not be denied the right to marry.

 

[Syriusly]

Serve that fucking n*gger, you gas station attendent!

What you call 'bullying' others call civil rights protections that have been around for 50 years.

Gasoline provision is a point of sale, fungible commodity, and considering travel is a protected right, the attendant and owner could be required to provide said product regardless of their feelings.

You keep forgetting that pesky first amendment, that guarantees free exercise of Religion.

You keep forgetting that Christians still have to follow the law and don't get a special exemption.

Yes- that meant that Christian business owners couldn't deny gas to blacks by claiming that their religion didn't allow them to associate with blacks.

They would have a much harder time proving their harm is greater than the harm done to a person trying to fuel their vehicle, considering providing gasoline is hard to consider as a sinful act, or condoning anything.

Making a contracted cake for a ceremony celebrating something one finds sinful can be construed as blocking free exercise, and considering they are plenty of other bakers available, the person's religious rights in this case supersede someone else's "right" to buy a cake.

They don't have to prove that their harm is 'greater'- the law doesn't care which harm is greater- only that there is harm.

Serving gas to a person of another race, if the server believes that doing business with someone of another race is sinful could be construed as blocking free exercise- but it isn't.

But I do fully support the rights of the business owners to pursue changing the law- just like gay couples denied their marriage rights, they can go to court and claim that their rights are being violated.

And if they win, then the state law will be overturned- just like the unconstitutional anti-gay marriage laws.

Denying SSM at the State level was never unconstitutional, it was un-asshole-progressive-un-elected-lawyers-stitutional.

And yes, when you make a law ruin someone and fine them $143k, there had better be some actual harm, not butt hurt.

You progressives really are a bunch of wussies.

OH NOES!!! THEY MADE ME FEEL BAD! RUIN THEM!!!!

And then you throw in your asshole need to let government do your dirty work.

LOL- you Conservative wusses were so scared of 'gay marriage' you went around passing new laws in state after state to ensure that gays were denied the right to marriage.

Then you delicate snowflakes whine because the law requires Christians to follow the same law as everyone else.

Complaining that your delicate feelings were hurt if the law said you had to bake a cake for blacks and Jews and oh yes- gays.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Even if the state is compelled to recognize a same sex marriage individuals are not bound by such compulsions. An individual is still free to refuse to recognize such marriage and refuse to attend such ceremony. That is just as deserving of protection.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Gasoline provision is a point of sale, fungible commodity, and considering travel is a protected right, the attendant and owner could be required to provide said product regardless of their feelings.

You keep forgetting that pesky first amendment, that guarantees free exercise of Religion.

You keep forgetting that Christians still have to follow the law and don't get a special exemption.

Yes- that meant that Christian business owners couldn't deny gas to blacks by claiming that their religion didn't allow them to associate with blacks.

They would have a much harder time proving their harm is greater than the harm done to a person trying to fuel their vehicle, considering providing gasoline is hard to consider as a sinful act, or condoning anything.

Making a contracted cake for a ceremony celebrating something one finds sinful can be construed as blocking free exercise, and considering they are plenty of other bakers available, the person's religious rights in this case supersede someone else's "right" to buy a cake.

They don't have to prove that their harm is 'greater'- the law doesn't care which harm is greater- only that there is harm.

Serving gas to a person of another race, if the server believes that doing business with someone of another race is sinful could be construed as blocking free exercise- but it isn't.

But I do fully support the rights of the business owners to pursue changing the law- just like gay couples denied their marriage rights, they can go to court and claim that their rights are being violated.

And if they win, then the state law will be overturned- just like the unconstitutional anti-gay marriage laws.

Denying SSM at the State level was never unconstitutional, it was un-asshole-progressive-un-elected-lawyers-stitutional.

And yes, when you make a law ruin someone and fine them $143k, there had better be some actual harm, not butt hurt.

You progressives really are a bunch of wussies.

OH NOES!!! THEY MADE ME FEEL BAD! RUIN THEM!!!!

And then you throw in your asshole need to let government do your dirty work.

LOL- you Conservative wusses were so scared of 'gay marriage' you went around passing new laws in state after state to ensure that gays were denied the right to marriage.

Then you delicate snowflakes whine because the law requires Christians to follow the same law as everyone else.

Complaining that your delicate feelings were hurt if the law said you had to bake a cake for blacks and Jews and oh yes- gays.

Gay feelings are just as delicate if they don't get their way.

 

[Syriusly]

You keep forgetting that Christians still have to follow the law and don't get a special exemption.

Yes- that meant that Christian business owners couldn't deny gas to blacks by claiming that their religion didn't allow them to associate with blacks.

They would have a much harder time proving their harm is greater than the harm done to a person trying to fuel their vehicle, considering providing gasoline is hard to consider as a sinful act, or condoning anything.

Making a contracted cake for a ceremony celebrating something one finds sinful can be construed as blocking free exercise, and considering they are plenty of other bakers available, the person's religious rights in this case supersede someone else's "right" to buy a cake.

They don't have to prove that their harm is 'greater'- the law doesn't care which harm is greater- only that there is harm.

Serving gas to a person of another race, if the server believes that doing business with someone of another race is sinful could be construed as blocking free exercise- but it isn't.

But I do fully support the rights of the business owners to pursue changing the law- just like gay couples denied their marriage rights, they can go to court and claim that their rights are being violated.

And if they win, then the state law will be overturned- just like the unconstitutional anti-gay marriage laws.

Denying SSM at the State level was never unconstitutional, it was un-asshole-progressive-un-elected-lawyers-stitutional.

And yes, when you make a law ruin someone and fine them $143k, there had better be some actual harm, not butt hurt.

You progressives really are a bunch of wussies.

OH NOES!!! THEY MADE ME FEEL BAD! RUIN THEM!!!!

And then you throw in your asshole need to let government do your dirty work.

LOL- you Conservative wusses were so scared of 'gay marriage' you went around passing new laws in state after state to ensure that gays were denied the right to marriage.

Then you delicate snowflakes whine because the law requires Christians to follow the same law as everyone else.

Complaining that your delicate feelings were hurt if the law said you had to bake a cake for blacks and Jews and oh yes- gays.

Gay feelings are just as delicate if they don't get their way.

As delicate as your tender snowflake feelings?

Maybe so.

Luckily you have the same recourse as gay couples- you can go to court if the mean law says that you have to serve blacks and Jews and gays- and scream that your rights are being violated.

 

[Syriusly]

Even if the state is compelled to recognize a same sex marriage individuals are not bound by such compulsions. An individual is still free to refuse to recognize such marriage and refuse to attend such ceremony. That is just as deserving of protection.

And every individual is absolutely free to do so.

But a business still has to follow business law.

 

[Rob37]

Tinfoil hat time for the OP. But that is fine if that is what melts his butter. Obviously, OP is a nut, but we should respect him nonetheless. The bizarre thing is that instead of focusing on typical conspiracy stuff (UFOs, Bigfoot, Masons, federal reserve, etc...), OP focuses on gay marriage, which only affects gays, who only make up something like 2-3% of the population. Very weird. .

So you think that I'm a nut?? What is nuts is thinking that gay marriage - and I assume all forms of discrimination against gays- is in your mind only the concern of gays. Is discrimination against racial, ethnic, or religious groups only the concern of those groups? I don't think so. It speaks to the soul and character of the nation. What sort of country and world do you want to live in? Should we really only be concerned about what effects us directly ?

Personally, I don't care if a homo can marry and receive benefits, or not. Marriage is not the gross stuff. The gross stuff is all the gay sodomy. And that will occur regardless. In fact, if their marriages are like heterosexual marriages, then gay marriage will probably reduce the instances of gay sodomy. It does not matter how hot your spouse is because in 5-6 years you are going to be bored and jacking it to hot chicks on The Weather Channel. .

Why bring up sodomy in a discussion about same sex marriage.? Heterosexuals do it too. They do all sorts of things. You seem to take a dim view of marriage and longevity of relationships but that too is irrelevant

I put this gay marriage thing way down on the list of priorities, below national security, economic prosperity, and immigration. We probably should not bother with it until we fix our roads and build the border wall. The gays will be fine. Fact is, we are doing them a favor if we stop letting them get married.

Doing them a favor?? Sounds again like you have some issues. Yes there are other priorities but concern for LGBT rights and advancing those rights does not preclude pursuing other goals. In fact same sex marriage has been good for the economy. It's the jackass republicans who -as I have demonstrated- that spend time trying to thwart gay right and therefore detract from the pursuit of those other goals.

Hey, I am basically agreeing with you. Don't get your panties all in a bunch. First, YOU are not the final arbiter of what is the acceptable "soul and character" of our nation. In fact, you are being unreasonably presumptuous. Not everybody has your sensibilities, and those who do not are not wrong or bad people.

Second, I am utterly perplexed as to why you think that gay sodomy has nothing to do with gay rights. Are you serious? That is pure lunacy. You may want it to, but it does. Duh.

Finally, you assert that gay marriage is good for our economy but fail to support that with any facts. I guess you simply thought that it sounded good.

So, yeah, you qualify as a nut... a big, old fat tin foil hat wearing nut.

You agreeing with me?? You started out by calling me crazy and you just did it again. What exactly do we agree on.

I didn't say that I was "the final arbiter of what is the acceptable" Or anything of the kind. What I am saying is that most people who are part of human society agree on certain thing such as how we treat other people.

In addition, I never said that "gay sodomy" has nothing to do with gay rights. You might want to look up Lawrence V. Texas. I am saying that how people have sex has nothing to do with the issue of marriage. With me so far??

Regarding economics.....I did your homework for you. Unlike many here, I never say anything that I can't back up:

8 Ways Legalizing Same Sex Marriage Is Good For The Economy | The Huffington Post

The Economic Benefits of Gay Marriage

Same-Sex Marriage Economic Benefits for the U.S. · Guardian Liberty Voice

Well, it is clear that you are a hopeless fool. Perhaps you need to reflect on your prior statement more closely instead of going off half cocker on an emotional fueled tirade, you nut!

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Even if the state is compelled to recognize a same sex marriage individuals are not bound by such compulsions. An individual is still free to refuse to recognize such marriage and refuse to attend such ceremony. That is just as deserving of protection.

And every individual is absolutely free to do so.

But a business still has to follow business law.

That's why those laws need to be changed and the freedom of autonomy returned.

 

[Markle]

While Trump himself has been pretty quiet on the subject of same sex marriage and LGBT rights in general, we know that he has surrounded himself with some of the most opprobrious bigots - both religious and those that are just far right-or alt right -ideologues and hate mongers.

There was the recent report - a resulted from a leak from the White House- that an executive order was being drafted to overturn Obamas EO prohibiting discrimination against Federal LGBT employees and contractors. If put in front of Trump, the lazy and incurious plutocrat might have mindlessly signed it. Fortunately, Jerod and Ivanka Kushner- two of the few rational and decent people on his inner circle interceded and it was quashed.

Nevertheless, the knowledge of the anti gay forces lurking in the White House, have , apparently ,emboldened ideological bigots and religious zealots across the country to take new aim at marriage equality.

There are at least three attempts in progress to do so. All have been launched since the election, and I can't help but to believe that they have been inspired and encouraged by the reactionary forces that have gained power and influence recently. No doubt that the prospect of tipping the balance of the Supreme Court is also a factor. Consider:

Tennessee Bill Would Undo Marriage Equality
A bill making its way through the Tennessee state legislature aims to roll back marriage equality in the Volunteer State. But LGBT advocates say the legislation is an unconstitutional attempt to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court.
Tennessee Republican Rep. Mark Pody, who claims God has called him to stop same-sex marriages, introduced House Bill 1412, the Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act, last September. At the same time, Sen. Mae Beavers, also a Republican, introduced companion legislation in the Senate.

This is really stupid and unconstitutional is light of the Obergefell ruling. What are these people thinking and do they not have anything better to do? Are there not some actual problems to address that they will spent time, money and energy on this??

As written, the bill seeks to declare it "the policy of Tennessee to defend natural marriage between one man and one woman regardless of any court decision to the contrary." It requires state officials, including the attorney general, to "defend any state or local government official from any lawsuit" arising from an official's refusal to marry a same-sex couple. The bill also seeks to prevent state and local agencies from implementing any punishment for those violating the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling that mandated legal marriage equality nationwide.

They cannot possibly get away with this unless they can get Obergefell and Windsor overturned, and that is not happening. Similarly, the City of Houston is trying to undermine the right of same sex partners of city employees to recieve spousal benefits, also in violation of Obergefell:

Amid GOP Pressure, Texas High Court to Hear Challenge to Spousal Benefits

The Texas Supreme Court Friday agreed to hear a case challenging some of the rights gained with marriage equality.
The case involves whether the city of Houston is obligated to provide benefits to same-sex spouses of city employees, The Dallas Morning News reports. In September the high court had declined to hear the case, but justices reversed that decision amid pressure from top Republican state officials, including Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, and Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Then we have this out of Arkansas.

Seriously, Arkansas? Even Trump Knows Same-Sex Marriage Is Done Deal
Guys, you aren’t actually going to even believe this. There are still people trying to get rid of same-sex marriage. If you’re all, “didn’t we already fight about this a long time ago?” you’d be right. Except that news apparently hasn’t hit Arkansas just yet. One of its esteemed legislators just filed a Senate Joint Resolution requesting the United States Congress to start working on a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as the “union of one man and one woman.” How positively late-90s of him.

Yes, it is unlikely to go anywhere, and even congressional Republicans know that it is unpopular and a colossal waste of time. However, the point is, as I have said, that there has been a flurry of this type of activity since the election. Does anyone deny the obvious connection given that fact that no such attempts to roll back marriage equality in the 18 months or so since the Obergefell ruling were introduced until now.??

Your ignorance and hatred of PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP are duly noted.

Typical of far left Progressives, your typical mode is FIRE, READY, AIM.

This is how much of a racist and bigot really is instead of you wishful thinking.

When Donald Trump bought Mar-a-Lago, he was forced to sue the city:

Discrimination[edit]
In December 1997, Trump filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that the town was discriminating against Mar-a-Lago, in part because it was open to Jews and blacks.
Mar-a-Lago - Wikipedia

The suit also forced the city to allow gays and anyone else to join his exclusive club.

I am a resident of Florida and a Realtor for over 40 years. I also taught Fair Housing and business planning for the Florida Association of Realtor and Diversity for the National Association of Realtors. I am also very close to a number of Realtors in West Palm Beach as well as their Association management and leadership.

WPB is a different world. From the day it was discovered as such a paradise, it was developed SOLELY for the use of the ultra rich. Not the rich, but the ultra and mega rich. I tried many times to present my own Fair Housing seminar to their association. Many times I socialized with the CEO of their Realtor Association. She told me that she'd love to have me, my programs always received rave reviews, but no one would come. They just live in their own world.

For Donald Trump to go in and fight the communities prejudices, long before he ever ran for anything, was a man doing the right thing, NO MATTER WHAT. He also sued the city to allow him to fly as large a flag as he wanted. He then negotiated with the city to move the flag pole and lower it by 10 feet. For that he was allowed to have members who DID NOT LIVE IN PALM BEACH.