Freewill
Platinum Member
- Oct 26, 2011
- 31,158
- 5,072
- 1,130
I know many "social cons" and I've never heard any of them say they disagreed with civil unions
Funny think is that over a decade ago it was social conservatives (which included Democrats and Republicans if talking about a political party) that pushed state constitutional amendments that banned both Civil Marriage and Civil Unions.
Like this one from my states (Virginia):
Section 15-A. Marriage.
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
The of course there was Referendum 71 an attempt to repeal Washington States Civil Union law which granted all the rights, responsibilities, and privileges (at the State level, Civil Unions did not transfer across state lines nor were they recognized by the federal government) of Civil Marriage. Social Conservatives were upset that it made Civil Unions to much like Civil Marriage and therefore was unacceptable.
I'm in my 50's and was around back then. Please to try to re-write history and imply that social conservatives pushed for Civil Unions for gays and it was gays that rejected them.
>>>>
You figure out the difference between Covenants and Testaments yet? That would be on Google also
Deflection.
1. It was the owner that quoted Leviticus when he referred to the couple as an abomination. Maybe you should right a letter to Aaron Klein and explain the difference.
2. Deflection from the post I responded to. It was Social Conservatives that fought against and banned Civil Unions.
>>>>
The Leviticus law condemning homosexuality is valid, it's a moral law, not ceremonial or dietary law and the New Covenant didn't void it
Perhaps you should comment on topics you are knowledgeable about?
Yammean like bogus Thomas Jefferson quotes you get from Googly Images and then post without bothering to find out if they're real?
Like this one better?
"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."1