Gay Marriage Added To Democratic Platform

[bodecea]

Cant wait until the homo perverts and PETA unite and we get a platform on beastiality

That's RW classy right there.

 

[g5000]

Cant wait until the homo perverts and PETA unite and we get a platform on beastiality

That's RW classy right there.

It's a Pavlovian reflex. Say "homosexuality" and they have been trained to say "incest and bestiality and pedophilia" and drool on the floor. They really cannot help it.

 

[bodecea]

Cant wait until the homo perverts and PETA unite and we get a platform on beastiality

That's RW classy right there.

It's a Pavlovian reflex. Say "homosexuality" and they have been trained to say "incest and bestiality and pedophilia" and drool on the floor. They really cannot help it.

If they're not talking more about gay sex than gay people do, that is.....

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

As a matter of fact, gay marriage is good for the economy.

Put the crack pipe down and slowly back away
.

I'm serious. States where gay marriage has become legal have seen a great deal of stimulus to their economies, as thousands of couples previously unable to marry flock to tie the knot, spending a great deal of money on their weddings.

Gay Marriage Has Boosted Iowa’s Economy, Study Concludes - ABC News

Study: Gay Marriage Good For Economy - CBS News

New York Gay Marriage Generated $259 Million In Economic Impact For NYC, According To Report

Yes, a one time boom because it's illegal everywhere else so EVERYONE from across the country flocks to one or two places thus that place has an influx of cash. True enough but hardly a sustainable source of funds.

 

[hjmick]

Good for them.

Gary Johnson has always supported gay marriage. Even before Obama evolved...

 

[del]

Democrats: Party of Sodom.

ariux: head of cement

 

[Seawytch]

Democrats: Party of Sodom.

ariux: head of cement

That's in Leviticus, right?

 

[bodecea]

Democrats: Party of Sodom.

ariux: head of cement

That's in Leviticus, right?

Probably in the parts that are conveniently forgotten all the time.

 

[del]

Democrats: Party of Sodom.

ariux: head of cement

That's in Leviticus, right?

hopefully

 

[g5000]

Those who are in favour of marriage equality are already on the Democratic side and those against it are on the Republican side. I can't imagine this decision does anything more than fire up "conservative" voters.

Dick Cheney: No use backing gay marriage in '00

Dick Cheney says he didn't see the point of raising the issue of gay marriage in the 2000 presidential campaign, though he supported it.

The former vice president suggested it wouldn't have done much good and probably would have sunk President George W. Bush's prospects for office. "Why?" he responded when asked in an ABC News interview whether he should have pushed harder for gay couples to marry.

 

[buckeye45_73]

ariux: head of cement

That's in Leviticus, right?

Probably in the parts that are conveniently forgotten all the time.

Actually it's not in Leviticus, it's in the Democratic Party Platform.....nothing like a little sodamy to get ya going!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[sfcalifornia]

Those who are in favour of marriage equality are already on the Democratic side and those against it are on the Republican side. I can't imagine this decision does anything more than fire up "conservative" voters.

I-N-D-E-P-E-N-D-E-N-T-S

Believe it or not there is a significant segment of our population who could care less what you do in your personal life but feel marriage is between a man and a woman.

Acceptance of homosexuality sure feels forced on folks these days.

There is fallout from that.

Nobody's forcing anyone to accept homosexuality but people sure as shit are gonna stop beating up on gay people, discriminating against gay people and they're gonna stop denying gay people the same access to government benefits.

 

[sfcalifornia]

The reason is to apply the case law one has to accept that being black and marrying a white woman is equal to two men getting married.

It is the same thing. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court said that a rational reason must be given for banning interracial marriage, and that all the opponents had was that they didn't like it, which is not a rational reason.

The same is true for gay marriage. There is no rational reason for opposing it. It all boils down to some people just don't like it. "God hates fags" is not a rational reason for denying a gay married couple the right to file a married tax return. No opponent has ever proven that a gay marriage causes harm.

What does not seem to penetrate through the smoke thrown up by opponents is that this is all about "equal protection under the law".

That was the basis for Loving, and that is the basis for gay marriage rights.

For governmental purposes, marriage is strictly a contract. That does not mean churches will or should be forced into performing marriages they oppose. So long as the government is not telling a church that they must marry gays, then I don't see where there should be any problem.

On a side note, there is one group that is 100% in support of gay marriage. That would be the divorce lawyers.

There isn't a law in the land which is going to dictate to a church who they should and shouldn't marry because thankfully, in this country, the government regards all religions as cults equally across the board, as long as they don't take government money. The Catholic church has been discriminatory in it's marrying practices for centuries. The government couldn't care less.
Now if we could just get the thick-headed religious freaks to realize that and stop being so scared, maybe they'd butt the fuck out of gays' business and quit wasting everyone's time and money.

 

[Artevelde]

I don't see the potential for a significant uptick of voters from such a proclamation.

I do see how you could lose ones who otherwise supported you.

true.

 

[Artevelde]

Those who are in favour of marriage equality are already on the Democratic side and those against it are on the Republican side. I can't imagine this decision does anything more than fire up "conservative" voters.

I-N-D-E-P-E-N-D-E-N-T-S

Believe it or not there is a significant segment of our population who could care less what you do in your personal life but feel marriage is between a man and a woman.

Acceptance of homosexuality sure feels forced on folks these days.

There is fallout from that.

Nobody's forcing anyone to accept homosexuality but people sure as shit are gonna stop beating up on gay people, discriminating against gay people and they're gonna stop denying gay people the same access to government benefits.

You are spouting nonsense. It is simply a lie that the fact that marriage is a union between a man and a woman is a discrimination. You are just a bigotted idiot.

 

[Seawytch]

You are spouting nonsense. It is simply a lie that the fact that marriage is a union between a man and a woman is a discrimination. You are just a bigotted idiot.

Really? You must have a completely unique definition of discrimination then.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't see the potential for a significant uptick of voters from such a proclamation.

I do see how you could lose ones who otherwise supported you.

Not really.

The ground is shifting on this issue, the kind of people who hate gays so much due to their own sexual insecurities weren't going to vote for Obama anyway.

 

[JoeB131]

Well thank god democrats are on top of the vital issues to our nation and struggling economy

As a matter of fact, gay marriage is good for the economy.

Put the crack pipe down and slowly back away
.

what's wrong with that statement.

Let's say gay marriage was legalized.

That would mean more work for photographers, caterers, florists, reception halls, printers who do invitations, and everyone else who makes money off of weddings.

Can't see this as anything but a good.

 

[JoeB131]

The reason is to apply the case law one has to accept that being black and marrying a white woman is equal to two men getting married.

It is the same thing. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court said that a rational reason must be given for banning interracial marriage, and that all the opponents had going for them was that they didn't like it, which is not a rational reason.

The same is true for gay marriage. There is no rational reason for opposing it. It all boils down to some people just don't like it. "God hates fags" is not a rational reason for denying a gay married couple the right to file a married tax return.

What does not seem to penetrate through the smoke thrown up by opponents is that this is all about "equal protection under the law".

That was the basis for Loving, and that is the basis for gay marriage rights.

Homosexuals are not a protected class. Racial identity is. That is why Loving though applicable in your emotional court hasn't stood scrutiny of its application to gays.

I wasn't aware we had any "protected" classes.

There is only equal protection under the law.

Now, where I part ways with my liberal friends on this board is that I don't think it would be good if gay marriage were made legal by judicial fiat, as they are trying to do in California. I think it should be done through the legislative process.

But in the long run, gay marriage is going to happen across the country, and you guys are just going to need to learn to deal.

 

[Seawytch]

As a matter of fact, gay marriage is good for the economy.

Put the crack pipe down and slowly back away
.

what's wrong with that statement.

Let's say gay marriage was legalized.

That would mean more work for photographers, caterers, florists, reception halls, printers who do invitations, and everyone else who makes money off of weddings.

Can't see this as anything but a good.

The gay marriage windfall