Homosexual boy scout is mad because he won't be given eagle badge

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm sure those that enshrined anti-miscegenation as part of the North Carolina Constitution in 1875 felt that it would remain there forever also. However it was removed in 1971 when the new Constitution was adopted.

"Never" is a very long time.


>>>>

North Carolina Amendment One LOOK IT UP.

Be happy to if you can explain why reading it would change what I mentioned. Many in 1875 who enshrined anti-miscegenation laws into the North Carolina Constitution in 1875 felt interracial Civil Marriage would "Never" occur.

Are interracial Civil Marriage still against the North Carolina Constitution?

Is "Never" not a long time?



Please explain.


>>>>

Marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what we the people of North Carolina voted on by in 2010

 

[WorldWatcher]

North Carolina Amendment One LOOK IT UP.

Be happy to if you can explain why reading it would change what I mentioned. Many in 1875 who enshrined anti-miscegenation laws into the North Carolina Constitution in 1875 felt interracial Civil Marriage would "Never" occur.

Are interracial Civil Marriage still against the North Carolina Constitution?

Is "Never" not a long time?



Please explain.


>>>>

Marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what we the people of North Carolina voted on by in 2010

And Marriage was only between white people and white people and colored people and colored people. That's what North Carolina voted on in 1875. Is that still that way in North Carolina? The point was there was a claim that will never change, guess what, I bet there were people in 1875 that thought it would never change either.

And Civil Marriage depends on geography, there are 7 legal entities that recognize Civil Marriage as between to consenting, non-related adults.


>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Be happy to if you can explain why reading it would change what I mentioned. Many in 1875 who enshrined anti-miscegenation laws into the North Carolina Constitution in 1875 felt interracial Civil Marriage would "Never" occur.

Are interracial Civil Marriage still against the North Carolina Constitution?

Is "Never" not a long time?



Please explain.


>>>>

Marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what we the people of North Carolina voted on by in 2010

And Marriage was only between white people and white people and colored people and colored people. That's what North Carolina voted on in 1875. Is that still that way in North Carolina? The point was there was a claim that will never change, guess what, I bet there were people in 1875 that thought it would never change either.

And Civil Marriage depends on geography, there are 7 legal entities that recognize Civil Marriage as between to consenting, non-related adults.


>>>>

As far as the people of North Carolina are concerned marriage will always be between a man and a woman.
I wished you faggots would stop comparing blacks too faggots.

 

[ABikerSailor]

They are doing the right thing.
if the boy wants to join a group he can join the rainbow warriors.

What if the boys father wants him to join scouts so that he can "man up" ?

Beat the gayness out of him first if that is what he wants too do.

Quick question....................can we beat the bigotry, racism, and homophobia out of you first?

 

[jtpr312]

Yep, just like they were passed at the ballot box, they can be repealed at the ballot box.

The Federal government will be recognizing all legal Civil Marriages in the next couple of years either through the Congressional repeal of DOMA or the SCOTUS overturning statutory law that discriminates between like situated citizens (Same-sex Civilly Married couples and Different-sex Civilly Married couples) based on gender and with no compelling government interest except the intend to discriminate. Section 3 of DOMA (the part that limits Federal recognition) will go down the tubes. Section 2 of DOMA (which provides States don't have to recognize Civil Marriage not recognized in their State ONLY based on gender) will probably be around for a few extra years. I see, and yes this is IMHO, will be repealed and replaced with a more Constitutional version which provides that State don't have to recognize Civil Marriages that conflict with their own laws for ANY reason.



"Soon" is a subjective term not a quantitative term. In 2004 there were Zero, 0, nadda, zip legal entities that recognized Same-sex Civil Marriage in any capacity. Now there are 9 (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, The District of Columbia, California*, and Maryland**)


* Despite Prop 8 (which would not pass today), the Government of California still recognizes as Civilly Married all California Civil Marriage performed between June and November of 2008 and all Civil Marriage performed out of state during that time.

**Maryland also recognizes legal Civil Marriage from outside the State irregardless of gender even though, currently, Same-sex Civil Marriages cannot be performed there. (Maryland Attorney General [Feb 2010], Maryland Court of Appeals (Port v. Cowan, May 2012])



>>>>

Congress would be hard pressed to repeal DOMA seeing that most Republican Lawmakers and their Constituents believe marriage to be only a union between a man and a woman. As for there being zero in 2004 and 9 now, those 9 are due to activist judges making their own laws and democratic lawmakers ignoring the will of their citizens and instead pandering to the far left and the militant homosexuals in their party. As for the Supreme Court, that would all depend on whether obama is re-elected and can change the voting blocks of the 9 whores in DC.

When polls show a majority of American citizens support Same-sex Civil Marriage and when in the last two general elections support for Same-sex Civil Marriage gathers 47.5% of the votes - that is hardly just "far left and the militant homosexuals", that's becoming a position pretty much held my mainstream people across the united states.

Watch the votes for Washington, Maine, Maryland, and Minnesota - think that it will be only "hard left" that will be voting in support of equal treatment? That would mean they only get about what - say 20% of the vote? I'd posit that in each state the vote in support will be a minimum of 45% each and there is a very good chance that at least two of the four will pass equal treatment under Civil Marriage laws.


Attitudes are changing and they are changing in the Republican party (which I've been a member of since I registered to vote in 1978). It's OK, give it time.


>>>>

I live in Md, so I know we're a hard left state politically. Also, we know Maine, Mn and Washington all lean left. But the fact remains that even in the blue states like Maine, Mn, Washington and Md when put to a vote American people say no to gay marriage. I personally have no problem with civil unions, but you cannot call an apple a car and you cannot call two homosexuals playing house a marriage.

 

[jtpr312]

When polls show a majority of American citizens support Same-sex Civil Marriage and when in the last two general elections support for Same-sex Civil Marriage gathers 47.5% of the votes - that is hardly just "far left and the militant homosexuals", that's becoming a position pretty much held my mainstream people across the united states.

Watch the votes for Washington, Maine, Maryland, and Minnesota - think that it will be only "hard left" that will be voting in support of equal treatment? That would mean they only get about what - say 20% of the vote? I'd posit that in each state the vote in support will be a minimum of 45% each and there is a very good chance that at least two of the four will pass equal treatment under Civil Marriage laws.


Attitudes are changing and they are changing in the Republican party (which I've been a member of since I registered to vote in 1978). It's OK, give it time.


>>>>

He is right in that Red State Bible belters will filibuster any attempt to repeal DOMA. Congress can't pass the simplest bill, no way they would agree on this

That is why we have courts.

Congress passed the repeal of DADT, the system works, sometimes you just have to have faith that our elected representatives will do the right thing and reject government sanctioned discrimination.

IMHO, repeal is much better then the courts overturning it because it pulls the teeth on the "activist judges" mantra.


>>>>

No, the democrats shoved the repeal down our throats, just like they did with obamacare. It was because of that attitude, and those left wing beliefs the democratric party holds so dear, that led to them losing control of the Congress in 2010 and will likely cost obama the presidency next week.

 

[jtpr312]

What happens to all the gay scouts whose parents sent them into scouting to develop the manly skills of camping, knot tying, first aid and being around positive male role models?

Let the boys in, let them earn rank....then kick them out if they actually admit they are gay

There is nothing to prevent the formation of an organization that teaches the exact same things but admits gays.

Diversity so far is creating a kind of parallel business class. Those that will serve everyone and those that choose to discriminate. Like my mechanic who won't service the cars of black people. The photographer who has found a way to not take the wedding photographs of gay couples. The bakery who no longer bakes wedding cakes. Of course all these people still perform these services, they have just found a way around doing by force what they wouldn't do voluntarily. I thought that I was being innovative when I won my case against the lesbian couple. As it turns out, I was being quite ordinary.

That would negate their whole platform which has nothing to do with equality, and everything to do with acceptance. The sodomites and lesbians will not be happy unless everyone accepts their perverse and deviant choices as good, natural and normal. NOTHING else will please these people.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What if the boys father wants him to join scouts so that he can "man up" ?

Beat the gayness out of him first if that is what he wants too do.

Quick question....................can we beat the bigotry, racism, and homophobia out of you first?

Seabitch you're the fucking racist, comparing blacks with faggots so stop being racist.

 

[rightwinger]

Beat the gayness out of him first if that is what he wants too do.

Quick question....................can we beat the bigotry, racism, and homophobia out of you first?

Seabitch you're the fucking racist, comparing blacks with faggots so stop being racist.

Both blacks and faggots are accepted members of our society.....those who spout your hatred are not

 

[WorldWatcher]

Congress would be hard pressed to repeal DOMA seeing that most Republican Lawmakers and their Constituents believe marriage to be only a union between a man and a woman. As for there being zero in 2004 and 9 now, those 9 are due to activist judges making their own laws and democratic lawmakers ignoring the will of their citizens and instead pandering to the far left and the militant homosexuals in their party. As for the Supreme Court, that would all depend on whether obama is re-elected and can change the voting blocks of the 9 whores in DC.

When polls show a majority of American citizens support Same-sex Civil Marriage and when in the last two general elections support for Same-sex Civil Marriage gathers 47.5% of the votes - that is hardly just "far left and the militant homosexuals", that's becoming a position pretty much held my mainstream people across the united states.

Watch the votes for Washington, Maine, Maryland, and Minnesota - think that it will be only "hard left" that will be voting in support of equal treatment? That would mean they only get about what - say 20% of the vote? I'd posit that in each state the vote in support will be a minimum of 45% each and there is a very good chance that at least two of the four will pass equal treatment under Civil Marriage laws.


Attitudes are changing and they are changing in the Republican party (which I've been a member of since I registered to vote in 1978). It's OK, give it time.


>>>>

I live in Md, so I know we're a hard left state politically. Also, we know Maine, Mn and Washington all lean left. But the fact remains that even in the blue states like Maine, Mn, Washington and Md when put to a vote American people say no to gay marriage.

And well see if that string continues next Tuesday.

I personally have no problem with civil unions, but you cannot call an apple a car and you cannot call two homosexuals playing house a marriage.

Of course you can't call two people playing house "marriage" because they aren't Civilly Married under the law. That's the difference between Civil Marriage and "Playing House" whether they are a same-sex couple or a different-sex couple.

However you can definitely call a same-sex couple Civilly Married if they are married under the laws of their state, just like a different-sex couple are Civilly Married if they are married under the laws of their state.

No difference really.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

He is right in that Red State Bible belters will filibuster any attempt to repeal DOMA. Congress can't pass the simplest bill, no way they would agree on this

That is why we have courts.

Congress passed the repeal of DADT, the system works, sometimes you just have to have faith that our elected representatives will do the right thing and reject government sanctioned discrimination.

IMHO, repeal is much better then the courts overturning it because it pulls the teeth on the "activist judges" mantra.


>>>>

No, the democrats shoved the repeal down our throats, just like they did with obamacare. It was because of that attitude, and those left wing beliefs the democratric party holds so dear, that led to them losing control of the Congress in 2010 and will likely cost obama the presidency next week.

Actually they lost control of the House in the mid-terms because of the shitty economy, polling shows that actually over 2/3rds of adults supported the repeal. That means it wasn't just the Democrats that supported repeal.


Hopefully Obama will be defeated next week, but it won't be Same-sex Civil Marriage that makes the difference. Most of those who support equal treatment for same-sex couples from a left perspective were going to vote for him anyway. Most of those who support equal treatment from a more fundamental Goldwater perspective on the right were going to vote against him anyway because of the economy. In the end it will have made little to no difference in the outcome. But let's hope Romney wins so we can try to get some fiscal sanity back in Washington and after the election Romney can move back to the center on social issues after throwing some meat to get the religious right on board during the primaries.



>>>>

 

[jtpr312]

When polls show a majority of American citizens support Same-sex Civil Marriage and when in the last two general elections support for Same-sex Civil Marriage gathers 47.5% of the votes - that is hardly just "far left and the militant homosexuals", that's becoming a position pretty much held my mainstream people across the united states.

Watch the votes for Washington, Maine, Maryland, and Minnesota - think that it will be only "hard left" that will be voting in support of equal treatment? That would mean they only get about what - say 20% of the vote? I'd posit that in each state the vote in support will be a minimum of 45% each and there is a very good chance that at least two of the four will pass equal treatment under Civil Marriage laws.


Attitudes are changing and they are changing in the Republican party (which I've been a member of since I registered to vote in 1978). It's OK, give it time.


>>>>

I live in Md, so I know we're a hard left state politically. Also, we know Maine, Mn and Washington all lean left. But the fact remains that even in the blue states like Maine, Mn, Washington and Md when put to a vote American people say no to gay marriage.

And well see if that string continues next Tuesday.

I personally have no problem with civil unions, but you cannot call an apple a car and you cannot call two homosexuals playing house a marriage.

Of course you can't call two people playing house "marriage" because they aren't Civilly Married under the law. That's the difference between Civil Marriage and "Playing House" whether they are a same-sex couple or a different-sex couple.

However you can definitely call a same-sex couple Civilly Married if they are married under the laws of their state, just like a different-sex couple are Civilly Married if they are married under the laws of their state.

No difference really.


>>>>

There's a big difference slick. According to your logic if the State tells me an apple is now called a car, that means the apple now becomes a car, but the reality is, no matter what the State says, you cannot make an apple into a car just by calling it one, and you can't make two homosexuals playing house together a marriage just by calling it one.

 

[jtpr312]

Congress passed the repeal of DADT, the system works, sometimes you just have to have faith that our elected representatives will do the right thing and reject government sanctioned discrimination.

IMHO, repeal is much better then the courts overturning it because it pulls the teeth on the "activist judges" mantra.


>>>>

No, the democrats shoved the repeal down our throats, just like they did with obamacare. It was because of that attitude, and those left wing beliefs the democratric party holds so dear, that led to them losing control of the Congress in 2010 and will likely cost obama the presidency next week.

Actually they lost control of the House in the mid-terms because of the shitty economy, polling shows that actually over 2/3rds of adults supported the repeal. That means it wasn't just the Democrats that supported repeal.


Hopefully Obama will be defeated next week, but it won't be Same-sex Civil Marriage that makes the difference. Most of those who support equal treatment for same-sex couples from a left perspective were going to vote for him anyway. Most of those who support equal treatment from a more fundamental Goldwater perspective on the right were going to vote against him anyway because of the economy. In the end it will have made little to no difference in the outcome. But let's hope Romney wins so we can try to get some fiscal sanity back in Washington and after the election Romney can move back to the center on social issues after throwing some meat to get the religious right on board during the primaries.



>>>>

I know you people have a hard time understanding this, but homosexuals today already enjoy the same EXACT rights as EVERY other American. Nobody is denying anyone any rights that others enjoy. EVERY man in this nation has the right to marry ANY woman who will have him, just as EVERY woman in this nation has the right to marry ANY man that will have her. You can't get more equal than that. The homos don't want equality, they already have it, they want their perverse and deviant choices to be accepted as natural and normoal, things homosexualtiy will never be. We should not redifint the meaning of marriage just to appease a group of sexual perverts and deviants that make up approx 2-3% of our population. Why should 97% of us be forced to accomodate the perversions of so few?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Quick question....................can we beat the bigotry, racism, and homophobia out of you first?

Seabitch you're the fucking racist, comparing blacks with faggots so stop being racist.

Both blacks and faggots are accepted members of our society.....those who spout your hatred are not

I'm not racist I don't compare use blacks to support faggots they are two different things.
Faggots have basic rights. I really wished you racist would stop using blacks as your whipping boys.

 

[rightwinger]

I live in Md, so I know we're a hard left state politically. Also, we know Maine, Mn and Washington all lean left. But the fact remains that even in the blue states like Maine, Mn, Washington and Md when put to a vote American people say no to gay marriage.

And well see if that string continues next Tuesday.

I personally have no problem with civil unions, but you cannot call an apple a car and you cannot call two homosexuals playing house a marriage.

Of course you can't call two people playing house "marriage" because they aren't Civilly Married under the law. That's the difference between Civil Marriage and "Playing House" whether they are a same-sex couple or a different-sex couple.

However you can definitely call a same-sex couple Civilly Married if they are married under the laws of their state, just like a different-sex couple are Civilly Married if they are married under the laws of their state.

No difference really.


>>>>

There's a big difference slick. According to your logic if the State tells me an apple is now called a car, that means the apple now becomes a car, but the reality is, no matter what the State says, you cannot make an apple into a car just by calling it one, and you can't make two homosexuals playing house together a marriage just by calling it one.

The state can say that haters can no longer dictate the policy on who is allowed to marry. Just like prior to Loving v Virginia when those like you said "yuk" ant " thats not natural" about blacks and whites marrying. The state does not have to comply with your petty biases