"..Marriage has always been between a man and a woman."

[Clementine]

Funny how some get fired and publicly ridiculed, yet others simply get instantly forgiven and supported. All depends on which side of the political fence you're standing on.

While I have no issues with gays tying the knot, I am forever amazed at the hypocrisy on the left when it comes to whose feet they hold to the fire. The CEO donated money to let his opinion be heard. Fair enough, as that is how it works here in America. Debate openly and let the people vote and decide. However, the Clintons were against gay marriage and legislation was passed that made their opinion law without another vote by the people.

“If it is unconscionable to support a company whose CEO once donated to the cause against marriage equality, why is it not unconscionable to support a candidate who opposed marriage equality as recently as 2008, and who was an integral part of an administration that embraced the Defense Of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton?”

“How do you weigh the relative impact of a president strongly backing DOMA – even running ads touting his support for it in the South – and an executive who spent $1000 for an anti-marriage equality Proposition?”

Who said this?

"Marriage has a historic, religious and moral context that goes back to the beginning of time. And I think a marriage has always been between a man and a woman.”

Why, it was Hillary Clinton, of course. I wish the liberals here would react to that statement on it's own merit, but they will look at the author of the quote and go easy on her. And Obama didn't "evolve" on the issue until Biden opened his mouth and said that Obama supported it. Once that was out and the entire gay community was paying attention, Obama had little choice but to claim he evolved, apparently overnight. I found that evolution of his completely disingenuous. And Hillary hasn't publicly "evolved" yet. She was against gay marriage last time she spoke of it in 2008. Should we expect another miraculous overnight change of heart? The left will believe it despite being an obvious ploy to polish up her image for her presidential run. One thing I've learned about the low-info Dem voters, as long as the promise sounds pretty and more handouts and amnesty are promised, they will vote for the person willing to steal on their behalf. We are at that point where nearly half are voting themselves into a life of living on tax payer money. Dangling tax money in front of people is so tempting that they will forget all the lies and the horrible mess this country is in.


What Do Hillary Clinton & Booted Mozilla CEO Have in Common When it Comes to Traditional Marriage?

 

[martybegan]

Funny how some get fired and publicly ridiculed, yet others simply get instantly forgiven and supported. All depends on which side of the political fence you're standing on.

While I have no issues with gays tying the knot, I am forever amazed at the hypocrisy on the left when it comes to whose feet they hold to the fire. The CEO donated money to let his opinion be heard. Fair enough, as that is how it works here in America. Debate openly and let the people vote and decide. However, the Clintons were against gay marriage and legislation was passed that made their opinion law without another vote by the people.

“If it is unconscionable to support a company whose CEO once donated to the cause against marriage equality, why is it not unconscionable to support a candidate who opposed marriage equality as recently as 2008, and who was an integral part of an administration that embraced the Defense Of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton?”

“How do you weigh the relative impact of a president strongly backing DOMA – even running ads touting his support for it in the South – and an executive who spent $1000 for an anti-marriage equality Proposition?”

Who said this?

"Marriage has a historic, religious and moral context that goes back to the beginning of time. And I think a marriage has always been between a man and a woman.”

Why, it is Hillary Clinton, of course. I wish the liberals here would react to that statement on it's own merit, but they will look at the author of the quote and go easy on her. And Obama didn't "evolve" on the issue until Biden opened his mouth and said that Obama supported it. Once that was out and the entire gay community was paying attention, Obama had little choice but to claim he evolved, apparently overnight. I found that evolution of his completely disingenuous.


What Do Hillary Clinton & Booted Mozilla CEO Have in Common When it Comes to Traditional Marriage?

If you are part of the "tribe" then you are allowed to lie to make sure you get elected/supported. The left knows their side supports gay marriage, but they worried that part of their caucus, i.e. religious minorities would be offended. Now that they know it isn't impacting their vote base, they are free to reveal the position they held all along.

Progressives lie to get elected. Why is anyone shocked by this?

 

[Moxie2]

Funny how some get fired and publicly ridiculed, yet others simply get instantly forgiven and supported. All depends on which side of the political fence you're standing on.

While I have no issues with gays tying the knot, I am forever amazed at the hypocrisy on the left when it comes to whose feet they hold to the fire. The CEO donated money to let his opinion be heard. Fair enough, as that is how it works here in America. Debate openly and let the people vote and decide. However, the Clintons were against gay marriage and legislation was passed that made their opinion law without another vote by the people.

“If it is unconscionable to support a company whose CEO once donated to the cause against marriage equality, why is it not unconscionable to support a candidate who opposed marriage equality as recently as 2008, and who was an integral part of an administration that embraced the Defense Of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton?”

“How do you weigh the relative impact of a president strongly backing DOMA – even running ads touting his support for it in the South – and an executive who spent $1000 for an anti-marriage equality Proposition?”

Who said this?

"Marriage has a historic, religious and moral context that goes back to the beginning of time. And I think a marriage has always been between a man and a woman.”

Why, it was Hillary Clinton, of course. I wish the liberals here would react to that statement on it's own merit, but they will look at the author of the quote and go easy on her. And Obama didn't "evolve" on the issue until Biden opened his mouth and said that Obama supported it. Once that was out and the entire gay community was paying attention, Obama had little choice but to claim he evolved, apparently overnight. I found that evolution of his completely disingenuous. And Hillary hasn't publicly "evolved" yet. She was against gay marriage last time she spoke of it in 2008. Should we expect another miraculous overnight change of heart? The left will believe it despite being an obvious ploy to polish up her image for her presidential run.


What Do Hillary Clinton & Booted Mozilla CEO Have in Common When it Comes to Traditional Marriage?

This is the first time myself and Hillary have agreed on something!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[Redfish]

Funny how some get fired and publicly ridiculed, yet others simply get instantly forgiven and supported. All depends on which side of the political fence you're standing on.

While I have no issues with gays tying the knot, I am forever amazed at the hypocrisy on the left when it comes to whose feet they hold to the fire. The CEO donated money to let his opinion be heard. Fair enough, as that is how it works here in America. Debate openly and let the people vote and decide. However, the Clintons were against gay marriage and legislation was passed that made their opinion law without another vote by the people.

“If it is unconscionable to support a company whose CEO once donated to the cause against marriage equality, why is it not unconscionable to support a candidate who opposed marriage equality as recently as 2008, and who was an integral part of an administration that embraced the Defense Of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton?”

“How do you weigh the relative impact of a president strongly backing DOMA – even running ads touting his support for it in the South – and an executive who spent $1000 for an anti-marriage equality Proposition?”

Who said this?

"Marriage has a historic, religious and moral context that goes back to the beginning of time. And I think a marriage has always been between a man and a woman.”

Why, it is Hillary Clinton, of course. I wish the liberals here would react to that statement on it's own merit, but they will look at the author of the quote and go easy on her. And Obama didn't "evolve" on the issue until Biden opened his mouth and said that Obama supported it. Once that was out and the entire gay community was paying attention, Obama had little choice but to claim he evolved, apparently overnight. I found that evolution of his completely disingenuous.


What Do Hillary Clinton & Booted Mozilla CEO Have in Common When it Comes to Traditional Marriage?

If you are part of the "tribe" then you are allowed to lie to make sure you get elected/supported. The left knows their side supports gay marriage, but they worried that part of their caucus, i.e. religious minorities would be offended. Now that they know it isn't impacting their vote base, they are free to reveal the position they held all along.

Progressives lie to get elected. Why is anyone shocked by this?

"the end justifies the means" Alinsky, Obama, Clinton, Marx, and all liberals.

 

[KNB]

What is the opposition to gay marriage? Please be succinct. Why is there so much outcry over gay marriage?

Do you oppose gay marriage for religious reasons? If so, then you need to be reminded that your religious beliefs are not US law. You are NOT allowed to pass laws defending your religious beliefs over all others. It is the very first national rule set by the First Amendment.

Do right-wing Republicans want to abolish the First Amendment of the US Constitution in order to favor their religious beliefs above all others?

 

[martybegan]

Actually with her permission you can. Dowries are still negotiated in some cultures.

I went to a Nigerian wedding where it took them hours to negotiate the dowry.

Why do you hate other cultures so much Luddy?

 

[natstew]

The pandering and hypocrisy among the Democrats is disgusting!!
No honest person could ever vote for a Democrat!!

 

[martybegan]

What is the opposition to gay marriage? Please be succinct. Why is there so much outcry over gay marriage?

Do you oppose gay marriage for religious reasons? If so, then you need to be reminded that your religious beliefs are not US law. You are NOT allowed to pass laws defending your religious beliefs over all others. It is the very established national rule set by the First Amendment.

Do right-wing Republicans want to abolish the First Amendment of the US Constitution in order to favor their religious beliefs above all others?

The 1st amendment forbids the establishment of a national religion, and adherence to said religion. it does nothing to ban people from seeking laws based on their belief structure.

Evidently progressives want to force people to accept their moral code.

 

[natstew]

There should be the death penalty for all Queers!

 

[KevinWestern]

Funny how some get fired and publicly ridiculed, yet others simply get instantly forgiven and supported. All depends on which side of the political fence you're standing on.

While I have no issues with gays tying the knot, I am forever amazed at the hypocrisy on the left when it comes to whose feet they hold to the fire. The CEO donated money to let his opinion be heard. Fair enough, as that is how it works here in America. Debate openly and let the people vote and decide. However, the Clintons were against gay marriage and legislation was passed that made their opinion law without another vote by the people.

I'm a stringent supporter of gay marriage, however I don't think it was right to fire the guy.

However, public opinion is a thing that companies need to be cognizant of, and if a figurehead is doing something that may generate negative opinion I suppose a company needs to protect itself - whether or not the public opinion is in "the right".

I mean, if a bartender in wrigleyville was publicly known to support the white sox (which is in it of itself not a "bad" thing), I think the owner aught to have the ability to terminate him if business suffers as a result - right?

Public opinion is just public opinion, and companies are bound to conform to it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

What is the point OP? Hillary should be fired? Mozilla CEO should run for Potus?

 

[KevinWestern]

There should be the death penalty for all Queers!

I gave you a neg rep because this is not only sick (kill someone because they're gay??), but also adds nothing to the conversation at hand.

 

[bodecea]

There should be the death penalty for all Queers!

How's that working out for you in our country?

 

[KNB]

What is the opposition to gay marriage? Please be succinct. Why is there so much outcry over gay marriage?

Do you oppose gay marriage for religious reasons? If so, then you need to be reminded that your religious beliefs are not US law. You are NOT allowed to pass laws defending your religious beliefs over all others. It is the very established national rule set by the First Amendment.

Do right-wing Republicans want to abolish the First Amendment of the US Constitution in order to favor their religious beliefs above all others?

The 1st amendment forbids the establishment of a national religion, and adherence to said religion. it does nothing to ban people from seeking laws based on their belief structure.

Evidently progressives want to force people to accept their moral code.

The First Amendment prohibits religious belief from becoming US law. This is known as "the separation of church and state". Not everyone believes your religion so it is not "freedom" to impose your religious views on members of the general public through legislation. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Writing a law based on a Bible passage which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman in order to discriminate against tens of thousands of gay and lesbian couples is in direct violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. So the question stands, "Do Teabaggers want to abolish the First Amendment in order to push through their religious laws?"

 

[martybegan]

What is the point OP? Hillary should be fired? Mozilla CEO should run for Potus?

No, to point out the hypocrisy of progressives.

 

[Howey]

Funny how some get fired and publicly ridiculed, yet others simply get instantly forgiven and supported. All depends on which side of the political fence you're standing on.

While I have no issues with gays tying the knot, I am forever amazed at the hypocrisy on the left when it comes to whose feet they hold to the fire. The CEO donated money to let his opinion be heard. Fair enough, as that is how it works here in America. Debate openly and let the people vote and decide. However, the Clintons were against gay marriage and legislation was passed that made their opinion law without another vote by the people.

“If it is unconscionable to support a company whose CEO once donated to the cause against marriage equality, why is it not unconscionable to support a candidate who opposed marriage equality as recently as 2008, and who was an integral part of an administration that embraced the Defense Of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton?”

“How do you weigh the relative impact of a president strongly backing DOMA – even running ads touting his support for it in the South – and an executive who spent $1000 for an anti-marriage equality Proposition?”

Who said this?

"Marriage has a historic, religious and moral context that goes back to the beginning of time. And I think a marriage has always been between a man and a woman.”

Why, it was Hillary Clinton, of course. I wish the liberals here would react to that statement on it's own merit, but they will look at the author of the quote and go easy on her. And Obama didn't "evolve" on the issue until Biden opened his mouth and said that Obama supported it. Once that was out and the entire gay community was paying attention, Obama had little choice but to claim he evolved, apparently overnight. I found that evolution of his completely disingenuous. And Hillary hasn't publicly "evolved" yet. She was against gay marriage last time she spoke of it in 2008. Should we expect another miraculous overnight change of heart? The left will believe it despite being an obvious ploy to polish up her image for her presidential run. One thing I've learned about the low-info Dem voters, as long as the promise sounds pretty and more handouts and amnesty are promised, they will vote for the person willing to steal on their behalf. We are at that point where nearly half are voting themselves into a life of living on tax payer money. Dangling tax money in front of people is so tempting that they will forget all the lies and the horrible mess this country is in.


What Do Hillary Clinton & Booted Mozilla CEO Have in Common When it Comes to Traditional Marriage?

With knowledge, people change. People evolve. People learn what they once thought may not be right.

Obama changed, Clinton changed. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are changing their view on a daily basis.


That's knowledge.

 

[martybegan]

What is the opposition to gay marriage? Please be succinct. Why is there so much outcry over gay marriage?

Do you oppose gay marriage for religious reasons? If so, then you need to be reminded that your religious beliefs are not US law. You are NOT allowed to pass laws defending your religious beliefs over all others. It is the very established national rule set by the First Amendment.

Do right-wing Republicans want to abolish the First Amendment of the US Constitution in order to favor their religious beliefs above all others?

The 1st amendment forbids the establishment of a national religion, and adherence to said religion. it does nothing to ban people from seeking laws based on their belief structure.

Evidently progressives want to force people to accept their moral code.

The First Amendment prohibits religious belief from becoming US law. This is known as "the separation of church and state". Not everyone believes your religion so it is not "freedom" to impose your religious views on members of the general public through legislation. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Writing a law based on a Bible passage which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman in order to discriminate against tens of thousands of gay and lesbian couples is in direct violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. So the question stands, "Do Teabaggers want to abolish the First Amendment in order to push through their religious laws?"

You are so wrong it is not even funny. Prohibitions on Murder and stealing are in the bible, so I guess laws against both are 1st amendment violations. By your logic they are and must be repealed.

The reason for a law means nothing when it comes to the constitution, the intent is all that matters. If someone passed a law requiring you tithe or join a certain church, THAT would be a 1st amendment violation. Passing a law saying the contract of marriage is defined as one man one woman does not violate the 1st amendment at all.

Evidently progressives want to abolish the 1st amendment via public accommodation laws, but that is another debate.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Funny how some get fired and publicly ridiculed, yet others simply get instantly forgiven and supported. All depends on which side of the political fence you're standing on.

While I have no issues with gays tying the knot, I am forever amazed at the hypocrisy on the left when it comes to whose feet they hold to the fire. The CEO donated money to let his opinion be heard. Fair enough, as that is how it works here in America. Debate openly and let the people vote and decide. However, the Clintons were against gay marriage and legislation was passed that made their opinion law without another vote by the people.

“If it is unconscionable to support a company whose CEO once donated to the cause against marriage equality, why is it not unconscionable to support a candidate who opposed marriage equality as recently as 2008, and who was an integral part of an administration that embraced the Defense Of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton?”

“How do you weigh the relative impact of a president strongly backing DOMA – even running ads touting his support for it in the South – and an executive who spent $1000 for an anti-marriage equality Proposition?”

Who said this?

"Marriage has a historic, religious and moral context that goes back to the beginning of time. And I think a marriage has always been between a man and a woman.”

Why, it was Hillary Clinton, of course. I wish the liberals here would react to that statement on it's own merit, but they will look at the author of the quote and go easy on her. And Obama didn't "evolve" on the issue until Biden opened his mouth and said that Obama supported it. Once that was out and the entire gay community was paying attention, Obama had little choice but to claim he evolved, apparently overnight. I found that evolution of his completely disingenuous. And Hillary hasn't publicly "evolved" yet. She was against gay marriage last time she spoke of it in 2008. Should we expect another miraculous overnight change of heart? The left will believe it despite being an obvious ploy to polish up her image for her presidential run. One thing I've learned about the low-info Dem voters, as long as the promise sounds pretty and more handouts and amnesty are promised, they will vote for the person willing to steal on their behalf. We are at that point where nearly half are voting themselves into a life of living on tax payer money. Dangling tax money in front of people is so tempting that they will forget all the lies and the horrible mess this country is in.


What Do Hillary Clinton & Booted Mozilla CEO Have in Common When it Comes to Traditional Marriage?

With knowledge, people change. People evolve. People learn what they once thought may not be right.

Obama changed, Clinton changed. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are changing their view on a daily basis.


That's knowledge.

Not everyone is capable of thinking, learning, evolving. Some actively work NOT to and they have support from the crazies in our society.

 

[Plasmaball]

The OP only works if Hillary is still against gay marriage. Otherwise it's a lame attempt at character assignation.