Regressive GOP Tries to Thwart Gay Rights

[Seawytch]

obama would never have said a word if joe biden hadn't put his foot in it.

That's not what is being reported. All reports are indicating he planned to speak on the issue before the convention. Biden may have forced him "out" sooner than planned, but it was already planned.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/politics/gay-marriage-obama-timeline/index.html

 

[drsmith1072]

I see that now only are you a fraud, a liar and a partisan bigot, you are fully lacking in reading comprehension skills. I guess what what happens when you drop out before you reach middle school. No wonder you scrub public toilets for a living.

Nothing I have posted here in any way shape or form necessitates that I address anything in Loving other than the statement I did address, as that statememt, brought up in an attempt to counter the argument that I made, was the full extent of the involvement of the case in the discussion.


Another lie.
I clearly described my argument as to why the statement in Loving is unsound. You have done nothing to refute that argument; the fact that you haven't made your usual half-assed attempt to do so means you know you cannot.

your purported argument fails because, once again, you refuse to accept the basic premise that a dozen supreme court cases, most notably Loving v Virginia, have found marriage to be a fundamental right.

You cannot possibly comprehend the logical fallacy you present here, so I shant waste time trying to explain it .

Which is the hacks way of admitting he has nothing real to offer. Because IF he did have something real to offer then he would have offered it.

What person in their right mind would refuse to substantiate their arguments IF they could?

In the end it's hilarious that he tries to blame others for his inability to back up his own arguments. LOL Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

m14 has NOTHING and even he knows it. lol

 

[drsmith1072]

No matter how much I might, it doesnt change the fact that your statement is, as proven, an abject lie, or born of sheer ignorance, as further illustrated by your complete lack of effective response.

If the US government were disbanded, you'd not have the rights you now enjoy.

So, I -am- right

Close but you left of the "wing and delusional" part of your self description. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

WASHINGTON – On the same day that President Barack Obama declared his support for same-sex marriage, the House Armed Services Committee backed measures prohibiting the practice on U.S. military bases.

The panel stepped into the gays in the military issue as it considered a sweeping, $642 billion defense bill for next year that buys new weapons, ships and aircraft, increases military pay by 1.7 percent and sets policies for the Pentagon. The committee worked through the day Wednesday and into the early morning Thursday on the legislation that adds billions of dollars to the president's budget request.

The committee fleshed out a blueprint for next year that calls for a base defense budget of $554 billion, including nuclear weapons spending, plus $88 billion for the war in Afghanistan and counterterrorism efforts. That compares with the administration's proposal of $551 billion, plus $88 billion.

Conservative Republicans still angry with the end to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military pressed two measures."The president has repealed `don't ask, don't tell' and is using the military as props to promote his gay agenda," said Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., who is running for Senate.

The committee, on a vote of 37-24, backed an amendment that barred same-sex marriages or "marriage-like" ceremonies on military installations. The panel also endorsed an Akin amendment that said the services should accommodate the rights of conscience of members of the services and chaplains who are morally or religiously opposed to expressions of human sexuality.

Read more: House panel votes to ban same-sex marriages on US military bases | Fox News

Well....obviously I disagree with their decision....but I will say this. The vote was 37-24 and if you look at the membership of that committee....the GOP didn't do it alone. They got some help from the Democrats on this one. Not much.....but some.

they got three dems based on numbers alone but I doubt the dems could have stopped it.

However, what I find most intriguing is this excerpt especially considering how the right complains about the debt.

The committee worked through the day Wednesday and into the early morning Thursday on the legislation that adds billions of dollars to the president's budget request.

The committee fleshed out a blueprint for next year that calls for a base defense budget of $554 billion, including nuclear weapons spending, plus $88 billion for the war in Afghanistan and counterterrorism efforts. That compares with the administration's proposal of $551 billion, plus $88 billion.

I guess we can see who is adding to the debt and trying to blame the president alone. lol

 

[mudwhistle]

Guess Gay is the new black now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

obama would never have said a word if joe biden hadn't put his foot in it.

That's not what is being reported. All reports are indicating he planned to speak on the issue before the convention. Biden may have forced him "out" sooner than planned, but it was already planned.

Timeline of an 'evolution': How Obama made his same-sex marriage decision - CNN.com

Someone posted a link to a Washington Post story that several significant homosxual donors/groups were withholding donations to The Obama's campaign/PAC until He came out in support.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Guess Gay is the new black now.

Hm.
If you're, say 1/8th gay, does that give you protected minority status?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Conservative Republicans still angry with the end to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military pressed two measures."The president has repealed `don't ask, don't tell' and is using the military as props to promote his gay agenda," said Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., who is running for Senate.

That’s a remarkably ignorant statement, particularly since there is no such thing as a ‘gay agenda.’

Facts:
-Marriage as a legal institution exists because the state passed legislation to create it.
-States do not/cannot grant rights.
-Marriage as a legal institution can be eliminated by repealing the laws that created it.
-Rights cannot be eliminated by repealing legislation
Thus:
Marriage is not a right, but a priviliege granted by the state.

If you disagree, please feel free to refute my argument.

All rights predate the Constitution, including marriage; they predate the states, their governments, and the Federal government. They manifest as an aspect of the human condition, they can be neither taken away nor granted by any government or person.

The Loving Court merely recognized and codified that fact as it pertains to marriage:

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Loving v. Virginia

In Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), the Court reaffirmed the right as fundamental:

More recent decisions have established that the right to marry is part of the fundamental "right of privacy" implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Consequently it is not the states’ place to ‘create’ the institution of marriage, only write regulatory statues in the context of marriage, which is a fundamental right.

We see the same with regard to the fundamental right to vote: each state has different voting laws but the institution of the franchise predates government and the Constitution, and like marriage can be neither created nor abolished.

With regard to the right to marry, the right to vote, and other fundamental rights, the states’ responsibility is custodial only, to facilitate their citizens’ participation in such rights, and to follow the mandate of the 14th Amendment accordingly.