Rubio goes on homophobic rant ending political career.

[JakeStarkey]

Rubio uses homophobic language, which means . . . .

He's pandering to the anti gay base of the party...

. . . which means he is using homophobic language to rile up the homophobes like mikegriffiths, saintmichaeldefendus, etc.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The nation has two and only two choices if The Constitution is to be upheld:

1. Give the same special treatment in the Tax Code and The Social Security Act to ALL 2-person partnerships,
or
2. Give special treatment to no one.

Limiting the marriage advantages in the Tax Code and The Social Security Act to only the male / female 2-person partnerships is the definition of discrimination and is therefore unconstitutional.

You can hate homosexuality all you want, in church or on the street, but advocating for discrimination in government programs is unAmerican.

 

[The Rabbi]

The nation has two and only two choices if The Constitution is to be upheld:

1. Give the same special treatment in the Tax Code and The Social Security Act to ALL 2-person partnerships,
or
2. Give special treatment to no one.

Limiting the marriage advantages in the Tax Code and The Social Security Act to only the male / female 2-person partnerships is the definition of discrimination and is therefore unconstitutional.

You can hate homosexuality all you want, in church or on the street, but advocating for discrimination in government programs is unAmerican.

No actgually the Constitutional approach is in the 10th Amendment that gives such power to the states and the people, not to unelected gay judges.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The nation has two and only two choices if The Constitution is to be upheld:

1. Give the same special treatment in the Tax Code and The Social Security Act to ALL 2-person partnerships,
or
2. Give special treatment to no one.

Limiting the marriage advantages in the Tax Code and The Social Security Act to only the male / female 2-person partnerships is the definition of discrimination and is therefore unconstitutional.

You can hate homosexuality all you want, in church or on the street, but advocating for discrimination in government programs is unAmerican.

No actgually the Constitutional approach is in the 10th Amendment that gives such power to the states and the people, not to unelected gay judges.

No the 10th Amendment does not give the states the power to act unconstitutionally.

 

[The Rabbi]

The nation has two and only two choices if The Constitution is to be upheld:

1. Give the same special treatment in the Tax Code and The Social Security Act to ALL 2-person partnerships,
or
2. Give special treatment to no one.

Limiting the marriage advantages in the Tax Code and The Social Security Act to only the male / female 2-person partnerships is the definition of discrimination and is therefore unconstitutional.

You can hate homosexuality all you want, in church or on the street, but advocating for discrimination in government programs is unAmerican.

No actgually the Constitutional approach is in the 10th Amendment that gives such power to the states and the people, not to unelected gay judges.

No the 10th Amendment does not give the states the power to act unconstitutionally.

That's true, dum dum. Setting marriage criteria is not acting unconstitutionally.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The 10th was greatly reduced by the Civil War's outcome and the 14th Amendment. The states righters brought it upon themselves.

Marriage criteria may be set by the states as long as they do not abridge the constitutional rights of citizens to marry the consenting adult of their choice.

 

[Jroc]

Redfish keeps offending 90% of America and says it is their fault, and then cries when they vote against his presidential candidate. Too stupid.

That is a historical myth, Spare_change, about strict constructionism. Ask Chief Justice Marshall. SCOTUS made many perverse rulings, though, such as Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson yes. (both conservative fuck ups) but they balance it with liberal boners (Citizens United).

Rubio uses homophobic language, which means . . . .

A preacher, Priest or Rabbi who speaks out against homosexuality is homophobic in your world. it's big government tyrants, tyrants like you leftist who claimed dread Scott was property, as you leftist still believe the American people should be subservient to a tyrannical federal government, as you do with the slaughter of 10s of millions of babies, because of Roe V wade.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The nation has two and only two choices if The Constitution is to be upheld:

1. Give the same special treatment in the Tax Code and The Social Security Act to ALL 2-person partnerships,
or
2. Give special treatment to no one.

Limiting the marriage advantages in the Tax Code and The Social Security Act to only the male / female 2-person partnerships is the definition of discrimination and is therefore unconstitutional.

You can hate homosexuality all you want, in church or on the street, but advocating for discrimination in government programs is unAmerican.

No actgually the Constitutional approach is in the 10th Amendment that gives such power to the states and the people, not to unelected gay judges.

No the 10th Amendment does not give the states the power to act unconstitutionally.

That's true, dum dum. Setting marriage criteria is not acting unconstitutionally.

What happened to all those anti-miscegenation laws?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Redfish keeps offending 90% of America and says it is their fault, and then cries when they vote against his presidential candidate. Too stupid.

That is a historical myth, Spare_change, about strict constructionism. Ask Chief Justice Marshall. SCOTUS made many perverse rulings, though, such as Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson yes. (both conservative fuck ups) but they balance it with liberal boners (Citizens United).

Rubio uses homophobic language, which means . . . .

A preacher, Priest or Rabbi who speaks out against homosexuality is homophobic in your world. it's big government tyrants, tyrants like you leftist who claimed dread Scott was property, as you leftist still believe the American people should be subservient to a tyrannical federal government, as you do with the slaughter of 10s of millions of babies, because Roe V wade.

So Priests can express the opinions against homosexuality, but no one can express opinions against Priests?

whoa.

 

[The Rabbi]

The nation has two and only two choices if The Constitution is to be upheld:

1. Give the same special treatment in the Tax Code and The Social Security Act to ALL 2-person partnerships,
or
2. Give special treatment to no one.

Limiting the marriage advantages in the Tax Code and The Social Security Act to only the male / female 2-person partnerships is the definition of discrimination and is therefore unconstitutional.

You can hate homosexuality all you want, in church or on the street, but advocating for discrimination in government programs is unAmerican.

No actgually the Constitutional approach is in the 10th Amendment that gives such power to the states and the people, not to unelected gay judges.

No the 10th Amendment does not give the states the power to act unconstitutionally.

That's true, dum dum. Setting marriage criteria is not acting unconstitutionally.

What happened to all those anti-miscegenation laws?

Struck down, dum dum. Aside from a narrow exception where do you see marriage as a power of the federal government?

 

[Jroc]

Redfish keeps offending 90% of America and says it is their fault, and then cries when they vote against his presidential candidate. Too stupid.

That is a historical myth, Spare_change, about strict constructionism. Ask Chief Justice Marshall. SCOTUS made many perverse rulings, though, such as Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson yes. (both conservative fuck ups) but they balance it with liberal boners (Citizens United).

Rubio uses homophobic language, which means . . . .

A preacher, Priest or Rabbi who speaks out against homosexuality is homophobic in your world. it's big government tyrants, tyrants like you leftist who claimed dread Scott was property, as you leftist still believe the American people should be subservient to a tyrannical federal government, as you do with the slaughter of 10s of millions of babies, because Roe V wade.

So Priests can express the opinions against homosexuality, but no one can express opinions against Priests?

whoa.

of course but the leftist prefer to shut up religious people, eventually they will no doubt risk prosecution

 

[JakeStarkey]

Priests of course may be forcibly challenged for homophobia.

The far right religious want to shut up their opponents. Won't happen.

 

[Jroc]

Priests of course may be forcibly challenged for homophobia.

The far right religious want to shut up their opponents. Won't happen.

Religion will be "Forcibly challenged" by the federal government and tyrants like you will cheer

 

[JakeStarkey]

Priests of course may be forcibly challenged for homophobia.

The far right religious want to shut up their opponents. Won't happen.

Religion will be "Forcibly challenged" by the federal government and tyrants like you will cheer

Those are your silly words only, kid. You will be opposed constitutionally as you may oppose others constitutionally. You cry when you can't take what you dish. Social conservative Christian right wingers simply can't hang in the American way of debate and opposition.

You are a classic example.

 

[Jroc]

Priests of course may be forcibly challenged for homophobia.

The far right religious want to shut up their opponents. Won't happen.

Religion will be "Forcibly challenged" by the federal government and tyrants like you will cheer

Those are your silly words only, kid. You will be opposed constitutionally as you may oppose others constitutionally. You cry when you can't take what you dish. Social conservative Christian right wingers simply can't hang in the American way of debate and opposition.

You are a classic example.

I'm Jewish, and Sodomy is a sin for good reason. If individuals wish to practice it, that's fine, but the federal government shouldn't be promoting it

 

[JakeStarkey]

Does the fed govt promote sodomy in heterosexual marriage, yet the practice occurs.

Jroc, stay on track, please.

Your comments are becoming increasingly shrill.

 

[Jroc]

Does the fed govt promote sodomy in heterosexual marriage, yet the practice occurs.

Jroc, stay on track, please.

Your comments are becoming increasingly shrill.

Heterosexual marriage should be promoted, unlike you leftist who promote single parent homes, too many of which are subsidized and promoted by the federal government through our crony tax code.

 

[Seawytch]

Priests of course may be forcibly challenged for homophobia.

The far right religious want to shut up their opponents. Won't happen.

Religion will be "Forcibly challenged" by the federal government and tyrants like you will cheer

Those are your silly words only, kid. You will be opposed constitutionally as you may oppose others constitutionally. You cry when you can't take what you dish. Social conservative Christian right wingers simply can't hang in the American way of debate and opposition.

You are a classic example.

I'm Jewish, and Sodomy is a sin for good reason. If individuals wish to practice it, that's fine, but the federal government shouldn't be promoting it

The Federal Government isn't "promoting sodomy".

 

[Seawytch]

Does the fed govt promote sodomy in heterosexual marriage, yet the practice occurs.

Jroc, stay on track, please.

Your comments are becoming increasingly shrill.

Heterosexual marriage should be promoted, unlike you leftist who promote single parent homes, too many of which are subsidized and promoted by the federal government through our crony tax code.

So you're proposing that nobody gets tax breaks for children or only that married people get tax breaks for children? Should nobody get married tax breaks or should only heterosexuals get married tax breaks?

1. Nobody gets tax breaks for children: I'm good with that, go for it.
2. Only married people get tax breaks for children: I'm good with that, go for it.
3. Nobody get's married tax breaks: I'm good with that, go for it.
4. Only heterosexuals get married tax breaks: Nope, unconstitutional.

 

[JakeStarkey]

[Heterosexual marriage should be promoted, unlike you leftist who promote single parent homes, too many of which are subsidized and promoted by the federal government through our crony tax code.

Those are only your silly and nonsensical words that do not reflect reality. Married couples promote national stability. Nobody promotes single family homes. And, yes, the welfare of children are a national responsibility.

I am glad you dropped that stupid sodomy argument.