Told ya! Only a matter of time. Gop goes after gays - AGAIN!

[spectrumc01]

Just want to point something out.

If smaller governement, and personal freedom is what conservatives are after, how does a federal law like DOMA make sense?

Because the majority of the people and the majority of the States say so?

And that's without going into any moral feelings that people may or may not have.

Besides all it really does is define a word. Marriage, a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws. That a very small minority doesn't like it and wants catered to is simply too bad for them.

If the majority of people in the US suddenly wanted slavery back should we say 'ok', after all it is the majority?

You were a military man, and served with distinction. You were prepared to lay down your life for this country and its people so that they may live free, and pursue their happiness. Moral feelings aside we as soldiers, as I was also a military man, joined to defend the rights and freedoms of "all" of our citizens, not just the ones we agreed with morally.

PS. thankyou for your service

 

[jillian]

Just want to point something out.

If smaller governement, and personal freedom is what conservatives are after, how does a federal law like DOMA make sense?

Because the majority of the people and the majority of the States say so?

And that's without going into any moral feelings that people may or may not have.

Besides all it really does is define a word. Marriage, a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws. That a very small minority doesn't like it and wants catered to is simply too bad for them.

constitutional rights do not exist by electoral fiat. the whole point is for the rights of even the unpopular to be defended.

"conservatives" have this very weird habit of liking small government unless it's in our bodies or bedrooms.

then they love big government.

sorry, ollie. it's inexcusable to deny people basic rights because of whatever discomfort some may have. i'll point out that Loving v Virginia was decided during the 70's whcih means that even that recently, there were a majority of voters in some places seeking to outlaw interracial marriage. i know you wouldn't defend those people and say "well, the majority [at least in the state(s) in question] wants it".

 

[WorldWatcher]

Just want to point something out.

If smaller governement, and personal freedom is what conservatives are after, how does a federal law like DOMA make sense?

Because the majority of the people and the majority of the States say so?

And that's without going into any moral feelings that people may or may not have.

Besides all it really does is define a word. Marriage, a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws. That a very small minority doesn't like it and wants catered to is simply too bad for them.

Actually calling those who support equal recognition same-sex Civil Marriages a "small minority" isn't really true.

Look at the last couple of votes, a change of less than 3% would have changed the outcome so that makes it 47-48% voting in favor and the demographics have been steadily changing in the direction of support.

"Do you think marriages between gay and lesbian couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?" Should 51%

"Do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married?" Legal 53%

"Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?" Favor 45% Oppose 46% Unsure 9%​

Personally I think the legal challenges to Prop 8 were a mistake, I think they would have been much better off to accept the temporary setback and to continue to work on changing public opinion. If it weren't for the court challenge, Prop 8 would have been ripe for repeal at the polls in 2010 or 2012. Once one state passes same-sex Civil Marriage the political capital would be huge for repealing similar laws in other states.



Source


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on Prop 8 legal challenges, WW. Marriage equality needs to "go all the way" and be decided once and for all. This ridiculous legal limbo that the gay and lesbian residents of California find themselves in needs to end with finality. There are currently three classes of people in California; Heterosexuals that can get married, gays and lesbians that ARE married and gays and lesbians that can't get married. There is a bunch of "unconstitutional" in that and that MUST be challenged.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Why do we always have to compare race with gay issues?

Sorry, it's simply not the same thing.

 

[jillian]

Why do we always have to compare race with gay issues?

Sorry, it's simply not the same thing.

yes. under the definition of "equal protection", it is.

sorry, ollie. it just is. you can like that. you can not like that. but it is.

 

[bripat9643]

I gotta admit, this is pretty stupid move by Boehner. Not that I don't agree with the political idea behind it. It's just that we have FAR greater things to worry about.

If our country goes bankrupt, the fags won't have the $$ to buy a marriage license anyway.

If we have more important things to worry about, then what's the excuse for the suit against it? It appears only Republicans have more important things to worry about.

 

[bripat9643]

Told ya! Only a matter of time. Gop goes after gays

You can take the boy out of the airport restroom stall, but you can't take the airport restroom stall out of the boy.

You mean gays are trying to destroy an ancient institution and Republicans are trying to stop them.

 

[Seawytch]

Why do we always have to compare race with gay issues?

Sorry, it's simply not the same thing.

We aren't comparing race with sexual orientation. You are being simplistic. What is compared is discrimination, period.

YOU feel justified in your discrimination against gays and lesbians do you not?

 

[teapartysamurai]

Why do we always have to compare race with gay issues?

Sorry, it's simply not the same thing.

We aren't comparing race with sexual orientation. You are being simplistic. What is compared is discrimination, period.

YOU feel justified in your discrimination against gays and lesbians do you not?

How do you discriminate against something that has NEVER existed to time imemorium?

If you libs can show me an example of "gay marriage" in the past you will have your argument.

Even Ancient Greece which touted homosexuality as something wonderful NEVER had gay marriage.

This is something gays CONCOCTED only a few yeas ago as a POLITICAL MOVE to attack the traditional family and hetrosexuality.

We are not attacking gays, gays are attacking marriage.

How dare those for traditional marraive defend themselves! Geesh!

 

[Seawytch]

Told ya! Only a matter of time. Gop goes after gays

You can take the boy out of the airport restroom stall, but you can't take the airport restroom stall out of the boy.

You mean gays are trying to destroy an ancient institution and Republicans are trying to stop them.

A few hundred years is "ancient"?

Timeline of civil marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why do we always have to compare race with gay issues?

Sorry, it's simply not the same thing.

Black ≠ Gay (if a persons opinion is homosexuality has no biological reason)

However...



Black = Gay (if a persons opinion is homosexuality has a biological reason)
or
Discrimination = Discrimination



>>>>

 

[bripat9643]

Why do we always have to compare race with gay issues?

Sorry, it's simply not the same thing.

yes. under the definition of "equal protection", it is.

sorry, ollie. it just is. you can like that. you can not like that. but it is.

No it isn't. Homosexuality is a behavior. Under your definition, rapists should receive "equal protection" and have their right to rape people protected.

 

[bripat9643]

Why do we always have to compare race with gay issues?

Sorry, it's simply not the same thing.

We aren't comparing race with sexual orientation. You are being simplistic. What is compared is discrimination, period.

YOU feel justified in your discrimination against gays and lesbians do you not?

Defining marriage as a union between persons of the opposite sex isn't discrimination of any kind.

 

[mudwhistle]

Boehner hires lawyer to oppose gay rights – wants to bill DOJ

House Republicans have hired a prominent conservative attorney to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act in a pending lawsuit, legal sources say, and will make an effort to divert money from the Justice Department to fund its high-profile fight.

“Not only are House Republican leaders defending the indefensible, they’ve brought in a high-priced attorney to deny federal recognition to loving, married couples,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign. “Speaker Boehner appears ready to go to great lengths, and the great expense of a high-power law firm, to try to score some cheap political points on the backs of same-sex couples…”

Boehner hires lawyer to oppose gay rights – wants to bill DOJ « Eideard

Boehner seeks to divert funds for gay marriage fight

Boehner said he has directed the House's counsel and the House Administration Committee to ensure that there are "sufficient resources" and expertise to defend the law. Paul Clement, a former solicitor general for President George W. Bush, has been retained by Boehner and the Republicans to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, according to news reports.

Boehner seeks to divert funds for gay marriage fight - On Politics: Covering the US Congress, Governors, and the 2010 Election - USATODAY.com

-----------------------------------

Told ya.

Muslims, Hispanics, gays, nurses, teachers, women's rights.

Wanna bet it's because the "War on the Elderly" isn't going well?

You mean the Obama war on the elderly.

You know, the rich. How old are most of America's rich?

Well, most of them are over 50. Many of them old enough to collect Social Security.

I guess years of hard work and buying properties gets you up in the upper 10% tax bracket.

 

[bripat9643]

You mean gays are trying to destroy an ancient institution and Republicans are trying to stop them.

A few hundred years is "ancient"?

Timeline of civil marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marriage predates civilization, nitwit. Look at any primitive culture, and they will have an institution that we would call marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

If we have more important things to worry about, then what's the excuse for the suit against it? It appears on Republicans have more important things to worry about.

Citizens have a right to challenge unconstitutional laws that deny them fundamental rights.

This is the reason President Obama decided NOT to defend the unconstitutional DOMA...

Widow's $363,000 Tax Bill Led to Obama Shift on Marriage Act

Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer had a 40-year engagement and a two-year marriage, starting with a wedding in Canada recognized under the laws of New York, where they lived, and ending when Spyer died two years ago.

Her death triggered a $363,053 federal tax bill from which her widow would have been exempt had she been married to a man, because the federal Defense of Marriage Act bars the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex unions.

 

[Seawytch]

You mean gays are trying to destroy an ancient institution and Republicans are trying to stop them.

A few hundred years is "ancient"?

Timeline of civil marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marriage predates civilization, nitwit. Look at any primitive culture, and they will have an institution that we would call marriage.

Excuse me, douchebag, but gays and lesbians are fighting for equal access to legal, civil marriage, not religious marriage. We already have equal access to religious marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

Why do we always have to compare race with gay issues?

Sorry, it's simply not the same thing.

We aren't comparing race with sexual orientation. You are being simplistic. What is compared is discrimination, period.

YOU feel justified in your discrimination against gays and lesbians do you not?

Defining marriage as a union between persons of the opposite sex isn't discrimination of any kind.

So if I were denied a driver's license because I'm gay, that wouldn't be discrimination?

 

[Seawytch]

Why do we always have to compare race with gay issues?

Sorry, it's simply not the same thing.

yes. under the definition of "equal protection", it is.

sorry, ollie. it just is. you can like that. you can not like that. but it is.

No it isn't. Homosexuality is a behavior. Under your definition, rapists should receive "equal protection" and have their right to rape people protected.

Do you have the vaguest notion of what consent is? You better find out before it gets you into trouble. (Sheep can't consent)