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

[The T]

This was back in 2009:

Study: 8.5 Million Households Face Poor DTV Reception

Converting Analog Television to Digital TV Not Working for Millions of Americans

Since America went "digital", there are many people who simply can't afford the converters or a new TV. There are people who live in areas where the digital range simply isn't "far enough". There are people who live in Alaska, the desert in Nevada, in Appalachia who don't have access to cable and the new digital signal is too poor to allow them much TV.
For all these people, the radio is there best source of reliable news, information and even entertainment.
I visited relatives outside of Gabbs, Nevada and was surprised they were without TV for exactly those reasons. I've always taken it for granted.

this is the same government you think should be in charge of health care, and now you are pointing out they cannot even get TV right.

I really don't know what planet you are from, but there is not a single household in this country that is dependent on NPR as its only source of news.

Yea, in Appalachia and the outskirts of Alaska and the desert in Nevada, everyone has cable and newspapers. I'm from earth. I live in a huge country that has many poor people.

You however, must live in the "Land of Milk and Cookies". What else could explain the lack and knowledge compounded by the delusions?

Every time I think right wingers can't possibly be any more ignorant, one pops up to surprise me. Well, I'm surprised.

Many have Satellite TV installations...There is even Internet by Satellite...

Hmmmmm..........



And even so...for those that don't have access, ya think it could be by choice? -Nah-

 

[bripat9643]

If your idiotic and simplistic view of legal marriage were true, then we would require that couples take a fertility test prior to getting their marriage license. (god, would you have to wait in line like at the DMV?)

Gays and lesbians ARE raising children...my partner and I have two. Why is our family less deserving of the benefits and protections of legal marriage than YOUR family?

"idiotic" and "simplistic" are liberal euphemisms for "the hard cold facts." Marriage laws were implemented before things like fertility tests existed, so your lament is idiotic. If fertility tests were required, then liberals would be complaining about that.

As for gays adopting children, that's one reason gay "marriages" shouldn't be legalized. Children should be adopted by normal families. Adoption exists for the benefit if the children, not so gays can feel like normal people.

 

[bripat9643]

If Civil unions were exactly the same as marraige and conveyed the same rights and status you would be correct.

What about adoption? Unless we are taking that away as well.

Adoption exists for the benefit of the children, not so a couple of homosexuals can pretend they are a normal family. Gay adoption should be outlawed.

 

[bripat9643]

Not what she asked. She asked if drivers licenses were denied based on sexual orientation would that be discrimination. Not was it happening, but if it would be discrimination if it did.


>>>>

That's obvious discrimination. Denying a government benefit on any arbitrary basis is discrimination. However, the government outlaws certain behaviors all the time. For instance, waling around in public in the nude is against the law. Does that mean the government is "discriminating" against nudists? No, but it would be discriminating against them if it denied them a driver's license because they are nudists. We don't allow people to walk around nude in public because a the social consensus is that such behavior is harmful to society. That's the same reason we don't allow gay marriage.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not what she asked. She asked if drivers licenses were denied based on sexual orientation would that be discrimination. Not was it happening, but if it would be discrimination if it did.


>>>>

That's obvious discrimination. Denying a government benefit on any arbitrary basis is discrimination. However, the government outlaws certain behaviors all the time. For instance, waling around in public in the nude is against the law. Does that mean the government is "discriminating" against nudists? No, but it would be discriminating against them if it denied them a driver's license because they are nudists. We don't allow people to walk around nude in public because a the social consensus is that such behavior is harmful to society. That's the same reason we don't allow gay marriage.

First lets define "discrimination"

From Merriam-Webster: "the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually"

Discrimination occurs when acts are based on groups rather than an individual. Here is an important point -->> Discrimination itself is neither good or bad. Discrimination is an act.

Now how can I say that? Here is why. Discriminating can be bad, for example deciding to deny blacks the right to vote. On the other hand discriminating can be good, for example denying visually impaired people the right to a Drivers License because it endangers public safety to have a blind person operating a multi-ton motor vehicle on public highways. Both are acts of discrimination, one justified, one not.

That's obvious discrimination.

I agree it is.

Denying a government benefit on any arbitrary basis is discrimination.

Again I agree.

However, the government outlaws certain behaviors all the time. For instance, waling around in public in the nude is against the law. Does that mean the government is "discriminating" against nudists? No, but it would be discriminating against them if it denied them a driver's license because they are nudists.

Look at the definition of discrimination. Is it discrimination? Yes it is. Is it warranted? At this point it has been deemed so under the law. Just because it is considered valid law does not mean it isn't discrimination.


>>>>

 

[Lasher]

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?

So what's wrong with going after those sick, filthy, degenerate, rectum-loving fisters who use turds on their coffee-tables for pot-pourri? They are as criminal as any bank robber or serial killer, and no amount of rationalization can compensate for their un-Godly, degenerate, sickening lifestyle. They should all either go back into their closets for good, or we should be able to legally shoot them on sight. They are the scum of the cess-pool.

 

[bripat9643]

So what's wrong with going after those sick, filthy, degenerate, rectum-loving fisters who use turds on their coffee-tables for pot-pourri? They are as criminal as any bank robber or serial killer, and no amount of rationalization can compensate for their un-Godly, degenerate, sickening lifestyle. They should all either go back into their closets for good, or we should be able to legally shoot them on sight. They are the scum of the cess-pool.

People like you only help the liberal agenda.

Please do us all a favor by shutting up.

 

[Vast LWC]

Spend spend spend, that's all the GOP does, as long as the spending agrees with their agenda.

 

[Lasher]

So what's wrong with going after those sick, filthy, degenerate, rectum-loving fisters who use turds on their coffee-tables for pot-pourri? They are as criminal as any bank robber or serial killer, and no amount of rationalization can compensate for their un-Godly, degenerate, sickening lifestyle. They should all either go back into their closets for good, or we should be able to legally shoot them on sight. They are the scum of the cess-pool.

People like you only help the liberal agenda.

Please do us all a favor by shutting up.

A bit dog always barks.

 

[Lasher]

So what's wrong with going after those sick, filthy, degenerate, rectum-loving fisters who use turds on their coffee-tables for pot-pourri? They are as criminal as any bank robber or serial killer, and no amount of rationalization can compensate for their un-Godly, degenerate, sickening lifestyle. They should all either go back into their closets for good, or we should be able to legally shoot them on sight. They are the scum of the cess-pool.

People like you only help the liberal agenda.

Please do us all a favor by shutting up.

Awww, was the little man insulted by the criticism of his lifestyle? Let's throw a pity party for the little guy who doesn't want gays criticized. Whoopee!!!!

Is that kid in your avatar your son or little brother - the one shooting the bird.

 

[Dot Com]

The thing is the Republitards retained his services BEFORE submitting any request. NEWSFLASH!!! The DOJ is part of the Executive NOT the Legislative branch. Why would the Executive defend a Repub piece of legislation that was proposed & passed by a former Repub admin?

Newsflash.

DOMA was proposed and signed by Clinton.

Another point, Congress approves money all the time, they do not need to ask anyone's permission to do so. I actually learned that in civics class in high school, come back after you graduate and we can talk about other things.

OK but a Repub still authored it.
Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Georgia Representative Bob Barr, then a Republican, authored the Defense of Marriage Act and introduced it on May 7, 1996.

Clinton signed other pieces of legislation I didn't like either including the repeal of Glass Steagall, also authored by, you guessed it, a Republicant.
Glass

The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999.

 

[initforme]

I've never understood this hypocrisy by the GOP. They are for less gov't yet they want to intrude on what goes on in ones bedroom. Who cares? This is no issue except for bigots.

 

[Lasher]

I've never understood this hypocrisy by the GOP. They are for less gov't yet they want to intrude on what goes on in ones bedroom. Who cares? This is no issue except for bigots.

Yeah, they also want to intrude on what goes on in counting ballots, spending our taxes, child murders, and many other things that is none of their business, right?

 

[bripat9643]

I've never understood this hypocrisy by the GOP. They are for less gov't yet they want to intrude on what goes on in ones bedroom. Who cares? This is no issue except for bigots.

I couldn't care less. Of course, gay marriage is not about what goes on in the bedroom. It's a legal arrangement that grants certain privileges. The idea that your bedroom behavior entitles anyone to those privileges is absurd.

 

[initforme]

Grant civil unions and give them the same benefits as a traditional marriage such as I have. Just dont call it marriage. Now what's the harm?

 

[The T]

Grant civil unions and give them the same benefits as a traditional marriage such as I have. Just dont call it marriage. Now what's the harm?

Then such things should be left to the States and their societies to decide. The FED has no business in this whatsoever.

 

[initforme]

Agreed. My state needs to get with the times and grant civil unions and the benefits. Done. After that if you really care you need to ask your state to go back to the times with the wigs and such when our forefathers who founded this country scratched the lice. Having fun now.

 

[The T]

Agreed. My state needs to get with the times and grant civil unions and the benefits. Done. After that if you really care you need to ask your state to go back to the times with the wigs and such when our forefathers who founded this country scratched the lice. Having fun now.

Demgoguary? I'd say so. You miss the point entirely.

 

[midcan5]

Distractions are the core component of republican public policy. As the buffoons and children argue over defending marriage, the republicans in the backroom load their pockets and shower benefits on the wealthy and the corporations. It is money that drives them today, democrats too. If you look at our marriage statistics and the silly marriages of say Gingrich or lots of others, you wonder why anyone at all is concerned about gays having equal rights to the insanity that many marriages are. Seems stupid, but stupid works as stupid is easy to whine and hate another over. http://www.usmessageboard.com/health-and-lifestyle/50615-know-what-really-causes-homosexuality.html

"The remarkable thing is that we really love our neighbors as ourselves: we do unto others as we do unto ourselves. We hate others when we hate ourselves. We are tolerant of others when we tolerate ourselves. We forgive others when we forgive ourselves." Eric Hoffer

 

[SFC Ollie]

Grant civil unions and give them the same benefits as a traditional marriage such as I have. Just dont call it marriage. Now what's the harm?

Then such things should be left to the States and their societies to decide. The FED has no business in this whatsoever.

The main reason for the Federal DOMA law is so that states do not have to accept a gay marriage from another state. The decision is up to the individual state.