Why do so many Goppers oppose Gay Marriage ?

[frigidweirdo]

There is several others and they are pretty close. A Pew Study done 3 years ago showed 61% supported gay marriage which was pretty close to Gallup at about 65%. The tide is clearly turning with 47 republicans in the House voting for a Bill to protect Gay Marriage. There are about half dozen senators who said they will vote for the bill but most are undecided.

Attitudes on Same-Sex Marriage

In Pew Research Center polling in 2001, Americans opposed same-sex marriage by a margin of 57% to 35%. Since then, support for same-sex marriage has steadily grown.

www.pewresearch.org

The problem comes if the Christian right starts fighting back. They've got the Supreme Court, and it doesn't take much to manipulate people.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I have to now concede that I was mistaken.

I spent spent several posts today making my argument based on my incorrect memory of the words in the 14th Amendment.

My bad.

So, I’m happy to report that there now seems to me to be no reason to worry about Obgerfell being overruled at all. Sometimes being wrong is a pleasant event.

Thank you.

 

[BackAgain]

The same, equal protection.

Yeah. I see that I had made a mistake about the phrasing of the Amendment. So, I now agree with your point. Happily, by the way.

 

[Flopper]

The problem comes if the Christian right starts fighting back. They've got the Supreme Court, and it doesn't take much to manipulate people.

Respect For Marriage Act (RFMA) provides a protection for gay marriage if the Court overturns the gay marriage protection as they did abortion. RFMA repeals the Defense of Marriage Act and requires that the federal goverment recognize all marriages past or future performed in all states and every state must recognize marriages from all states.

So if RFMA passes and it looks like it's going to pass and SCOTUS overturns the ruling that protects gay marriage, a state would be able to ban new gay marriages but they would have to recognized all marriages past and future from all states including their own state. If a gay couple wants to marry and their state forbids it, they can get married in another state and return home. In fact, you could fly to Colorado get a license and return home for the ceremony and in Montana there is a law that allows marriage without the couple even going to the state.

RFMA should be foolproof against SCTOUS overturning it because it is based on the full faith and credit clause in the constitution.

The only reason for a state to ban gay marriage would be political expediency. It would accomplish nothing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Respect For Marriage Act (RFMA) provides a protection for gay marriage if the Court overturns the gay marriage protection as they did abortion. RFMA repeals the Defense of Marriage Act and requires that the federal goverment recognize all marriages past or future performed in all states and every state must recognize marriages from all states.

So if RFMA passes and it looks like it's going to pass and SCOTUS overturns the ruling that protects gay marriage, a state would be able to ban new gay marriages but they would have to recognized all marriages past and future from all states including their own state. If a gay couple wants to marry and their state forbids it, they can get married in another state and return home. In fact, you could fly to Colorado get a license and return home for the ceremony and in Montana there is a law that allows marriage without the couple even going to the state.

RFMA should be foolproof against SCTOUS overturning it because it is based on the full faith and credit clause in the constitution.

The only reason for a state to ban gay marriage would be political expediency. It would accomplish nothing.

I think for a lot of people it's about living as a free person, an equal person, where they live.
A ban on gay marriage would send out that message that gay people are not welcome in their own home.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Shithead, you’re just not grasping the very basics. Then again, you have never been able to do that.

You get one notion buried in your thick skull and can’t adapt to learning that the one notion of yours is erroneous. Maybe it would help you if you could pluck your pin head outta your ass.

The 14th Amendment doesn’t provide for equal protection of the laws in a vacuum, stupid. Instead, It provides for equal protection against racial discrimination. It even says so! Despite your insistence on ducking it, you have no ability to point to any similar protection against discrimination based on sexual identity.

And to address your last astonished contention, congrats. You’re starting to get it. The feds have authority over those matters within their authority. The feds lack authority over matters not within those enumerated grants of power. This is why the Feds can pass a criminal law like a prohibition against marijuana sales INTERSTATE. But their prohibition doesn’t disallow NY State (for example) to even set up licensed marijuana dispensaries for purely recreational use.

Is but your belief that the US either has or should have authority over that purely in-state marijuana use and sales law?

[edited to correct the highlighted word “against “ — inadvertently omitted previously]

The 14th does nothing of the sort. Your focus on it is nothing but a diversion. A rather stupid one given the amount of available information to the contrary.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation is protected by law, dope.

Civil Rights Law Protects Gay and Transgender Workers, Supreme Court Rules (Published 2020)

The court said the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination, applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

www.nytimes.com

Sexual Orientation

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[JustAGuy1]

SCOTUS and same-sex marriage: What could be in store?

Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade, sending abortion policy back to the states, could the court do th

www.politifact.com

This seems a very unconservative stance. It is more akin to an authoritariaan stance. I understan that 150 gops voted against protecting Gay marriage. The same number voted against rotecting inter racial marriage.

What sort of country would America become if these rights were over turned by your crazy Supreme Court.

Look faggot we don't care what you do you in your own home.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Inferior People in Superior Positions

We have wannabes and has-beens, but a word like "shouldntabeen" is needed even more.

Then there’s nobodys like you.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits workplace discrimination based on religion, national origin, race, color, or sex. State laws in 21 states protect employees from Sexual orientation discrimination.

Fifty states now.

Supreme Court Delivers Major Victory To LGBTQ Employees

The Supreme Court says the federal ban on discrimination "based on sex" applies to gay, lesbian and transgender employees.

www.npr.org

 

[BackAgain]

The 14th does nothing of the sort. Your focus on it is nothing but a diversion. A rather stupid one given the amount of available information to the contrary.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation is protected by law, dope.

Civil Rights Law Protects Gay and Transgender Workers, Supreme Court Rules (Published 2020)

The court said the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination, applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

www.nytimes.com

Sexual Orientation

www.law.cornell.edu

Hey. I am guessing you missed it. But I have already acknowledged that I was wrong.

In other words, you were actually correct. The 14th Amendment doesn’t explicitly reference “on the basis of race.”

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Why must Homofascists be allowed to legally coerce subsidies from the public in the name of male-on-male buttfucking?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I have to now concede that I was mistaken.

I spent spent several posts today making my argument based on my incorrect memory of the words in the 14th Amendment.

My bad.

So, I’m happy to report that there now seems to me to be no reason to worry about Obgerfell being overruled at all. Sometimes being wrong is a pleasant event.

Links correcting you were given to you over the same period, dope while you belittle everyone who dare oppose your nonsense.

You just reinforced why you’re not to be trusted.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Hey. I am guessing you missed it. But I have already acknowledged that I was wrong.

In other words, you were actually correct. The 14th Amendment doesn’t explicitly reference “on the basis of race.”

I didn’t miss it. I responded to it , dope.

 

[BackAgain]

Links correcting you were given to you over the same period, dope while you belittle everyone who dare oppose your nonsense.

You just reinforced why you’re not to be trusted.

Oh relax, you dope. Nothing was posted to correct me until someone (not you of course) posted the Amendment verbatim.

I made a mistake. But you’re a generally dishonest tool. So, you of all people should refrain from pontificating about who is worthy of trust.

In any event, I didn’t expect a tool like you to be gracious in accepting my admission of error. Being cool is not your style.

 

[BackAgain]

I didn’t miss it. I responded to it , dope.

You’re still a gnat.

Fuck off you worthless hack bitch troll.

Oh. And have a swell night.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Oh relax, you dope. Nothing was posted to correct me until someone (not you of course) posted the Amendment verbatim.

I made a mistake. But you’re a generally dishonest tool. So, you of all people should refrain from pontificating about who is worthy of trust.

In any event, I didn’t expect a tool like you to be gracious in accepting my admission of error. Being cool is not your style.

The amendment was always available to you, dope.

You’re just and arrogant ass.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

SCOTUS and same-sex marriage: What could be in store?

Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade, sending abortion policy back to the states, could the court do th

www.politifact.com

This seems a very unconservative stance. It is more akin to an authoritariaan stance. I understan that 150 gops voted against protecting Gay marriage. The same number voted against rotecting inter racial marriage.

What sort of country would America become if these rights were over turned by your crazy Supreme Court.

Because they don’t want Gay men and women to share the joys of being miserable in marriage…

 

[BackAgain]

The amendment was always available to you, dope.

You’re just and arrogant ass.

Not at all. I simply relied on a mistaken memory.

If you want to see an ass, check your reflection, bitch. You’re still just an asshole.

 

[Red Front]

Homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) beginning with the first edition, published in 1952 by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). This classification was challenged by gay rights activists in the years following the 1969 Stonewall riots, and in December 1973, the APA board of trustees voted to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1974 the DSM was updated and homosexuality was replaced with a new diagnostic code for individuals distressed by their homosexuality. Distress over one's homosexual orientation remained in the manual, under different names, until the DSM-5 in 2013.

The APA reclassified homosexuality for political reasons, it had nothing to do with science. Homosexuals were threatening to kill psychiatrists if they continued diagnosing homosexuality as a paraphilia or sexual disorder, so the APA coward to their demands and threats, giving them what they wanted. In the early days, homosexuals seemed to be content with society being tolerant of them, not discriminating against them in the area of employment, housing..etc. All seemed fair and good, but the problem with many homosexuals (not all of them, but many), is that tolerance is not enough. They want to become the fully accepted, mainstream "healthy alternative" to heterosexuality. From that stems the demand for gay marriage, child adoption..etc. All of our goodwill and tolerance towards homosexuality has unfortunately led to all of the transgender confusion we see today. Literally, hundreds of thousands of children are being subjected to dangerous hormone treatments and being deprived of going through puberty. Some children even have their breasts and genitals mutilated by doctors in an attempt to "transition" them to the opposite sex.

The consequences of opening the closet and letting all of these homosexuals out results in this:

​

Homosexuals are many times more susceptible to STDs, like HIV, syphilis, herpes, and other diseases. They have problems with depression and suicide at much higher rates than heterosexuals and that's the case everywhere, regardless of whether the environment is egalitarian, "progressive" or the Bible belt (i.e. the American South). The rates of homosexual depression and suicide are the same in Norway and Sweden as they are in Alabama and Tennessee. Same shit. Children raised by homosexuals are 8 times more likely to "dabble" with homosexuality, developing a homosexual orientation. Placing them at greater risk of all of the aforementioned health problems, not to speak of the fact that these children are being deprived of developing a healthy, normal heterosexual orientation. Getting married with a member of the opposite sex and siring their own offspring, starting a family in a traditional, natural, normal sense. These children are being deprived of that, and it's nothing less than a heinous crime.

If society has a choice of offending homosexuals by keeping their activities in the closet as it was in previous generations, or in any way hurting children, undermining their wellbeing, health, their future, civil society must always opt for keeping homosexuals in their closets, where they belong. Sexuality is a private matter, it's in the closet for everyone in many ways, including heterosexuals. How many heterosexual pride parades have you seen lately? Sex is something that is private, but these homosexuals want their sexuality in the open, in everyone's face. They were never satisfied with tolerance, they always wanted full-blown societal submission to their depravities. Being tolerant of them at the expense of our children is simply unacceptable and if society is willing and able, it should stop this LGBTQ invasion of society immediately. Force them back into their nightclubs and closets. They can engage in their degenerate activities among themselves in their private bathhouses and bedrooms.

Gay marriage, gay adoption, all of this should be made illegal immediately here in America. Russia was smart enough not to fall into the LGBTQ trap. That's why American liberals hate Russia so much. In Russia, there's no same-sex marriage, no gay adoption, and no gay pride parades without being broken up almost immediately by the police. None of that filth has taken over Russia as it has here in America.

​

 

[Couchpotato]

SCOTUS and same-sex marriage: What could be in store?

Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade, sending abortion policy back to the states, could the court do th

www.politifact.com

This seems a very unconservative stance. It is more akin to an authoritariaan stance. I understan that 150 gops voted against protecting Gay marriage. The same number voted against rotecting inter racial marriage.

What sort of country would America become if these rights were over turned by your crazy Supreme Court.

1. Because the state has co-opted the term marriage. It means one thing to the government and quite another to religious people. Since many conservatives are also religious when the term marriage is used they think of the religious institution of marriage not the government one. That’s essentially the issue IMO. The state should just get out of the marriage business and issue civil unions to everyone. Want to get married? Talk to your religious leader whoever that might be.

2. The SCOTUS isn’t/wasnt going to invalidate gay marriage. There are myriad of reason for this the main one being that current marriages are dependent upon the current law. But even if they did turn it back to the states and a state outlawed gay marriage, it would be of little consequence. You can easily get married online in whatever state you”d like.