Advocates seek to expand gay rights

Then they open themselves up for the distasteful attention they receive. I open the door and let my buddies walk in first, the same as I do for my fiance, nobody looks at me weird for it. I don't get affectionate with my fiance in public either, so they could do the same if they don't want to chance being looked at differently. Something tells me, however, that they want to attract the attention because they have inflated egos, especially now.

 

You will be a very unusual fiancé, if when you go about your life with girlfriend, folks cannot tell she is not your sister. You definitely communicate your romantic relationships to the public and you don't need to a passionate embrace with hands going all over the place, to communicate it.

 

Do you have a history of not reading what you're responding to as well?

- - - Updated - - -

Why the hell would any majority vote in favor for any of that? I support state rights.

 

`
To me, "expand gay rights" is a "fudge factor" phrase. It could mean to "go beyond an original intent" as in "now that gays can marry, next, they will force churches to marry them," or, it could mean "a logical sequential progression" as in "Now that states cannot discriminate against gays for marrying, it should apply to discriminating against gays in employment." At best, the phrase is subjective as it can be used differently from different perspectives.
`
`
`
`

 

Well, I don't feel bad for being classy and respectful to those around me in public places. We save the affection for when we're at home. It's not my fault I was raised a gentleman.

 

The fact that I don't agree with you is not evidence I do not understand your argument.

In this context, it does not matter why. It only matters that they can't.

States rights are not unlimited. They are subordinate to the Federal government on anything having to do with the Constitution.

 

You don't even hold hands? Call her 'Sweetheart' ?

 

Lots of things aren't defined in the Constitution because it is not a dictionary. The dictionary defines words. The one of my bookshelf says marriage is between one man and one woman. The 50 state had jurisdiction over marriage until this week. Yet another power grab by selfish and greedy career politicians.

We did. So did the democrats. So did the President at that time, Bill Clinton. They passed the Defense of Marriage Act. Some said we needed a Constitutional Amendment. Others said DOMA was enough. I guess they were wrong. We'll have to get to work on this: https://www.nationformarriage.org/

The Courts did not have the authority to grant such a ruling.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

No, this is what happens when laws are written from the bench. Tyranny ensues.

It was pretty low in Germany at one point as well.

Funny, only 3 states passed gay marriage through a referendum. It failed twice in liberal California. Liberals and gays argued it was a states rights issue and when state after state voted against gay marriage they took it to the courts to overturn the will of the people and the states. Any popularity gays have enjoyed lately will soon be lost in the witch hunt for people who are unbelievers in the liberal religious dogma.

The accuracy of such polls are questionable. Most people pretend to go along out of political correctness. Most liberals despise gay people. I know, I see how they act behind gay people's backs.

Yeah, I think a Constitutional Amendment is the best idea.

6 of one, half dozen of the other. The results are the same, people will be put in jail for their religious beliefs.

Actually no, they couldn't. Churches are not clubs, they are houses of worship. Churches will be compelled to give up their tax exempt status and their recognition as a church, then forced to disband or comply with government coercion.

Tell that to Augusta Country Club, the Boy Scouts, or the Jaycees.

Right. They will be forced to act as if they believe or face extreme penalties and punishments.

Gay is the new black?

 

Many states had laws against interracial marriage. Provided it was enforce equally, is that unconstitional?

 

God approach Saul when he was persecuting Christians.

 

Loving v Virginia was based on the 14th amendment. Your logic did not prevail in that case, so it is a good example of how and why your logic fails in this last case, too. The fact that Loving involved race is really of no consequence.

Also, Loving v Virginia includes in the majority opinion that marriage is a fundamental human right.

Cheif Justice Warren for the unanimous decision:

 

Who is this "they" you refer to? It sure as heck wasn't me. I was against pursuing marriage recognition before securing protection from discrimination nationwide from the very start. My fear being, that now the former has been achieved, the coastal states that already have those protections will just abandon those of us in the flyover states to the wolves. They've consistently forged ahead without making sure the job was fully done to protect the rest of us.

So let's dispense with this ridiculous pretense that gay people all got together and decided something, like pursuing marriage first. It's not like we have some "high gay council" that governs the direction and focus of "the movement". It's not like we all took a vote.

- - - Updated - - -

No. My state has already banned affirmative action by popular vote. I have no desire to revisit that issue.

 

Lol...You mean like how Palin taught her right-wing brood better morals?
Of course it's easier to blame the feds for all of your personal deficiencies and to claim that gays are going to destroy a hetero family unit that is already a joke due to divorce and adultery than to man up, which is why the cons love to play the victim card to excuse their failures.
I have never heard a con take responsibility for their own actions.

 

When did this become the #WarOnWomen misogynistic gratuitous attack on Palin thread?

It's difficult to accuse republicans on wrongdoing here when we've been warning liberals for decades about the destruction their liberal social policies would be doing to the public. Now we are seeing it's fruition.

 

A dictionary is not a lawbook. If the dictionary defined freedom as only applying to white people, it does not mean that it'd suddenly be legal to enslave blacks again.

If you are really the majority, why are you electing selfish and greedy politicians?

I have been alive since the 70s, and have never seen a major movement for defining marriage. From either party. Even the DOMA is recent, and that is NOT a constitutional amendment...which is what you'd need to override the supreme court.

So there are only two possibilities. Either you have never been all that serious about defining marriage, or you simply don't have enough support within the population to pass an amendment defining marriage. Which is it?

lol

I bet the people against interracial marriage said the same thing to themselves.

According to who? The Supreme Court has the power to interpret the constitution above everyone else.

Then you'd better get to work re-writing the Constitution. That is your only hope for any permanent change.

Then you should have no problem getting that constitutional amendment passed. If you really have such overwhelming support, it should be no problem.

Ah...so if I try to enslave my black neighbor because it's my religion, and I am put in prison for it, according to you I am being put in jail for their religious beliefs.got it.

No one is stopping you from worshipping. You can worship and exclude people legally. No one is agitating to change that.

It's only an issue if your church wants tax breaks or exemptions, or if you are being funded by the government.

The Boy Scouts were accepting government funding.

Not anymore.

 

Replace "gay" and "same sex" throughout your post with "Satanist". So it's against Christians' religion to consider 2 gays as being married, but when it comes to 2 Satanists, everything is A-ok? No debate whatsoever? That doesn't make sense to me, yet I've heard no outcry from Christians that they must accommodate Satanists. Or even Muslims. Isn't it against the Christian religion to be Muslim? How are Christians dealing with all these Muslims getting married and obtaining federal and job benefits?

 

But a guy being with a girl is SUPPOSED to happen. If not, you wouldn't be here.

 

I specifically stated that marriage between one man and one woman wasn't defined by race, and you told me that I probably opposed interracial marriage on the same grounds as gay marriage. One man, one woman. Race is no issue. Again.

 

So now the big bad liberals made cons cheat on their marriages and get divorces, eh?
Again blaming others for your failures?

 

Sure I call her sweetheart, but I don't blurt it out. There are many people, I'm sure, that couldn't care less to hear the sweet talk or see the affection. Therefore we both keep it behind closed doors. At home, we're like wild animals, but if you met us in public you would never know it.

 

No, I have no quarrels about a man and a woman being married. There is a big difference between interracial couples and gay couples being married. I'm really not trying to argue, that's just how I feel.

 

The 14th amendment applies to gay marriage just like it applies to interracial marriage.

- - - Updated - - -

How you "feel" doesn't decide if it's constitutional or not

 

And even that 'forced acceptance' has its limits. How have people circumvented the Government's "mandate"? By lying, lying between its teeth. What people simply don't want to, or can't be convinced to accept is that an "open society" is not feasible. Instead, what's far more attainable is the acceptance of people, willingly.

Human beings are not chemicals in a lab. The melting pot is a gross lie. You can't just mix people of different emotions, political/social beliefs and expect there not to be a revolt. But apparently Democrats think history is just that, history and they can refute human precedence.

 

Thirty6, I fully believe the left is trying to redefine marriage so it's unrecognizable from what it is today. We've already seen one or two states try to remove the terms Husband and Wife on marriage licenses and replace them with Partner A and Partner B. I'm predicting the left will eventually try to completely remove all references to a man or woman from anything that has to do with a wedding because it might offend someone. Look at Christmas and Easter. It's politically incorrect for businesses to use those terms so now we have a Holiday Season and a Spring Break. In New York some schools are not allowing kids to make cards for father's day because not all kids have fathers. Do you see where this is going?

In the future, you won't be sending a Christmas card to Mr and Mrs Obama, you'll be addressing that envelope to the Obama Spouses because Mr and Mrs implies a traditional couple which is bigoted.

Aint it funny how the left is trying to remove gender from everything except when a guy castrates himself? That's when it's ok to refer to him as a woman.

 

*Chief


Are you seriously arguing with me about me saying that race has no bearing on marriage as far as I'm concerned? FFS, what's wrong with you and that Sadistic Swordfish guy or whatever the hell his name is? I'm telling you that color doesn't matter and you're telling me my logic failed because color doesn't matter. (*)(*)(*)(*) man.