Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i find that statement very judgemental. There are good Republicans and good Democrats that may not support everything you believe in, whether it be gay marriage, legalizing pot, or maybe cutting defense spending. My point is, we can all disagree on issues, but that doesn't make us right, good or bad.
Marriage equality is a basic civil right. Those who oppose it will find themselves on the wrong side of history, just like those who opposed basic civil rights for African Americans and women. Chances are, within our lifetimes, marriage equality will be the law of the land, as it should be.
I agree with you that a candidate shouldn't be solely judged on their gay marriage stance, but that's the point we've arrived at in this country. Obama coming out in favor of gay marriage more than likely swayed just enough young voters to turn the election. Sadly, today that is the litmus test being used to determine whether someone is a good person or not. My stance is percuiliar because it is too conservative to satisfy liberals but too liberal to be accepted by conservatives. Nonetheless, I wish we could just legalize it and get it overwith so some sense of civility can return to politics.
I have said several times, whether I personally support gay marriage I too understand what you are saying. I have also said, yes go ahead and legalize it, then clergy can decide if they want to perform the marriage rights to gays, just like the Catholic church does with divorced individuals.
Marriage equality is a basic civil right. Those who oppose it will find themselves on the wrong side of history, just like those who opposed basic civil rights for African Americans and women. Chances are, within our lifetimes, marriage equality will be the law of the land, as it should be.
What part of my response to the poster who made the judgemental comment about Republicans do you not understand? I am not taking a stand on whether gay marriage should or should not be legaliazed, my postings have to do with anyone suggesting someone who does not agree with their views are not good people. And yes, gay marriage will be the law of the land, if not sooner, in the next 10 to 20 years.
Its reallyt the same ole devide in many social issues. republicans see Democrats as anti-christian ;anti-marriage proetction ;and anti-right to life. that si now it goes when you want chocie and support of issues choose a aprty to carry their issue in platform of party.But ever since FDR the Democratic aprty has has so many interest groups to juggle and now even more. With coming fiscal issues ;social issues are likely to play a background role with so mnay being effected by cuts coming.
What part of my response to the poster who made the judgemental comment about Republicans do you not understand? I am not taking a stand on whether gay marriage should or should not be legaliazed, my postings have to do with anyone suggesting someone who does not agree with their views are not good people. And yes, gay marriage will be the law of the land, if not sooner, in the next 10 to 20 years.
Nita, "good people" do not take away others' civil rights. Those who try are NOT good people.
I also know many people who say their parents were Democrats in the 40's and 50's.
They used to vote Democrat also.
However, when the time comes to actually vote, they can not vote for the candidate who was on TV banging his fist on table and saying ......." I will always support a woman's right to have an abortion "
At times , a thing called a " conscience" kicks in !
What was disgusting , was to observe every Democrat ( who was campaigning for president) to voice their displeasure when the United States Supreme Court upheld the partial birth abortion ban.
If it truly is "civil rights", why hasn't it been brought before the United States Supreme Court by now ?
You might as well ask the same thing about any civil right before it was ever heard by the high court.
A person just can't have the United Supreme Court hear their case.
They have to have cause.
Then they have to file suit in a federal district court.
If they lose, they can appeal to a federal circuit court.
Then they have to hope the circuit court agrees to hear their case.
If they lose again, they can appeal to the United States Supreme Court.
They they have to hope the high court agrees to hear their case.
You do know that that the USSC grants cert in less than 1% of all appeals, right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
