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.
BS. It is apparent that you have NEVER actually discussed this issue with a self-identified Republican or conservative, because everyone I know, myself included have ALWAYS supported SS domestic partnerships that recognize all rights and benefits of traditional marriage. We do not agree to redefining marriage for a minority class, but we DEFINITELY support equal protection under the law for SS people who wish to live together as domestic partners.
You probably don't live in the Bible Belt. Here, most people oppose any rights for homosexuals and would go as far as to criminalize it if they could get away with it. I realize it isn't that way in more progressive parts of the country, but here, most Republicans will oppose any expanded rights for LGBT people.
BS. It is apparent that you have NEVER actually discussed this issue with a self-identified Republican or conservative, because everyone I know, myself included have ALWAYS supported SS domestic partnerships that recognize all rights and benefits of traditional marriage. We do not agree to redefining marriage for a minority class, but we DEFINITELY support equal protection under the law for SS people who wish to live together as domestic partners.
No. As jjrose points out, you do not get to play the "Republicans were always fine with registered partnerships" card. Not yours.
Michigan, Nebraska, South Dakota and Virginia: Banned gay marriage (duh), civil unions and any marriage-like contract between unmarried persons.
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky Louisiana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah & Wisconsin: Banned gay marriage and civil unions.
We're not talking old legislation, either - all of these state constitutions were modified to include the bans in the 2000s and 2010s.
If there was in fact a live-and-let-live attitude like the one you describe, it DEFINITELY didn't show up when Republicans or conservatives went out to vote on the subject. In fact, the exact opposite took place.
The idea that same-sex unions were offered in good faith - indeed, at all - is revisionist history.
Hillary is scared to death, of having to debate Ted Cruz.
I don't know. I think Hillary would be more afraid of debating Trump as the general rules of debating/politics don't always apply to him (i.e. he could trash Bill's sexual indiscretions despite having a questionable past himself, and not go down in the polls for doing so . . . that would be ill-advised and likely result in a different outcome if another candidate did it). While Cruz is a very skilled debater, Hillary isn't too shabby herself. Also, she'd at least be able to prepare fairly well for a debate with Cruz; not so much for a debate with Trump.
BS. It is apparent that you have NEVER actually discussed this issue with a self-identified Republican or conservative, because everyone I know, myself included have ALWAYS supported SS domestic partnerships that recognize all rights and benefits of traditional marriage. We do not agree to redefining marriage for a minority class, but we DEFINITELY support equal protection under the law for SS people who wish to live together as domestic partners.
Lies.
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.
