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.
Michelle Obama: Obama will fight for gay marriage and anti-free speech in re homosexuality.
That is not how the Obama camp has sugar coated the whole thing. They are saying Obama will fight for "gay equality" and end their suffering.
But in the end, it will mean two things:
1. Nationalize gay marriage. Override the will of voters and force gay marriage.
2. Appoint judges who will create laws allowing gay marriage and overturning the will of voters. Examples: Mass-a-Chew-Sits and California judges have over-rulled the rights of voter and JUDGES, NOT ELECTED OFFICIALS OR THE PEOPLE create gay marriage in these states.
3. Pass federal legislation making it a CRIME to say inside a church that homosexuality is a sin. Nancy Pelosi tried that, with her sugar coated, "Anti-Hate Crimes" bill, which Bush vetoed.
Here is the highly liberal and very pro-Obama article, from Yahoo news: Obama's wife says he'll fight for gay equality - Yahoo! News (broken link)
Isn't it nicely packaged? Sounds wonderful.... equality.... wonderful terms and loving support for the Obama plan to override the rights of the people.
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080627/ap_on_el_pr/michelle_obama - broken link)
There should NEVER be a vote on someone's rights ! The Bill of Rights was written to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority.
The problem I have with this issue is this: If a court can overturn the opinion of the people (as voted on, not some straw poll) in this case, it can overturn the people's opinions on anything. Right or wrong, those opinions have been made clear. When we decide that certain opinions aren't valid, and that the court should at its own discretion overrule decisions already made not by it or another court, but by popular vote, we're setting a dangerous precedent.
What I don't understand is that Obummers and his kind want to promote a nanny state that restricts our rights to chose to do things that may hurt us (smoking, fast foods, etc), but wants to allow the government to promote homosexual unions when the homosexual lifestyle has been proven to be more unhealthy than heterosexual lifestyles.
Michelle Obama: Obama will fight for gay marriage and anti-free speech in re homosexuality.
That is not how the Obama camp has sugar coated the whole thing. They are saying Obama will fight for "gay equality" and end their suffering.
But in the end, it will mean two things:
1. Nationalize gay marriage. Override the will of voters and force gay marriage.
2. Appoint judges who will create laws allowing gay marriage and overturning the will of voters. Examples: Mass-a-Chew-Sits and California judges have over-rulled the rights of voter and JUDGES, NOT ELECTED OFFICIALS OR THE PEOPLE create gay marriage in these states.
3. Pass federal legislation making it a CRIME to say inside a church that homosexuality is a sin. Nancy Pelosi tried that, with her sugar coated, "Anti-Hate Crimes" bill, which Bush vetoed.
Here is the highly liberal and very pro-Obama article, from Yahoo news: Obama's wife says he'll fight for gay equality - Yahoo! News (broken link)
Isn't it nicely packaged? Sounds wonderful.... equality.... wonderful terms and loving support for the Obama plan to override the rights of the people.
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080627/ap_on_el_pr/michelle_obama - broken link)
I find this to be very interesting, he has always said he is not for gay marriage.
What I don't understand is that Obummers and his kind want to promote a nanny state that restricts our rights to chose to do things that may hurt us (smoking, fast foods, etc), but wants to allow the government to promote homosexual unions when the homosexual lifestyle has been proven to be more unhealthy than heterosexual lifestyles.
Emancipating the slaves was never put up to a popular vote. Civil rights laws were never put up to a popular vote. The repeal of Jim Crow Laws was not by popular vote. Brown Vs. The Board Of Education was not decided by popular vote.
I stand with all Americans for fair treatment, equal protection, equal rights ... with liberty and justice for all!
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.
There should NEVER be a vote on someone's rights ! The Bill of Rights was written to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority.
