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.
It's funny. They used to criticize homosexuals for pushing for same-sex marriage, and they'd say that they were okay with civil unions. Now they don't even approve of civil unions.
What's next? Will Republicans try to make homosexuality illegal again?
Yeah, this does not seem right to me either. What is a civil union, other then two people trying to share property and obtain legal rights and protections?
It may be possible that there were amendments or pork added to this law, and they were viewed as unacceptable. In other words, people who would be in favor of civil unions voted down this law, for other reasons.
Yeah, this does not seem right to me either. What is a civil union, other then two people trying to share property and obtain legal rights and protections?
It may be possible that there were amendments or pork added to this law, and they were viewed as unacceptable. In other words, people who would be in favor of civil unions voted down this law, for other reasons.
It was more a power struggle between the governor and the Speaker of the House.
It's funny. They used to criticize homosexuals for pushing for same-sex marriage, and they'd say that they were okay with civil unions. Now they don't even approve of civil unions.
What's next? Will Republicans try to make homosexuality illegal again?
Not all republicans are like this, just the ones out in front. I disagree with this completely. You should be able to get a civil union with the person you love. I believe in the sanctity of marriage but civil unions should be allowed. Compromise, some people just don't get it.
Yeah, this does not seem right to me either. What is a civil union, other then two people trying to share property and obtain legal rights and protections?
It may be possible that there were amendments or pork added to this law, and they were viewed as unacceptable. In other words, people who would be in favor of civil unions voted down this law, for other reasons.
There were not. The Speaker of the House is a hateful, anti-gay bigot who did everything he could to kill this bill despite it having more than enough support to pass (including Republican support). Not only that, by filibustering the civil union bill, he let 30 other vital bills with strong bipartisan support die without coming to a final vote. One of the reasons the Governor had to call a special session was to get those 30 bill passed.
What is it based on? It SHOULD be based on the ability of any two legally consenting adults being able to marry. And laws can be overturned. Just because something is a law now doesn't make it right. The history of our nation should be enough to show you that.
And if you believe that gays don't deserve equal rights dues to a book written over 2000 years ago then I'll stick by my last statement. Which doesn't include all religious people. I know many people that are able to look beyond their faith's holy books and think for themselves.
What is it based on? Why don't you ask our lawmakers, not me. What you think should be and what many if not most Americans think may not be the same thing. Sure laws can be changed. Knock yourself out changing them but those who don't agree with you will fight you on it. We are a basically a Christian nation and therefore you will run into a lot of opposition.
I don't believe that gay marriage is an equal rights issue but then I guess that's just me.
What is it based on? Why don't you ask our lawmakers, not me. What you think should be and what many if not most Americans think may not be the same thing. Sure laws can be changed. Knock yourself out changing them but those who don't agree with you will fight you on it. We are a basically a Christian nation and therefore you will run into a lot of opposition.
I don't believe that gay marriage is an equal rights issue but then I guess that's just me.
That's a delusional position to hold. Civil marriage law confers to couples who contract civil marriages a collection of 1400 joint civil rights (1100 federal, some 300 from the states). By banning gay couples from contracting civil marriage, you are denying them access to those 1400 rights. Such laws deny gay people equal rights and equal treatment under the law. That's just a fact.
To deny that is asinine. Be intellectually honest - acknowledge the discrimination, and then argue why it's a good thing and why it doesn't violate the Constitution.
Not all republicans are like this, just the ones out in front. I disagree with this completely. You should be able to get a civil union with the person you love. I believe in the sanctity of marriage but civil unions should be allowed. Compromise, some people just don't get it.
We already have civil unions in the law - we just call them civil marriages. The simple and correct remedy for the inequality in the law is to simply let gays have equal access to civil marriage law. As to your sanctity comment, there is nothing sacred about civil marriage law.
What is it based on? Why don't you ask our lawmakers, not me. What you think should be and what many if not most Americans think may not be the same thing. Sure laws can be changed. Knock yourself out changing them but those who don't agree with you will fight you on it. We are a basically a Christian nation and therefore you will run into a lot of opposition.
I don't believe that gay marriage is an equal rights issue but then I guess that's just me.
You are denying a group of people equal treatment in this day and age based on nothing more than a few passages from a book over 2000 years old. A book who's origins are very questionable. Scholars even argue about proper translation of the Bible and meaning of passages contained therein. And by a religion who's various sects can't even agree on the proper way to venerate their deity.
So is your opposition based on the Bible? And if so why? Do you take the entire Bible as the infallible word of God? If so do you eat shellfish? Work on Sundays?
You are denying a group of people equal treatment in this day and age based on nothing more than a few passages from a book over 2000 years old. A book who's origins are very questionable. Scholars even argue about proper translation of the Bible and meaning of passages contained therein. And by a religion who's various sects can't even agree on the proper way to venerate their deity.
So is your opposition based on the Bible? And if so why? Do you take the entire Bible as the infallible word of God? If so do you eat shellfish? Work on Sundays?
You are confused. I said I wasn't taking a position personally on this issue. I am merely reiterating to you that this nation is based on Christianity and Christians do believe profoundly in the Bible's teachings. Therefore it is to be expected that there would be a lot of opposition to gay marriage.
As I said though, I don't view this as civil right's issue.
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.
