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 have zero problems with gay marriage and adoption, as long as performing gay marriage ceremonies is never forced on the church.
Being that there was a church in Mississippi that refused to marry an interracial couple a few years ago and the government didn't step in to force things, I'm highly doubtful that gay marriage ceremonies will be forced.
But anyway, I applied to some schools recently. Several asked me my sexual orientation. Why are they asking this? They must give homosexuals special treatment in admissions, that's the only possible answer.
It is the only answer a mind afflicted with debilitating bigotry could fathom, perhaps.
The correct answer is that demographic information is gathered during admissions to monitor whether or not there is a pattern of discrimination being perpetuated against a class of applications.
Of course, someone who wants there to be discrimination against homosexuals wouldn't want there to be a way to detect that.
How about those who don't make a will - because, let's be honest, many people don't. In the absence of a will, should one's spouse be considered an heir, or a legal stranger?
And how about the other legal rights of marriage such as:
• Spousal testimonial privilege
• Gaining the right to sue for the wrongful death of your spouse in a court of law
• The right to sponsor your foreign spouse for a spousal green card
• Being able to live in base housing with your military spouse and shop at the commissary
Should these legal rights just be done away with along with civil marriage?
While I don't agree with your first point, your other 3 are giving me something to think about.
I'm willing to consider full and equal rights and protections for men and for women. How they choose to apply those protections and rights to themselves is not my concern. Just to help you out with that, I don't support the concept of 'marriage'. I do support 'civil unions' sworn by a magistrate, for any two consenting adults. Call it a marriage if you like. If you require a circus to make it public that's okay too, just don't expect me to appreciate it. Get your own permits.
What else do you want? Equal pay? Talk to Hillary...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Temp43k
And I would expect like rights and protections for a company's good and services which choose NOT to participate.
Old people are smart enough to realize that same-sex marriage is a ruse designed to use the unconstitutional assumed powers of the courts to make homosexual sex legally indistinguishable from heterosexual sex.
Essentially what the courts are doing in case after case by overturning state DOMAs, many of them amendments to state constitutions, is telling the voters that they are not allowed to think that way.
As for this being a conservative issue, there really isn`t a liberal vs conservative battle going on in the US.
It is described that way for the benefit of low-information types, but the truth is that we all want essentially the same things but we would achieve them in different ways.
The real battle is between those who believe we must get to where we are going by following the Constitution and those who would put their trust in political activism and the courts apart from the normal legislative and amendment processes.
What is most disturbing about the court power grab against the states is the fact that the states have tolerated it. Why has no governor just told them NO. It is possible to defy the federal government. States have the constitutional right to demand their rights be respected. States have the right to secede from the union in order to protect their rights. Our founding fathers must be rolling in their graves because of what happened to our federal government. Even ardent Federalists would question the massive power grab by the federal government. Jefferson would wonder why we have not rebelled yet, as the tyranny we have allowed is far worse than anything old King George ever dreamt of dealing out.
What is most disturbing about the court power grab against the states is the fact that the states have tolerated it. Why has no governor just told them NO. It is possible to defy the federal government. States have the constitutional right to demand their rights be respected. States have the right to secede from the union in order to protect their rights. Our founding fathers must be rolling in their graves because of what happened to our federal government. Even ardent Federalists would question the massive power grab by the federal government. Jefferson would wonder why we have not rebelled yet, as the tyranny we have allowed is far worse than anything old King George ever dreamt of dealing out.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Alabama ratify the 14th Amendment on July 13, 1868?
What is most disturbing about the court power grab against the states is the fact that the states have tolerated it. Why has no governor just told them NO. It is possible to defy the federal government. States have the constitutional right to demand their rights be respected. States have the right to secede from the union in order to protect their rights. Our founding fathers must be rolling in their graves because of what happened to our federal government. Even ardent Federalists would question the massive power grab by the federal government. Jefferson would wonder why we have not rebelled yet, as the tyranny we have allowed is far worse than anything old King George ever dreamt of dealing out.
This is what the Supreme Court case over Obamacare funding is about right now. 36 states saying "no". This is going to be more common place.
But it really doesn't have much to do with this topic. I suppose states could enact Constitutional Amendments that allow them to say who can and who can't get married and claim it for benefits but it's going to be a nightmare for any that try and a lost cause in the end.
The Federal government can't (though I agree they do in many cases) discriminate.
instead of creating new laws and "rights" for sub classes of people, maybe we should just enfore existing laws!
All these new laws do nothing but divide people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanapolicRiddle
I'm really curious as to how willing conservatives are to compromise on rights and protections for LGBT individuals. The reason is this: younger voters overwhelmingly support full equal rights and protections for LGBT persons, including marriage, employment, and housing. Even a majority (61%) of Republicans aged 18-29 favor legal same-sex marriage.
The writing seems to be on the wall: eventually, same-sex marriage will be nationally legal. The longer Republicans wait to embrace this inevitability, the more difficult it will be for them in the long-run. If they support LGBT rights sooner rather than later they might have some chance of getting at least some younger voter support. But if they continue their obstinate resistance it only makes them seem antiquated and out of touch with younger voters.
So what's your perspective conservatives? Are you at least willing to consider full and equal rights and protections for LGBT persons or not?
I'm really curious as to how willing conservatives are to compromise on rights and protections for LGBT individuals. The reason is this: younger voters overwhelmingly support full equal rights and protections for LGBT persons, including marriage, employment, and housing. Even a majority (61%) of Republicans aged 18-29 favor legal same-sex marriage.
The writing seems to be on the wall: eventually, same-sex marriage will be nationally legal. The longer Republicans wait to embrace this inevitability, the more difficult it will be for them in the long-run. If they support LGBT rights sooner rather than later they might have some chance of getting at least some younger voter support. But if they continue their obstinate resistance it only makes them seem antiquated and out of touch with younger voters.
So what's your perspective conservatives? Are you at least willing to consider full and equal rights and protections for LGBT persons or not?
States have the constitutional right to demand their rights be respected.
True. That's one of the enumerated powers of the federal judiciary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72
States have the right to secede from the union in order to protect their rights.
False. Ratification of the US Constitution relinquished the right to secession. This was confirmed by ratification of the 14th Amendment both explicitly by the states in the nation at the time, and upon application for admission to the nation by all subsequent states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72
Our founding fathers must be rolling in their graves because of what happened to our federal government.
Doubtful. That's just anti-government claptrap.
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.
