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.
Equal rights? You bet. Thousands died for them. Special Rights? Uh....nope. Those in this group are no different than the rest and if finally treated as such, any and all special set asides or lawsuit enticements should cease, shouldn't they?
But, those "special classifications" will survive as much as affirmative action. Enter the hypocrisy. I do not have a dog in this race. To the best of my knowledge, none of my friends are in that group and if they are/were, I would treat them as well today as I did "then".
I'm confused. What "special rights" and "special classifications" are you talking about?
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.
Succeed from the union? You do remember how badly that worked out last time don't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310
They already have the same rights as everyone else.
No, in some states they still can't marry, though probably not for very much longer. Also, some states don't have legal protection for LGBT persons as it related to housing and employment discrimination. Not many, but a few.
The Republican Party's ruling coalition of religious reactionaries and those who advocate egoistic avarice has often been referred to as "an unholy alliance" for a reason - it required the religious reactionaries to explicitly support distinctly immoral policies. They had to live in violation of the expressed values of their belief systems in order to achieve compatibility with their partners necessary to have a strong enough foundation to overcome two generations of almost-continual Democratic domination of the federal legislature.
What we see happening now is two things: First, the fiscal extremists are beginning to see the religious extremists as a liability rather than an asset (for the reasons alluded to by this thread). That, in turn, is prompting the religious extremists to reassess the hypocrisy necessary to remain aligned with the GOP.
However, I don't like all the assumptions that I see people making that the Republican Party is facing imminent decline or implosion, based primarily on the trend highlighted in this thread. The rate at which the fiscal extremists are effectively spreading their attitudes is troubling, and given how bad human nature could be under the right circumstances and motivation, could eventually overcome the loss of the religious extremists.
So, in a nutshell, I think the answer to this question may end up being academic and insignificant from the GOP standpoint.
The proximity of the closest available wall to bang my head against when I read you answer not withstanding......
Against my better judgment, I'm going to ask you what a "fiscal extremist" is?
Is it someone who thinks it's generally a good idea to live within their means and pay their bills instead of passing them on to their children....with interest?
Or maybe it's someone who holds the archaic idea that all citizens paying the same percentage of their income in taxes with no deductions is the definition of "fair share"?
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?
It's not up to Republicans to change marriage laws, it's up to the people of the state to... oh... wait a tic... no it's not any more, our marriage laws are up to a simple majority of a three judge federal court, my bad.
And here I was thinking social issues like marriage were up to the people of a state to decide.
It's not up to Republicans to change marriage laws, it's up to the people of the state to... oh... wait a tic... no it's not any more, our marriage laws are up to a simple majority of a three judge federal court, my bad.
And here I was thinking social issues like marriage were up to the people of a state to decide.
If you are willing to get rid of any federal marriage tax advantages it might be able to revert to that.
It's not up to Republicans to change marriage laws, it's up to the people of the state to... oh... wait a tic... no it's not any more, our marriage laws are up to a simple majority of a three judge federal court, my bad.
And here I was thinking social issues like marriage were up to the people of a state to decide.
While I understand that reasoning, absolute state rights could effectively mean we'd effectively have 50 different nations rather than one.
You do realize the states rights argument was the same one used to justify continuing slavery don't you? It's also still a justification some give for laws against mixed-ethnicity marriages.
I know it's easy to just subscribe to the mantra 'states rights', but there have to be limits otherwise we're not really a single nation. Constitutionally all individuals have the same rights and protections, so it seems obvious to me that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. The courts are simply recognizing this and you don't seem to like it.
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?
There's no compromising on equal rights for individuals.
LGBT equality will happen, regardless of how Conservatives feel.
You can't hold back the tide forever.
The right to marriage was initially defeated in California because of a large percentage of blacks and Hispanics voting against it. Granted generalizations are just that but generally these two groups usually don't fall under the label of "conservatives".
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?
What we are willing to do is stop talking about it.... Conservatives just want you to SHUT UP about what sex you think you are or aren't. Its a non issue, except to liberals and that is why they keep trying to make it an issue , like this thread.
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.
