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.
The D.C. Council voted in favor of same-sex marriage on Tuesday, moving Washington, D.C., a big step closer to becoming the first jurisdiction below the Mason-Dixon Line to allow full civil equality for gays and lesbians.
If Republicans still controlled Congress, I bet they would put a stop to this. (I'm glad they're not in control!)
Good for them, I mean why bother even trying to deal with the issues of representation. As some in our government have shown us, representation is just a stupid word to pass off to idiots who don't get it. The good news here is that a few people decided that their opinion was far more important than those they represent and anyone who disagrees.
Good for them, I mean why bother even trying to deal with the issues of representation. As some in our government have shown us, representation is just a stupid word to pass off to idiots who don't get it. The good news here is that a few people decided that their opinion was far more important than those they represent and anyone who disagrees.
Well... to quote Mel Brooks "Oh p-i-ss boy!"
You mean like representing you and the views of the majority?
I do not think we should EVER be able to vote on the rights of the minority when it comes down to these things.
People will always be anti gay or anti gay marriage but that does not mean gay people should not have the protection of their union. I know several people who are personally against gay marriage but would vote FOR it because it is not their right to tell others what to do and also that gay marriage has no affect on them whatsoever. I would not like people voting on MY marriage. (I am straight by the way).
This is why I am for gay marriage. I actually read this story on the internet a few weeks ago about a man who was denied seeing his partner of 40 some years in the hospital. Now, you don't have to be pro gay marriage or pro gay to think that perhaps they deserved to be together in the dying mans last few minutes.
No they don't......California voted it down and they are very liberal and it was black liberals that helped to vote it down.
Ca is not as liberal as you think. although the coastal areas and major cities are "blue", the rest of the state is "cherry red". the CA campaign was fraught with outright deception and lies perpetrated by the mormons, catholics and other right wing fanactics. that's why Prop 8 went to defeat.
To me "liberal" means Bill Maher type attitude. And I don't know anyone like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
It's a myth that California is "very liberal". Most Californians call themselves moderate or conservative, not liberal. I know that some people like to bash California for being liberal, but it's obviously just an attempt to make moderate positions appear to be liberal. This has been the goal of conservatives for a very long time: Make it so that even moderate positions are labeled "liberal" in order to shift the entire country's ideology to a more conservative position. Today's Republican Party would probably not accept Richard Nixon in their party - he would have been labeled too liberal.
Good for them, I mean why bother even trying to deal with the issues of representation. As some in our government have shown us, representation is just a stupid word to pass off to idiots who don't get it. The good news here is that a few people decided that their opinion was far more important than those they represent and anyone who disagrees.
Sorry, Charlie, but some things aren't up for a vote. It's a matter of human rights, according to the D.C. Board of Ethics and Elections:
A measure to let voters decide whether to ban same-sex marriages in D.C. cannot go on the ballot because it would violate a city human rights law, the Board of Elections and Ethics ruled Tuesday.
You mean like representing you and the views of the majority?
I do not think we should EVER be able to vote on the rights of the minority when it comes down to these things.
People will always be anti gay or anti gay marriage but that does not mean gay people should not have the protection of their union. I know several people who are personally against gay marriage but would vote FOR it because it is not their right to tell others what to do and also that gay marriage has no affect on them whatsoever. I would not like people voting on MY marriage. (I am straight by the way).
This is why I am for gay marriage. I actually read this story on the internet a few weeks ago about a man who was denied seeing his partner of 40 some years in the hospital. Now, you don't have to be pro gay marriage or pro gay to think that perhaps they deserved to be together in the dying mans last few minutes.
A right to redefine a word?
If the gay movement got behind the logic of simple legal rights (civil unions), they might have a bit more success (and some states have). Ignoring the majority and using backdoor tactics to usurp the voice of the people will only make this movement sour for even those who do not have such an opinion on the subject. I know some who were passively supportive, but now are actively against.
Sorry, Charlie, but some things aren't up for a vote. It's a matter of human rights, according to the D.C. Board of Ethics and Elections:
A measure to let voters decide whether to ban same-sex marriages in D.C. cannot go on the ballot because it would violate a city human rights law, the Board of Elections and Ethics ruled Tuesday.
It isn't a right, just as I don't have a right to change the meaning of educated to mean stupid because I see so many people educated that are so stupid using my opinion as the basis.
You do not approach solutions by redefining words. It is a very poor approach and misses the entire point of the issue. The issue is legal rights that are not covered by current laws. you approach the laws and have the laws recognize the addition so that it properly provides relevance.
Or... keep trying to hijack a word and keep being disappointed when the people vote it out (as has happened several times already). There comes a time when you realize something isn't working and approach it differently.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.
I look forward to the day when same-sex marriage occurs in all fifty states. Equal rights 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.
