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.
Gay rights is fulfillment of prophecy as a nation falls from God it becomes decedant, perverse, lawless, anti-covenant, the complacant church becomes lukewarm ( to be spewn into Tribulation) , gay as in Sodom is a no brainer mimmic of how we are to end our lives prematurely by judgment . Love is not Gods issue sexual relations is huge in His push back. His push back is terrifying knuckleheads aka
Liberals!
Yawn.
Time to drop the Old Testament and concentrate (if you wish) on the New Testament.
The hate card is baloney it isn't about hate except for a few idiots in society. Our church welcomes gays ( should they be gay we don't go around shaking gays down). We don't even care as the service is already a complexity without screening gays for Gods sake. Again THE HATE CARD by gays is ludicrous and just a distraction by gay spin doctors booo hoooooing. . Love between two same sex adults is a great thing as without charity (love) we have nothing ,but once you cross the line and sex is complicit in spitting on Gods covenants which gays ignore blatantly then you threaten my future ,my life and my families security as God will crush society including everyone collaterally in the path of judgment! His so-called vail of protection will be lifted you can count on it.
I'm sorry Nicky, your responses sound a tad bitter
You are right--they are. So what?
My point is: Elites with the Magical Vision of The Anointed, reading into the Constitution what isn't there, rather than keeping the 9th and 10th Amendments as the Federalism touchstones they were meant to be, which takes us into some rather ambiguous, and therefore dangerous, legal territory. Yes, I am a disciple of the Great Justice Antonin Scalia ("We are Jurists, not legislators, nor philosopher-kings....")
IA, MA and a dozen other states voted gay marriage in. That is perfectly fine Constitution wise.
I may disagree with it, and frankly the real "bigotry" here is the dogmatic demand that such a relationship be *the exact same* as a marriage, whatever legal "domestic partner" status it may merit.
But that's irrelevant. IA, MA and a dozen other states voted it in. Fair enough. And if that is done state-by-state, then yes it will become the Law of the Land, a la nationwide Women's Suffrage and a Direct Federal Income Tax on Citizens.
I don't like physician assisted suicide either, but Oregon voted it in. Fair enough.
Last edited by NickB1967; 07-27-2015 at 12:25 PM..
The Stonewall Insurrection was a turning point in the gay rights movement, but it wasn't the beginning. The first gay rights organization and publication in the US was formed in Chicago in the 1920's - but it was shut down by the police. The beginnings of the modern gay movement started just after WW2 and by the early 60's was started to pick up steam. Last month we just celebrated the 50th anniversary of first public gay rights demonstration, held in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia. Back then it was called "The Homophile Movement" and there chapters of groups like the Mattachine Society and the Daughters Of Bilitis were sprouting everywhere.
The early 1960's was a time of profound changes in US society. The emergence of the modern feminist movement, the beginnings of an environmentalist movement, an anti-Vietnam war movement, successes for civil rights and the end of segregation, etc.
I understand your point, though. I've heard someone say "A year before Stonewall there were 40 gay rights organizations in the US, a year after it there were 400, a decade after that there were 4,000 and a decade after that it grew fourfold."
You have a political ideology and disagree with the recent Supreme Court ruling. Many folks who would disagree with you would merely shrug and say it is altogether proper and fitting that the judiciary should protect the rights of a minority, which should not be subject to the whims or popularity contests of the voting majority ... that is called "the tyranny of the majority" and the civil rights minorities enjoy today are often due to judicial decision, not elections. We live in a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy ... and that is why the US Supreme Court ruled the way they did in the famous Loving decision. Scotus can overturn decisions after the passage of time, just as Plessy v. Ferguson was reversed by Brown v. The Board Of Education.
It must be noted that is wasn't just SCOTUS that brought about marriage equality. The vast and overwhelming majority of rulings in many courts throughout the land sided with legalizing same sex marriage. It's a fact that many Republican-appointed judges - judges who were considered "conservative" - voiced eloquent opinions in favor of legalizing same sex marriage from a constitutional point of view; they include respected federal judges such as Bernard Friedman and Richard Posner, both appointed by Pres. Reagan, John E. Jones who was appointed by Pres. Bush, and Luis Garcia who was appointed by Jeb Bush in Florida. Just one federal judge in Louisiana and two judges on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals went against the trend of over 60 courts in many states legalizing it. That is why the SCOTUS had to step in and hear the case ... all the courts up until then were unanimous is upholding legalized same sex marriage.
Actually, the Courts were NOT unanimous, which is how it percolated up to the Supremes. Plessy v. Ferguson was itself a judicial construction--"Separate but Equal". Not a judicial construction that we may like, but one nonetheless. Nor is citing Loving vs. Virginia, and asserting that sexual orientation is the same as race, honestly precedented.
And sadly, a lot of Republican jurists also have the "Elites with the Magical Vision of The Anointed" mentality, reading into the Constitution what just isn't there, rather than keeping the 9th and 10th Amendments as the Federalism touchstones they were meant to be, which takes us into some rather ambiguous, and therefore dangerous, legal territory.
Yes, I am a disciple of the Great Justice Antonin Scalia ("We are Jurists, not legislators, nor philosopher-kings....")
IA, MA and a dozen other states voted gay marriage in. That is perfectly fine Constitution wise.
I may disagree with it, and frankly the real "bigotry" here is the dogmatic demand that such a relationship be *the exact same* as a marriage, whatever legal "domestic partner" status it may merit. California had worked out its own solution to the matter by legislation in that fashion, until again the activists chose to read magically things into the Constitution.
But that's irrelevant. IA, MA and a dozen other states voted it in. Fair enough. And if that is done state-by-state, then yes it will become the Law of the Land, a la nationwide Women's Suffrage and a Direct Federal Income Tax on Citizens.
I don't like physician assisted suicide either, but Oregon voted it in. Fair enough. They didn't invent a "Right To Die" magically somewhere embedded in the Constitution.
Last edited by NickB1967; 07-27-2015 at 12:30 PM..
Actually, the Courts were NOT unanimous, which is how it percolated up to the Supremes. Plessy v. Ferguson was itself a judicial construction--"Separate but Equal". Not a judicial construction that we may like, but one nonetheless. Nor is citing Loving vs. Virginia, and asserting that sexual orientation is the same as race, honestly precedented.
And sadly, a lot of Republican jurists also have the "Elites with the Magical Vision of The Anointed" mentality, reading into the Constitution what just isn't there, rather than keeping the 9th and 10th Amendments as the Federalism touchstones they were meant to be, which takes us into some rather ambiguous, and therefore dangerous, legal territory.
Yes, I am a disciple of the Great Justice Antonin Scalia ("We are Jurists, not legislators, nor philosopher-kings....")
IA, MA and a dozen other states voted gay marriage in. That is perfectly fine Constitution wise.
I may disagree with it, and frankly the real "bigotry" here is the dogmatic demand that such a relationship be *the exact same* as a marriage, whatever legal "domestic partner" status it may merit. California had worked out its own solution to the matter by legislation in that fashion, until again the activists chose to read magically things into the Constitution.
But that's irrelevant. IA, MA and a dozen other states voted it in. Fair enough. And if that is done state-by-state, then yes it will become the Law of the Land, a la nationwide Women's Suffrage and a Direct Federal Income Tax on Citizens.
I don't like physician assisted suicide either, but Oregon voted it in. Fair enough. They didn't invent a "Right To Die" magically somewhere embedded in the Constitution.
Is there an echo in here.... So I'm guessing things didn't quit go as you hoped! Funny, most folks pretty much predicted correctly the out come of the ruling. You seem surprised, disappointed, confused with a pretty good dose of hurt feelings. Maybe a strawberry Pop Tart will make you feel better?
Is there an echo in here.... So I'm guessing things didn't quit go as you hoped! Funny, most folks pretty much predicted correctly the out come of the ruling. You seem surprised, disappointed, confused with a pretty good dose of hurt feelings. Maybe a strawberry Pop Tart will make you feel better?
Is this what passes for thought among the Left? At least the other guy had a justification.
I think the gay movement succeeded because the United States as a country is, for the most part, free. People are allowed to espouse their opinions, which may be different from the opinions of the local government, and not be shot or otherwise censured. So eventually enough people are going to hear both sides and be able to choose the side that makes the most sense, instead of just being forced into whatever other folks want us to believe.
Any legitimate human rights movement succeeds in a free country, eventually. What's interesting is the process. Is the US less free than the other countries that have had equal marriage for years?
Most likely not. It's the way the laws of a country work. The US with it's many twist and turns in achieving rights is what most likely slowed it down. Other countries were years ahead.
I think you are also giving too much credit to those opposed. Not all, but a huge majority of them didn't listen with any intelligence to the solid argument for it. They ranted, spouted lies, fear mongered and seem to hate the democratic process.
I have more respect for those who opposed gay marriage who held personal beliefs, but had the brains to know that religious beliefs make bad law.
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.
