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.
You can personally refuse to call a gay marriage a marriage all day long, every day. Call it an abomination, a sin, a travesty.... that, in the end, is YOUR personal issue.
The government in a free society, however, is bound to treat its citizens equally, and the arc of progress is long and always bends towards what's right.
You're kind has come and gone on every major social issue this nation has faced from abolition to women's rights.
Good to know you're into science though, so you can start self-identifying as "Dinosaur" --- on the verge of extinction.
Gay marriage isn't going anywhere anymore than universal suffrage "came and went."
But if that's what it will take to help you get through this psychological trauma, go for it. Whatever helps you get through the night... dreaming of a world where the hard fought advancements of western civilization are overturned... would take a rapid descent into another Dark Ages. But I guess that's what you all are hoping and working for anyway, isn't it?
Gay marriage isn't going anywhere anymore than universal suffrage "came and went."
But if that's what it will take to help you get through this psychological trauma, go for it. Whatever helps you get through the night... dreaming of a world where the hard fought advancements of western civilization are overturned... would take a rapid descent into another Dark Ages. But I guess that's what you all are hoping and working for anyway, isn't it?
Britain lawmakers voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday for a bill to legalize same-sex marriage.
The House of Commons voted in favor of the bill on second reading.
Quote:
The next step is approval by the House of Lords. ( The House of Lords is unable unilaterally to prevent bills passing into law)
Not strictly true. The Parliament Act 1911, as amended by the Parliament Act 1949, provides for a bill approved by the Commons to be sent to the Sovereign for Royal Assent regardless of approval by the Lords, after two sitting sessions of Parliament over the course of one year (except in certain instances, such as money bills).
Which is to say that the Lords are able to unilaterally prevent a bill from being sent to the Sovereign for Royal Assent ("passing into law") for up to one year. Or, plainer still, the Lords have a suspensary veto for a year.
In practice, the Parliament Act has only been used four times since its 1949 amendment. Governments, particularly Conservative governments, have usually taken "no" votes in the Lords seriously and rather than ram the legislation through, give it more thought. Which, of course, is the entire purpose of the House of Lords as the "chamber of sober second thought and serious reflection".*
It's not clear how Their Noble Lordships will vote on this one. Like the Commons, the Conservative benches will be divided, but unlike the Commons there is also a large "cross bench" (non-partisan) contingent in the Lords. My bet is, the House of Lords will approve the bill.
Quote:
Let America be the 13 country; it is time as the rest of the world is showing that equality works.
I'll be surprised if America is the 130th country, at least at the federal level. (And for the record, I'm tepidly in favor of same-sex marriage)
* The phrase was originally used in connection with the Canadian Upper House, but applies perfectly to the modern House of Lords.
The House of Commons voted in favor of the bill on second reading.
[/i]Not strictly true. The Parliament Act 1911, as amended by the Parliament Act 1949, provides for a bill approved by the Commons to be sent to the Sovereign for Royal Assent regardless of approval by the Lords, after two sitting sessions of Parliament over the course of one year (except in certain instances, such as money bills).
Which is to say that the Lords are able to unilaterally prevent a bill from being sent to the Sovereign for Royal Assent ("passing into law") for up to one year. Or, plainer still, the Lords have a suspensary veto for a year.
In practice, the Parliament Act has only been used four times since its 1949 amendment. Governments, particularly Conservative governments, have usually taken "no" votes in the Lords seriously and rather than ram the legislation through, give it more thought. Which, of course, is the entire purpose of the House of Lords as the "chamber of sober second thought and serious reflection".*
It's not clear how Their Noble Lordships will vote on this one. Like the Commons, the Conservative benches will be divided, but unlike the Commons there is also a large "cross bench" (non-partisan) contingent in the Lords. My bet is, the House of Lords will approve the bill.
I'll be surprised if America is the 130th country, at least at the federal level. (And for the record, I'm tepidly in favor of same-sex marriage)
* The phrase was originally used in connection with the Canadian Upper House, but applies perfectly to the modern House of Lords.
This long process is why 2015 is the year it likely to go thru. Britain already has option for civil partnership and with that I'm with you the House Of Lords will likely pass this.
Being the 13th country would have nice symbolism for America and its original 13 colonies. As TriMT7 pointed out France is considering this to so 14th would be great for the gay agenda as some put it.
The gay agenda is acceptance, equality and love. When I hear those threaten by the gay agenda I and majority of the LGBTQ community take it as a compliment.
. Proving once again that Europe will have to take the lead in being the true beacon of personal freedoms for the world. .
That statement is many times a farce and you know it. What you are doing is cherry picking certain freedoms and then claiming that europe is better but you know as well as I do that America has many freedoms that europe especially Britain doesn't.
Fight back from a attacker in many of these countries and they take YOU to jail for assault. Speak openly on certain things and they take you to jail for "disturbing harmony".
So spare me with your notions about europe being OH SO MUCH freer.
That statement is many times a farce and you know it. What you are doing is cherry picking certain freedoms and then claiming that europe is better but you know as well as I do that America has many freedoms that europe especially Britain doesn't.
Fight back from a attacker in many of these countries and they take YOU to jail for assault. Speak openly on certain things and they take you to jail for "disturbing harmony".
So spare me with your notions about europe being OH SO MUCH freer.
And you can spare us all the nonsense of America being more free.
TSA jangle your jewels would not occur but for your stupid insistance upon it.
Get pulled over on an interstate and get to watch the trooper approach your vehicle with his hand on his weapon ready for what?
Get asked for ID at Walmart to buy a bottle of liquor when you're obviously over 60?
Try to drive by your vaunted Whitehouse lately?
Get stopped after some miles of a border to have your vehicle sniffed by a dog and asked if you have any oranges aboard?
TSA stopped you on one of your highways lately to detain you, question you, infer you're guilty of something without probable cause; ALL in the name of security?
Europe? Oh that's right; many of the countries don't even have check points between them.
Can you be arrested and detained indefinitely (patriot Act) because your neighbour reported you have two more than the allowable BBQ propane tanks in your yard and must be up to somthing dastardly?
Freedoms? I think you've forgotten the meaning of the word.
Same Sex Marriages describes the total aspect of this issue and nothing you can say makes it the abomination your fear of the unknown makes it out to be. . Get over it.
Location: NYC based - Used to Live in Philly - Transplant from Miami
2,307 posts, read 2,767,189 times
Reputation: 2610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua
The union of two people of the same sex is not the same as the union of two people of the opposite sex. Its elementary biology. Why do you liberals despise science so much?
Liberal despises science? HMMM?
I think it's YOU GUYS who despise science.
Location: NYC based - Used to Live in Philly - Transplant from Miami
2,307 posts, read 2,767,189 times
Reputation: 2610
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
May I suggest anyone from the Deep South refrain from commenting on the social progress of "decline" of anywhere else in the world?
That would br great. Thank you all in advance.
LOL! BAM! Right on the face! Good one Trim!
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.
