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.
82% of Republicans in the Senate voted for their version of the bill, compared to 69% of Democrats.
80% of Republicans in the House voted on that version, which was signed into law by President Johnson(a politically expedient and astute decision) compared to 63% of Democrats).
Those numbers don't lie - Republicans(the party of Lincoln) were responsible for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Democrats had to be convinced to do the right thing, and even so, a substantial number of Democrats wanted to hold on to their baby - Jim Crow.
We know. We also know that all of those southern Democrats who voted against the bill shortly thereafter became Republicans.
If it upsets you so much, do something about it. Run for office on a anti gay platform. If so many are on the same page as you then you should be able to get elected and help change the law back the way you want it.
There is no such thing as an "anti-gay" platform.
Harrier doesn't care what homosexuals do in the privacy of the bedroom - he only wishes to uphold the definition of marriage.
Harrier would like to see the government get completely out of the marriage business. There could be contracts of commitment, enforceable by the courts, which would be the extent of government involvement in such matters.
Anyone could call themselves married, but the word would have no legal meaning, nor would it bestow any benefits, beyond what was stipulated in the individual contracts.
Churches could conduct marriages according to their standards, gays could have ceremonies and call them weddings, and everyone could live in peace, without stepping on each others toes.
Every time Harrier presents this common sense solution, it is summarily rejected by the gay army.
Why? Because it is not about "civil rights" or "equality" - both of which homosexuals already possess.
It is about the forced acceptance by society of homosexual relationships and gay sex.
We know. We also know that all of those southern Democrats who voted against the bill shortly thereafter became Republicans.
Harrer know that but he is trying to prove some point so he can go to McDonnalds in the morning and sit around and tell the other old folks how he whupped up on the liberals last night....
Harrer know that but he is trying to prove some point so he can go to McDonnalds in the morning and sit around and tell the other old folks how he whupped up on the liberals last night....
Harrier doesn't care what homosexuals do in the privacy of the bedroom - he only wishes to uphold the definition of marriage.
Harrier would like to see the government get completely out of the marriage business. There could be contracts of commitment, enforceable by the courts, which would be the extent of government involvement in such matters.
Anyone could call themselves married, but the word would have no legal meaning, nor would it bestow any benefits, beyond what was stipulated in the individual contracts.
Churches could conduct marriages according to their standards, gays could have ceremonies and call them weddings, and everyone could live in peace, without stepping on each others toes.
Every time Harrier presents this common sense solution, it is summarily rejected by the gay army.
Why? Because it is not about "civil rights" or "equality" - both of which homosexuals already possess.
It is about the forced acceptance by society of homosexual relationships and gay sex.
society should accept homosexual relationships as they are completely natural and normal. Harrier should know by now there is no such thing as "gay" sex.
We know. We also know that all of those southern Democrats who voted against the bill shortly thereafter became Republicans.
Not so.
The southern strategy has been grasped upon as a lifeline by Democrats who understandably desperately want to run away from their racist past.
However, the truth is that the southern strategy did not have that much of an effect on political transformation of a particular geographic region.
The real sea change took place in the early 1980's when the "Reagan Democrats" switched parties due to the drift of the Democratic Party to the extreme left.
Harrier doesn't care what homosexuals do in the privacy of the bedroom - he only wishes to uphold the definition of marriage.
Harrier would like to see the government get completely out of the marriage business. There could be contracts of commitment, enforceable by the courts, which would be the extent of government involvement in such matters.
Anyone could call themselves married, but the word would have no legal meaning, nor would it bestow any benefits, beyond what was stipulated in the individual contracts.
Churches could conduct marriages according to their standards, gays could have ceremonies and call them weddings, and everyone could live in peace, without stepping on each others toes.
Every time Harrier presents this common sense solution, it is summarily rejected by the gay army.
Why? Because it is not about "civil rights" or "equality" - both of which homosexuals already possess.
It is about the forced acceptance by society of homosexual relationships and gay sex.
All Bull Bologna, you're on more gay threads most gay folks. We know you hate gays. Surrender Dorothy!
Harrier would like to see the government get completely out of the marriage business. There could be contracts of commitment, enforceable by the courts, which would be the extent of government involvement in such matters.
Anyone could call themselves married, but the word would have no legal meaning, nor would it bestow any benefits, beyond what was stipulated in the individual contracts.
Churches could conduct marriages according to their standards, gays could have ceremonies and call them weddings, and everyone could live in peace, without stepping on each others toes.
Every time Harrier presents this common sense solution, it is summarily rejected by the gay army.
So, a legal nightmare, basically. All the benefits of what we have now, at a fraction of the efficiency, and thousands of times the cost, all to keep gay people from sharing in the word "marriage." Marriage is a legal contract. You can't get the government out of legal contracts because that's what the government does.
Churches will still be able to refuse to perform any ceremony they choose. There's no possibility of any law overturning that right in this country.
Approximately 38% of the US population now live in immoral states.
You mean the Bible Belt where they have highest stats for downloading internet porn?
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.
