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.
To be fair, I've grown tired of right wing bigots obsessing over gay people, too.
If right wing bigots have grown tired of having the "gay agenda" shoved down their throats, they could always just stop watching and listening to their fellow right wing bigots, who seem to be the only people around who obsess over gay people.
All that hating people and obsessing over things that don't affect them at all has got to grow tiresome.
Someone is obsessed with "right wing bigots" enough to make an over the top post.
What do you call a left wing bigot? A white liberal progressive.
Thomas Jefferson used the phrase 'the wall of separation between church and state' when describing the purpose of the first amendment. So in fact, this governor does not.
It's rather cute of you to try and argue it though. I'm sure you're of the crowd who idolizes the framers in all their glory, yet would magically reject that part just because it doesn't fit into your ideal world.
The state has no business legislating marriage. The state has no business using religious views to justify actions. And there absolutely must remain a clear separation between church and state if religious freedom is to be guaranteed. Like it or not, it's impossible to let one religion into the government without ever stepping on the rights of another.
1A is to protect the state from religion and religion from the state. This was done in opposition to the manner in which many Euro countries had official religions which played into their politics and the American government was to be completely different from the old world.
England had it's own church while the rest were Catholic. Knights Templar or Spanish inquisition, anyone?
I didn't see gay marriage, much less marriage in general, in the Bill of Rights or Article 1.
Please point the part out, that gives the federal government the authority to even get involved...
I do see the 10th Amendment, though...
If marriage was a right, you would never ever have to ask permission from your government... Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
As it is now, many states you have to ask permission to get your second amendment privileges.
How it should read...
Amendment II
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.
Texas - a state that requires students in sex-education classes be taught that homosexuality is "lifestyle", is an "unacceptable" lifestyle, and is illegal.
Texas, which in the 2000s still arrested and prosecuted gay people for having sex with other gay people in the privacy of their own homes - and only stopped when ordered to by the US Supreme Court in 2003. Gay sex still remains illegal under Texas law, even if the law is now unenforceable.
Texas, a state that not only bans gay people from civil marriage law, but also bans the conferring of any legal rights to gay couples under any heading - be it marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, etc.
Texas, a state where a Christian boss can fire a gay employee simply for being gay, but where it's illegal for a gay boss to fire a Christian employee simply for being Christian.
It simply means that Texans find oral and anal sex between the same sexes a hell of a lot more grossly offensive than people of many other states do. I would imagine many straight Texans would even find it too offensive to indulge in oral and anal sex with the opposite sex.
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.