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.
I deleted my last post because I see we are on different sides of this. One can believe whatever they like, but they can't treat people differently based on their beliefs. If a man and a woman can have a legal contract, then prohibiting a woman from having the same contract with another woman is sex discrimination. Besides, and this is what it really comes down to is, if two people love each other, are happy together, and want to get married, how does it affect you? One of the great things about America is that it is the first country predicated on the belief in the pursuit of happiness. Who are you to tell people how to be happy?
It doesn't. That is not the point. If it requires me to act against my religious conscience, THAT is the big deal and I have a constitutional right that protects that religious conscience.
I have no interest in telling anyone how to be happy. Neither do I have any interest in being told what I have to do to make them happy either.
Log Cabin Republicans have never forced SSM marriage as an agenda issue. They are active because they want a say in a party where they agree with the platform.
The LCR have neither the numbers nor the influence to "force" anything. That's not to say SSM isn't part of their... what's the term? "AGENDA!!".
Quote:
Log Cabin Republicans continues to lead the charge in lobbying Republican officials in Congress on LGBT legislation. We are actively involved in lobbying on legislation regarding marriage equality, tax equity for domestic partner benefits, permanent repeal of the death tax (which particularly discriminates against same-sex couples), and other commonsense conservative reforms.
There are no differences. They're both religious objections. For now, Muslims are allowed to keep their 1st Amendment Rights, but Christians aren't. That will eventually face a challenge, as I've described...
Muslim school-age girls who are permitted to wear their hijabs in school due to their religious belief when other students aren't allowed to wear hats, etc. But what happens when Muslim school-age girls object due to religious reasons to changing/showering in school multiple occupancy locker/shower rooms with an anatomical male who claims to be transgender?
And what happens when a Muslim public employee clerk or elected official is asked to issue a permit for a SSM, and objects and declines on religious grounds?
It doesn't. That is not the point. If it requires me to act against my religious conscience, THAT is the big deal and I have a constitutional right that protects that religious conscience.
I have no interest in telling anyone how to be happy. Neither do I have any interest in being told what I have to do to make them happy either.
And herein lies the problem that we faced 60 years ago. I'm sure the people who owned "white only" restaurants and water fountains truly and sincerely believed that they were protecting the public. Now, most of us look back on that in disgust and wonder how people were so stupid back then. I strongly believe in property rights, and freedom of religion, but you have to draw a line somewhere. You can't treat people as second class citizens just because some book written thousands of years ago tells you to. If so, what makes us any different than the Taliban?
The latest news coming out of the inner circles of the Republican Party is that it's platform committee will not be softening it's positions on issues important to the LGBT community. Historically the GOP has been hostile to gay rights in obedience to the evangelicals and social conservatives.
Republican legislators will be introducing a bill that will legalize discrimination against LGBT citizens by businesses and individuals based on one's religious beliefs. The bill will be introduced on July 12th, the month anniversary of the Orlando massacre at a gay nightclub.
Multiple sources are reporting a major Republican Party platform will endorse passing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to outlaw same sex marriages throughout all 50 states. This contradicts the claim of some Republican politicians who have stated that each state should decide it's own laws concerning same sex marriage. Sen. Ted Cruz (R - Texas) has already drafted a bill to begin the passage of a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to opposite sex individuals.
You're not a member of any LGBT civil rights organizations are you?
You haven't read about books on the history of the gay movement have you?
You don't read LGBT periodicals and publications do you?
You don't know who David Mixner, Larry Kramer, Michelangelo Signorile, Ginny Apuzzo, Dr. Franklin Kameny, and scores of others are, right?
I will say to you this:
You don't know ANYTHING about the origins, development, history, ongoing struggles, and current efforts of the LGBT community in the US. You have no credibility nor any right to lecture us - we, who have been part of it for years - and have a deeper understanding who is with us and who is against us.
Actually it was, because the platform says no such thing..
The left, gets called stupid, by the left, constantly.. and you guys celebrate it.. weird
Of course it does. No wonder Trump loves the poorly educated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye state your name
It's not. The platform is stating the principles that the GOP has always held. STATES RIGHTS. Less Federal Government Intervention. Following the Constitution.
Just because pet issues are the focus of the platform because they are specific examples of Federal Government overreach and violation of the Constitution doesn't translate in a "phobia" or hatred.
I really wish that some people would use their brains instead of their knee jerking to understand the reality of issues and break free of the indoctrination from BOTH sides of the aisle.
States rights. Now . . where have we heard that before? Gosh, let me TRY and remember.
Now - do they want to implement a ban on SSM and turn it over to the states OR not?
The LCRs do not lobby the GOP to change its platform to accommodate SSM. The fact that they lobby congress with regard to SSM was not the statement I was making. The GoProud faction was working to change the GOP's stance, whereas the LCRs are not. The fact that they are working to change government is what citizens are supposed to do, so good for them!
I don't understand why your sexual proclivities, your race, your religion or your gender must dictate your politics.
I am a Jewish woman and a strong conservative. Seems like I am "off the plantation" according to the party affiliation rulebook.
Last edited by eye state your name; 07-12-2016 at 12:06 PM..
And herein lies the problem that we faced 60 years ago. I'm sure the people who owned "white only" restaurants and water fountains truly and sincerely believed that they were protecting the public. Now, most of us look back on that in disgust and wonder how people were so stupid back then. I strongly believe in property rights, and freedom of religion, but you have to draw a line somewhere. You can't treat people as second class citizens just because some book written thousands of years ago tells you to. If so, what makes us any different than the Taliban?
Actually, the nation was founded upon property rights and freedom of religion, and there is no line to be drawn, and you can indeed treat people like second class citizens. We do it all the time. Changing who we treat like ****, doesnt mean they dont exist..
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.