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.
Because it would allow the religious conservatives to keep homosexuals in their place - which is to say some point below "traditional" marriage. I can't figure any other reason.
And it's a convenient crowbar for sneaking in discriminatory practices. "If the legislators had meant for civil unions to carry the same weight as marriage, why didn't they just call it marriage? Huh?"
Prior to that. All those laws were long since thrown out. Another red herring on your part.
All the other stuff could be handled without redefining a word. You could also do civil unions.
It is just an effort to avoid a discussion to falsely claim all gays were born that way. Look at how many stories of gay women who had abusive fathers or husbands and then became gay? I'm sure many are attracted to the same sex from an early age. But I'm also certain some portion are not. And again, you ignore bisexuals. That is a choice.
Supreme Court justices are not talking about it. That is just more lies and fear mongering by the Dems to get stupid people to go out and vote for them. They are talking about the implications of that ruling on religious liberty.
Not sure what is in the Republican platform, but there may be some pandering in there to the handful of people for whom it is an important issue. Almost no politician wants that overturned. They know there is overwhelming support for it.
Prior to this year's Bostock v. Clayton County ruling it was perfectly legal to fire someone for their orientation in 29 states. Which fell along the same line of reasoning as Obergefell in that it is discrimination "because of sex". All of this is quite recent. Gays were still being arrested after Lawrence v Texas. This stuff is not ancient history. You Can Still Be Arrested for Being Gay in Red-State America
Christianity does not own the concept/name/definition of marriage. It predates recorded history and has come in many variations.
Bisexuality is not a choice. They could fall for either gender beyond their conscious control. Abuse that causes trauma to the point that someone is no longer interested in the opposite gender is not a choice either.
And it's a convenient crowbar for sneaking in discriminatory practices. "If the legislators had meant for civil unions to carry the same weight as marriage, why didn't they just call it marriage? Huh?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnamed
Prior to this year's Bostock v. Clayton County ruling it was perfectly legal to fire someone for their orientation in 29 states. Which fell along the same line of reasoning as Obergefell in that it is discrimination "because of sex".
Christianity does not own the concept/name/definition of marriage. It predates recorded history and has come in many variations.
Bisexuality is not a choice. They could fall for either gender beyond their conscious control. Abuse that causes trauma to the point that someone is no longer interested in the opposite gender is not a choice either.
Obama didn’t leave a bunch of vacancies by choice. They were blocked and held open by Republicans. As part of their laid out long term strategy in the published platform to undo gay marriage among other things.
No, the Republicans are not moving towards authoritarianism. They've been deregulating like crazy over the past four years. Deregulation = Government giving up power and influence. The Democrats desperately wanted Trump to play dictator over Covid-19. He refused and stayed within the Constitutionally mandated lines of our federal system. They desperately wanted him to invade Far Left dominated cities with large military forces to put down the riots there. Then they would have some logical basis to call him a fascist, a dictator and an immediate danger to our democratic system of government. He didn't do that either. There is no action that has been taken by President Trump and the Republicans in Congress that is without precedent -- IE it's all been done before and well established things that the federal government has the power to do.
The solution to the spiraling disaster surrounding federal judges is simple enough: Knock off the political f-ckery going all the way back to 1975. We had a system that did a pretty damned good job of keeping politics out of the courts.
The President nominates.
2/3 of the Senate confirms, which requires both parties to make concessions and give up their idiot dreams of hyper-partisan extremist judges.
If the Senate does not confirm, the President will have to try again, and again and again -- motivating him to send nominees that have strong bipartisan support.
The President will make recess appointments which absolutely will be partisan -- which should motivate both parties in the Senate to knock off their stupid bickering and make a decision. (Even Senators of the same party as the President vastly prefer to have their say, especially on SCOTUS and federal judges.)
Now I think a simple majority for cabinet members and other federal positions would be fine. The 2/3 majority vote bottleneck is probably untenable for those. But federal judges and especially Supreme Court justices should be protected from political f-ckery. We should go back to the above rules.
The astounding thing to me is that the Democrats are the ones who keep rewriting the rules on absolutely everything. That is authoritarianism. When it blows up in their faces, their solution is to screw with the rules some more. How about stop screwing with the rules, hit the reset button and go back to sanity??
The Federal Government said that states couldn't restrict a freedom that hurts no one.
Conservatives should applaud that if they are for more freedom and less government restrictions of harmless things.
But that assumes certain definitions and things as facts and is an over simplification. One person can claim pedophilia hurts no one and another homosexuality is as harmful. Everything and nothing can hurt someone.
The real issue is the Court reinterpret a clause in the Constitution that originally meant and intended equal criminal laws for freed black citizens to mean gay marriage. The legislator is supreme in creating law and can normally over write case law, but since the Court claims the Constitution says so the legislator can't even develop law related to gay marriage. That's the trick the Court plays. That's not conservative at all. Also private actors and individuals can't object or discriminate either. So more people are now facing government restrictions than before.
And again: Conservatives banned civil unions from even being considered in dozens of states. Mostly in the early 2000s, when they started being mentioned as an alternative. Once conservatives heard of the concept of a civil union, they immediately banned them. Can't have the gays getting ideas, can we?
So - don't pretend all of a sudden that it was the proponents of same-sex marriage who turned down an offered compromise. There wasn't one forthcoming. The compromise position was in fact stomped into the ground by the conservatives.
That's just how it's suppose to work. If the people wanted to create civil unions or gay marriage they would elect legislators that would do it. You mention early 2000s, but public opinion was rapidly changing from disfavoring to favoring gay marriage by 2014 due to the media's propaganda blitz campaign.
But that assumes certain definitions and things as facts and is an over simplification. One person can claim pedophilia hurts no one and another homosexuality is as harmful. Everything and nothing can hurt someone.
The real issue is the Court reinterpret a clause in the Constitution that originally meant and intended equal criminal laws for freed black citizens to mean gay marriage. The legislator is supreme in creating law and can normally over write case law, but since the Court claims the Constitution says so the legislator can't even develop law related to gay marriage. That's the trick the Court plays. That's not conservative at all. Also private actors and individuals can't object or discriminate either. So more people are now facing government restrictions than before.
Well, there goes whatever credibility you might have had.
Well, there goes whatever credibility you might have had.
Not. I've been consistent. That is also actually the long historic view through history, that teenagers are adults for the purposes of marriage and homosexuality is abnormality and shunned.
My personal view isn't really one way or the other but that every person has free conscience and free association to make their own decisions about matters like those.
Not. I've been consistent. That is also actually the long historic view through history, that teenagers are adults for the purposes of marriage and homosexuality is abnormality and shunned.
My personal view isn't really one way or the other but that every person has free conscience and free association to make their own decisions about matters like those.
I was making the point there are some who argue anything and everything isn't harmful or wrong. I was using the term loosely. Today, many people would say a 17 year old marrying, or certainly 15 year old is morally wrong, but historically it wasn't seen that way.
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.
