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'm Republican and I don't if it actually becomes a issue I will speak out against fellow Republicans who want to make it a issue.
I lean toward banning late term abortion though, unless the mother is in danger. It is philosophical debate that can get heated, I see both sides of the issue to a extent, but at the later term of pregnancy the "my body my choice" belief looses support from me.
Also I don't support tax funded abortions. That is forcing people who don't support it to pay for it anyway. Considering the highly charged emotions and philosophical nature of the topic, making people pay into it when they think it is fundamentally or religiously wrong is just wrong. Abortion should be funded by private money not public money and that is part of where the left or Democrats go off toward the wrong end when they include it in public health plans.,,,like affordable health care act.
Being on the left..I agree totally w/ this...I've always said abortion's should be banned in the 3rd trimester unless the health of the woman is at stake...but the first 2 trimesters it should be her choice...and it should be paid for privately.
As a gay man, I have no desire to force a church to marry me if they don't believe in it...plenty of churches do believe in it and I'll get married in one of them when I find the man of my dreams.
All your example shows is both men and women suffering discrimination based on sex. If Bob can marry Jane, but not Jim why not? Because Bob is the same sex as Jim. That’s the issue not that it’s “fair” if both sexes are discriminated against equally.
Because Bob marrying Jim would make it homosexual, just if Jane were to marry Barbara. It has always been accepted that anyone can discriminate on the basis of sexuality. You can't discriminate between 2 sexes by treating them exactly the same. I know some people desperately want to make distinctions based on sexual orientation into sex discrimination to hide the Court's creation of the protected class of sexual orientation, but that is false.
Because Bob marrying Jim would make it homosexual, just if Jane were to marry Barbara. It has always been accepted that anyone can discriminate on the basis of sexuality. You can't discriminate between 2 sexes by treating them exactly the same. I know some people desperately want to make distinctions based on sexual orientation into sex discrimination to hide the Court's creation of the protected class of sexual orientation, but that is false.
Because Bob marrying Jim would make it homosexual, just if Jane were to marry Barbara. It has always been accepted that anyone can discriminate on the basis of sexuality. You can't discriminate between 2 sexes by treating them exactly the same. I know some people desperately want to make distinctions based on sexual orientation into sex discrimination to hide the Court's creation of the protected class of sexual orientation, but that is false.
It doesn't mean that they are homosexual, they could be room mates. There is no question on a marriage license regarding anyones sex life. They could be swingers and have sex with several people, they could be asexual and not have sex at all.
Sexual actions are not required for any marriage to be legally binding.
While I agree with the distinction you are making, Obama would have filled those vacancies but McConnell blocked them. McConnell is as shamelessly partisan as you can get.
Nothing McConnell does is for the good of the country...he's as UnAmerican as they come.
It doesn't mean that they are homosexual, they could be room mates. There is no question on a marriage license regarding anyones sex life. They could be swingers and have sex with several people, they could be asexual and not have sex at all.
Sexual actions are not required for any marriage to be legally binding.
Well that being the case then gays should've just married conventionally. The licensing was only recognizing and licensing opposite sex marriage of two individuals. All the other activity you are mentioning was not being recognized or licensed, and would be grounds for a divorce, so it's not relevant. All that is relevant in regard to sex discrimination is whether both males and females equally situated would equally be issued a marriage licenses or not.
Besides, most every state was moving to write laws to accommodate same sex marriages. If the courts had just left it alone, most every state would have same sex marriage laws today.
Not likely at all. There were only about 5 that had been done-Iowa, Hawaii and 2 to 4 others. There were another half dozen who did it by their state supreme court. Even California had not approved it.
We would probably have 15-20 states at this point. It was moving very slow.
Are people being willfully obtuse? It’s not that hard a concept. If Bill and Sue can marry each other, but Joe and Jim cannot then that’s discrimination based on sex. Simple and clear.
You're being willfully obtuse. There are two sexes. They are not treated the same in every aspect.
And in 2008 the Democrats were opposed to same sex marriage. It was a dramatic change in a very short period of time for the court to rule the way it did.
They all ruled unanimously not to hear Kim Davis's case. The two judges just wrote that in their dessents. What might happen is that they allow clerks with Religious objections to not be forced to marry folks, but someone else will then do it. Thousands of gay's have wed since 2015, so it's going to be a sticky slope if they invalidate those marriages. They can even go to mixed racial marriages if they wanted. Those protections could be stripped. Well see what happens.
They said they needed to limit the ruling in order to deal with the religious liberty problems. There wasn't a hint of overturning the ruling.
Well that being the case then gays should've just married conventionally. The licensing was only recognizing and licensing opposite sex marriage of two individuals. All the other activity you are mentioning was not being recognized or licensed, and would be grounds for a divorce, so it's not relevant. All that is relevant in regard to sex discrimination is whether both males and females equally situated would equally be issued a marriage licenses or not.
Why would we want to do that? The licensing requirements were found to be unconstitutional, just like the ones that said that people could get married as long as they married their own race. By trying to claim that everyone was treated equally under laws that denied SSM you are making the exact same argument that they tried in Loving v Virginia. One was based on which races could marry which race, the other which sex could marry which sex.
If you want to be that person go ahead, but it's not a good look.
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.
