Advocates seek to expand gay rights

Yeah, the laws in 50 states and the federal government laws.

How many time do you think you'll play the race card in this one post? You should take that up with the democrat party since they were for Jim Crow laws.

They're not supposed to be politicians but they have played to popular (elitists) opinion and made themselves in to legislators to write new laws.

Not really. There is no limit on when we can pass the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Just the same we'll have to punish him and all the other bigots that were against same sex marriage.

Race card number two. Being gay is not the same as being black. Sorry, another epic fail.

Sure they do and have many times. What do you call Roe vs Wade? Obamacare is now SCOTUScare, because Roberts has re-written it twice.

I dunno. We definitely have the advantages in the state legislatures to get Constitutional Amendments passed:

It's already been pointed out that there are plans to go after the 26 or so states that don't have civil rights protections for gays.

There is no law against it - yet.

Sure they are trying to force us to believe in gay marriage.

You are touching a nerve with blacks who don't appreciate gays stealing their civil rights accomplishments.

I've always understood that neocons are liberals.

Race card #3. Nice finish.

 

I'm black (I'm also way in my 50s now). I see the arguments made against same-sex couples marrying and I think: "Now where have I seen that before?Hmmmm....."

 

I guess it is too bad for those laws that the Constitution supersedes them.

I have not played it once. If interracial marriage had never been legalized at all, nothing would be different. The arguments in favor of gay marriage would be just as valid. I only use it as an example.

...in your opinion.

If the judicial branch is so obviously biased, why have you not agitated to remove it before? Why is it only a problem now?

Thats good to hear. Well, if you don't care, and we care a lot, it makes sense for us to get our way anyway.

That is a non-sequitur. You are refuting an argument that has not been made.

An interpretation of existing law. They did not actually form any new laws.

Again, Obamacare did not originate from the Supreme Court.

So you are not going to commit to a time frame? In 50 years you will still be claiming victory "any day now"?

Source?

That is called hyperbole.

No one is making the argument that you cannot legally believe something. This exaggeration is an attempt to elicit sympathy for your position. No one really believes it will happen. Probably not even you.

You keep saying this but you have not provided any evidence for it.

That is like some liberal whining "those evil conservatives are trying to force me to believe in Jesus". What would you say to that? It's a retarded claim.

There is a really good reason I did not choose "empathic savior" for my alias.

I'm a neocon. I don't care if liberals don't like me. I'm used to it.

The liberals don't seem to think so. Ask some of them on here what they think about neocons.

 

No, I am not monumentally wrong. I lived in California up until 2012 and I recall the concern that state had when either Oregon or Washington wanted to remove Husband and Wife from marriage licenses and replace them Partner A or Spouse B or something similar. Many people were upset because they saw it as an attack on marriage - yes, even in California - and they thought that nonsense would eventually move south. Well, Oregon or Washington finally did approve it and the backlash was quick and loud, so they reverted back to the way things were and I believe they tried to do it another way.

This is the problem with the left, they are all too willing to offend the many in order to not offend the few.

 

Here's what you guys are celebrating. Do you really consider this "normal?" Are you really offended when I say I'm offended by this and don't want to associate with these freaks?

 

`
I take it you've never been to a public gay parade. They are always flamboyant and with the proper "in your face" disrespect towards the hypocritical self-righteous religious. They are a lot of fun. I've been taking my daughters to them since they were in strollers. They are family events.

 

Should I post a bunch of pictures of Klan rallies and try to portray that as the norm for you as well?

You are cherry picking the most extreme examples and attempting to portray them as if they are an average example.

 

No, you are just plain wrong on what happened in WA.

Long before we allowed same sex couples to marry we had already changed marriage law to refer to "spouse" instead of "husband" or "wife" throughout the thousands of references to married persons that are sprinkled through our laws - as they are in all states.

We changed marriage law in that way in order to improve equality of those in heterosexual marriages - long before we addressed same sex marriage. The issues had to do with such things as equality in divorce, inheritance law, etc.

When, years later, we voted for same sex marriage, there was very little to do. Changing the marriage application form was about all it took - a minor change indeed.

We moved to same sex marriage in several steps. The first steps had to do with domestic partnerships and employment issues, ending with having a form of civil marriage that was not identical to heterosexual marriage, but which same sex couples could use and which out state laws respected - even though there were ignored by other states.

We then voted for same sex marriage in full. That was NOT a disruptive step.

 

And, lets address this one specifically. The problem with the right is that you somehow think that equal rights only come to the majority.

You are absolutely wrong about that, and numerous SCOTUS rulings bear that out.

 

Hetrosexuals have been filing lawsuits against business for discrimination and refusal of service for decades ... what's your point? Are you calling hetrosexuals victims as well? Are you trying to take a cheap shot hoping nobody will call you on your hypocrisy? What's the plan?

 

Explain how it's unconstitutional. The 14th amendment provides equal protection of the law, and if gays are being denied the legal benefits and protections of marriage than their rights have been violated. Article 6, Clause two rules the US constitution and federal statutes are the supreme law of the land and gives the federal government the right to enforce it among states. I didn't see conservatives complaining when the SCOTUS ruled the chicago handgun ban was illegal. It's the same reason the 2nd amendment stands across the union, and any of our other rights. Seems to me conservatives want to pick and choose when the rights or laws apply, or when non-partisan data is right or wrong, or when science is right or wrong, when in reality, that's not how the real world works.

 

What hypocrisy? Are you suggesting I speak for every heterosexual who ever lived? My point is I think those claiming homosexuals won't push for affirmative action are wrong.

 

Affirmative action for many of the gay people around South Florida would be a step down.

 

No, what you see in those pictures is a celebration - it isn't what is being celebrated.

When you celebrate the 4th of July you are not celebrating people in weird dress - you are celebrating the 4th of July.

And, you don't have to go take part in that celebration any more than you have to go to Carnival or do New Orleans or take part in our nude bicycle ride day or whatever else you don't like.

I live about 5 blocks from one of the two main rainbow celebration sites here in Seattle. I'd say it was less crazy than in the past - possibly because we've had marriage equality here for a while now.

I think you can treat people with respect, fairness and equality without having to go party with them or feeling offended or whatever.

 

You can support, or not, at your discretion. But you do have to accept that it is now the law of the land. That doesn't mean you have to like it.

 

Actually, in many states they are, and I expect they will be Federally in the not too distant future.

 

I know, that was the point I was trying to make. Some of the biggest arguments against Gay marriage come from Homosexuals. But the general consensus was for Gay Marriage, and that's what happened. Now there's also the politics behind true but that still goes to my point I would say.

 

Klan rallies are not the norm and they are condemned by both the left and the right.

I'm not cherry picking examples, these parades happen annually, it's a tradition and photos of this stuff appear everywhere, it's like they're proud of it. Sorry that I had to mention tradition as I understand that's no longer a consideration any more.

BTW, if that was your mother, father, son or daughter in those photos would you be proud of them?

 

Freedom of religion means you don't get to force your religious rules on the rest of us. You may not like it, but that's too bad. Those of us who don't believe what you believe have freedom of religion too.

 

Where did you get that from what I said?

Yeah.....

That's simply not true. You have a role yes but you do not choose the influences. Children are influenced by everything and attempting to limit those influences can lead to damaging consequences.

 

I remember it being totally different so maybe it wasn't your state.

 

And I fully agree with that. The people on this board who are homosexual are not the people who form my impressions. In fact, ALL of them are people I would GLADLY welcome into my home for a few brews and discuss with them in person the subjects we talk about here. If I had no respect for them at all I wouldn't even respond to their posts. That I'm willing to debate with them must count for something - agree?

What is killing the gay cause, in my mind, are the extremists, the in-your-face types who want forced acceptance of exactly what they want and all of what they want. When people are forced to quit their jobs or if they get death threats or other similar stuff all because they expressed an opinion that favors traditional marriage then all that does is push me farther and farther away from accepting what they want.

I haven't seen anyone on this board say gays shouldn't have the same rights as straight people, but I believe the way for gays to get those rights are through a means other than marriage. If they did the exact same thing straight couples do and call it XYZ instead of marriage and took their nagging finger out of my face you'd find me and probably a lot of other people on this board and throughout the country more willing to play ball.

Now tell me why I'm being unreasonable.

 

What was un constitutional about the ruling exactly????

 

Can you imagine what would happen if someone Photoshopped "Quran" where it says "Bible" and sent it out to every mosque in the country? I can. Muslims would go insane, people would die, and the guy who 'Shopped it would be blamed for the violence. I have no doubt, none whatsoever, that Obama would make a speech condemning the insulting of the Quran while ignoring the insult to Christians.

 

Thats exactly what you are doing. For every one guy drinking out of a phallic slurpee, there are 500 normal guys in shorts and sunglasses. Anyone who has been to a pride has already seen this. Propaganda doesn't work that well anymore.

Compared to my other relatives who call people nіgger or fаggot? Yeah, I'd prefer anyone in those pictures over that.