So will John Boehner block the vote on ENDA?

or try to have it both ways....both opposing it, but allowing a vote (and likely passage)?

 

If they GOP shows they are anti-gay in that way... it will be another nail in their political coffin.

 

Gay Americans are about 5% of the American Population. And this is presuming that entire small bloc will forever vote against the GOP on the basis of its support of gay sexuality. It might make common sense to assume such, but voters are not so one-linear as to say "I'll vote against this guy because he's anti-gay, despite the fact his economic policies make more sense for me."

But perhaps upon second thought, the weakness of our political train of thought today is that we have become one-linear in our approach.

 

Do you think the issue causes only the 5% of the population that is "gay" to be activated? What kind of 'math' are you doing? LOL!!

 

Oh man, keep thinking that way. The problem for you is that most Americans believe in equal treatment under the law. That's a lot more than 5% of the population. You're also making the assumption that most people agree with his economics. You're also assuming that most people would throw their neighbors, sons, daughters and relatives under the bus for what would amount to very little.

It would seem that the person who is "one-linear" is his approach would be you, since you seem incapable of seeing these nuances.

 

Making the assumption that most people would agree with candidate X's economic policies over his gay policies is a much higher assumption than the vice-versa.
I mean seriously, do you think that people really vote for candidates based on that?

Liberal California voted for Proposition 8 after all, that should tell you about the difference between "expressing public support" and a political mentality.

Between women, hispanics and gays, if I were the GOP I'd focus most of my attention on women, hispanics. Let Obama and the progressives continue the "gay crusade".(In spite of the fact that they cannot demonstratively prove that they're "discriminated" in anyway by their ability to be married or not.)

 

I'll let the voters speak for themselves, as they obviously continue to do, and that's not in your favor. Good luck with only focusing on certain groups, especially those two groups- they don't care for you to much. That's always been your problem. Discrimination has most certainly been demonstrably proven several times in this forum. You have chosen to ignore it.

And just so you know, Proposition 8 was found unconstitutional. Sorry, you don't get to vote away rights. That's going to cost you every time.

 

This thread only has 7 posts and none of which address the issue

 

Can you read? I said "this forum" not "this thread". Feel free to browse through the gay and lesbian rights forum. The issue has been addressed extensively.

 

So AN, do we eliminate rights for people if they are only single digit percentages of the population???

 

Excellent point!!

 

???? The California voters did speak and the gay judge ignored them.

 

How are those court cases working out for you LATELY, dixon??? Majority of the Supreme Court gay???

 

By that same thinking....JEWS could be denied their First Amendment rights (or other rights)...since they only make up 2.2% of the American population.

 

Be careful, remember he is named American Nationalist.

 

???DOMA wasnt enacted by the California voters. We were speaking of states regulation of marriage.

 

State's laws must be in alignment-with Constitutional guidelines.

Bottom line: Though it may seem 'okay' to a few or many... people's basic human rights are not allowed to be voted away.

 

Only marriage between men and women is a human right.

 

If that is truly the definition, then it is faulty or incomplete. It will ultimately be changed (at least in the legal sense).

 

I don't support workplace & business patronizing rights for transexuals and transgender individuals.

Employers and businesses have some discretion as to what behaviors they believe are appropriate and inappropriate for their workplace, hotel, store, etc..

 

I kind of doubt it

Article 16.
•(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
•(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
•(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Two gay guys and their adopted Chinese orphan is not and never has been a fundamental group unit of society. We have a right to found our own family, not adopt somebody elses family.

 

Many don't agree with you. And that is why these things are fought about legally. I think that is a good thing.

 

dixon, in America... discriminatory practices against homosexual individuals/couples is becoming a thing of the past, for very good reasons, many of which have been discussed many times within this forum.

I don't doubt that your kind of thinking will be thrust to the fringes of society, within 1 or two generations... or less.

 

False.

 

in response to the question posed:

the bill should have never been crafted. Affirmative action is discriminatory by its very nature. To grant privileges to anyone who claims to have sex differently than 96.6% of adults is creating a protected status.

Emotions run high on this because IMO, it's an attempt to make engaging in homosexual sex to be more than what it actually is; a form of sex, nothing more.