Public support solidly for gay marriage

The fact is that a majority of the American people now support marriage equality. The bigots' days are numbered.

 

No, that is the opinion of polls taken. The fact is that no state where the people have been allowed to vote on the issue has gay "marriage" been passed.

 

there are many that do not support the equal rights of all Americans... we saw that during the interracial marriage debate and were seeing it during the same sex marriage debate

in the end... equal rights will win the day

 

You failed to address the AIDS issue. An issue which Milk knew nothing about and so cannot be guilty of "promoting." Will you give me that at least?

In the same way you give our founding fathers a pass because, well, those were different times, the same is true of the early 60's. As late as 1973 a typical punishment for actual rape, like a rape involving quaaludes and a 12 year old, were on the order of 3 months with time served. See the Polanski trial for plenty of evidence of this. At worst you're screaming rape by today's standards for something which today is legal in well over half the country, and involving a relationship that lasted well into McKinley's adult years that was, at worst, illegal for a few months. Don't you see that you're sensationalizing what appears to be a completely consensual relationship that nobody had a problem with while it took place in public view?

 

Except marriage isn't a civil right. It is a societal convention.

 

The SCOTUS disagrees with you.

 

But again, no state has approved gay "marriage" when it has been put to a vote of the people. And a Federal mandate to allow it would be challenged under the Tenth Amendment.It is strictly up to the states to decide.

 

LOL nice fantasy. The states are rightfully be stripped of the power they never had.

 

No, it's a federal issue. Within a few years SCOTUS will likely make same-sex marriage equality the law federally.

 

I wouldn't bet money on it.

 

I get it, you are not your brother's keeper and owe him nothing, but please stop your hating on sovereign states and the respective electorate.

 

Hello again. I hope you have had a good weekend.

 

Every state within the U.S. certainly will have to respect the civil rights of minorities, including marriage equality for LGBTQ folk. Either they will do so voluntarily or will be forced to do so by the federal government. As we saw with the last civil rights movement for racial equality, some states will voluntarily go with equality, while others will wait to be forced by the courts.

 

Some people aren't any good at betting, I suppose. I'd stay away from casinos if I were you.

 

You have 4 judges that won't go along with the kind of Federal over reach you suggest. Kennedy tends to vote with the Conservative Justices when it comes to states rights. And with Obama's re-election not looking good, that means a Conservative President will appoint the next USSC judges. And both Breyer and Ginsburg are getting fairly old.

 

Hi WolfsGirl , thanks. Can't complain, still a bit of the weekend to go...going to watch a small town parade for Memorial Day. In all the wars that I had family in (since WWI) they all came home...not always physically whole but they came home to live a life. Have family on their way back from Afghanistan and another family member about to deploy to parts unknown.

How about you and yours...something planned or just planning on a quiet time together?

 

Never very good at predicting things myself, you could be right but who really knows? Yet I do see an obvious and most notable difference regarding your distinctive demand contrasting what motivated theirs.

Yours may be unknown unless you make a point to inform. The other folks simple had to be seen. Yours is specific to behavior and their behavior may not ever need be considered. Though, like real estate, this could simply be due to location, location, location.

 

We are just hanging out around the house with the oldest boy. He is home from college for the summer. Memorial day isn't the same without my father. It was great getting to see him march in the memorial day parade before he died.

Thank your family for their service to this country for me.

 

My sympathies on your father's passing. I understand your loss but suspect your life would have missed a goodly measure if your dad hadn't been around to add to it. Viet Nam vet?

Always make it a point to thank every veteran for their service but always start with "if you haven't heard this before, welcome home and thank you for serving our country." with a Viet Nam vet. Believe it or not I still have some, with misty eyes, tell me that this was the first time they'd heard welcome home regarding their service. Kids just doing what was expected of them, living in hell and receiving crap from misguided civilians when they came back to the world.

A son in college! Funny the impressions one can have when reading someone's posts. Here I was thinking you are in your early twenties.

Thank you for thinking of my family members serving...they volunteered and know the risks (one told me, when I asked them to always be on alert, "my head is always on a swivel here"-Afghanistan). Not unlike Viet Nam, where every place holds the potential for ambush. These are brave men and women, as were their predecessors, serving our country.

God bless WolfsGirl.

 

Why should gays suffer an extra degree of complication just because they are gay?

If I were gay I would object to your desire to relegate me to a state of second-class citizenship through the use of determinative terminology.

If by that you mean "thinking things through for ourselves" then, yes, I have to agree.

Kinda like burning "witches" at the stake?

"Sin"is a religious term. I wasn't raised in religion. It can mean whatever you want it to mean for you but it means absolutely nothing to me.

Good, don't marry someone of the same sex and don't allow gays in your church, problem solved!

Not allowing gays access to the secular marriage contract violates my sense of morality and fairness, so I get where you're coming from here.

You can continue to personally disapprove of same-sex marriage long after it's legal. Lot's of people personally disapprove of inter-racial, inter-faith marriage but that doesn't stop both being legal.

No, you've completely missed the point. My point was that they have to prove similarity of situation with those that are already emancipated. I wanted you do describe the process by which they achieve that aim. In order for kids to get the law to treat them as adults they need to prove they can function as adults: work pay taxes etc. then they might establish a case to be able to do all the things adults can do like smoke, drink, gamble, get married etc.

As an opposite sex coupling they could pursue that line of litigation whether or not same-sex marriage is legal. What's stopping them from mounting a claim now?

Entirely different case, entirely different situation and objection but again, no reason they can't take it to court and as long as they are an opposite sex coupling the existence or not of same-sex marriage makes absolutely no difference to the weight of their claim.

Marriage has changed a lot throughout history.

My objection is to the creation of separate but equal solutions. They never work and there is usually an underhanded reason behind them. I can tell you that, as a black person, the idea of separate drinking fountains seemed highly offensive to me even if white people thought it was perfectly OK. I imagine gays feel the same way about the word "marriage". How do you explain to your kids: "OK when you grow up you can have a marriage but when you grow up you can only have a civil-union"?

I'll tell you, as someone who isn't in the religious "fold" that's a pretty tough thing to justify outside saying: "those people over there who believe something I don't are making up the rules so I'm afraid you'll have to take it up with them".

Except where it doesn't.

Nope, I want contracts to be equally available to those who are similarly or iDENTICALLY situated.

Just as some people would choose to deny women the right to vote (and believe me there are still folks like that around today) or any of the many other civil rights violations which used to be considered OK and are considered heinous for the most part today.

You asked why he didn't include a provision for the uninsured. I pointed out that most obvious provision, that's all. No need to turn it into a lecture.

You're the person trying to control gay peoples' access to the marriage contract.

You've got two kids, one straight and one gay, how do you justify the discrimination? This is a question parents of gay kids have to face every day.

 

Thread is over 500 posts.
Feel free to start another.

Thanks
Shangrila
Site Moderator