Oh, by the way

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
No, massive numbers of southern democrats turned republican over granting blacks civil rights.

They realized what bigotted shits their party was so they switched. Good for them.


I'm afraid that civil unions are being disallowed as well. This is not about terminology..it's about equal access to services.

Horseshit. A trip to the local office store & a few pennies will get you all the legal help you need...Powers of Attorney. It's about changing our basic fundamental principle.

Actually homosexual couples aren't allowed to marry each other in many states. That would be different rights.

Heterosexual couples are allowed special rights.

Marriage is not a right.
 

spike

New Member
They realized what bigotted shits their party was so they switched. Good for them.

No Gonz, you have it backwards. They left because they were bigots and their party wasn't bigoted enough.

Marriage is not a right.

Ok, then we're granting special privileges to opposite sex couples that we aren't to same sex couples. That kind of bigotry through the state should be illegal.

It's about changing our basic fundamental principle

Yes, we've had other bigoted principles like "voting is just for white men" that were stupid. This one is too.
 

spike

New Member
Damn Gonz, you know very well that blacks and women did not have equal voting rights for awhile.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
No Gonz, you have it backwards. They left because they were bigots and their party wasn't bigoted enough.

I see. So that's why the majority of Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and then again for the Voting Rights Act while the majority of Democrats voted against both. That would mean that the Republicans were bigoted toward more rights and that would be why the Southern Democrats changed parties?????

Congressional Quarterly reported that, in the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as opposed to 80% of Republicans (138 for, 38 against). In the Senate, 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Act while 82% of Republicans did (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democrats voted against the Act.

So in an insane effort to flee a party whose members voted overwhelmingly against civil rights the Southern Democrats fled to the party which voted overwhelmingly for civil rights because their own party was not bigoted enough.

The only thing more insane that that would be someone actually believing in, and repeating, that idiocy.

Ok, then we're granting special privileges to opposite sex couples that we aren't to same sex couples. That kind of bigotry through the state should be illegal.

If you are speaking of tax breaks for married couples then you have to say that single persons of all stripes and orientations are being discriminated against.

If you are speaking of insurance rates for married couples then you have to say that single persons of all stripes and orientations are being discriminated against.

If you are speaking of contractual "rights" for married couples then you have to say that single persons of all stripes and orientations are being discriminated against.

If you are speaking of adoption "rights" for married couples then you have to say that single persons of all stripes and orientations are being discriminated against.

There are many things, not all of them "rights", which married couples enjoy that single persons, regardless of stripe or orientation, do not.
 

spike

New Member
I see. So that's why the majority of Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and then again for the Voting Rights Act while the majority of Democrats voted against both. That would mean that the Republicans were bigoted toward more rights and that would be why the Southern Democrats changed parties?????

Jim I'm not sure why you are ignorant of this history or typing this idiocy but here:

"After the Civil Rights Movement successfully challenged the Jim Crow laws and other forms of institutionalized racism, and after the Democrats as a whole came to symbolize the mainstream left of the United States, the form, if not the content, of Southern Democratic politics began to change. At that point, most Southern Democrats defected to the Republican Party, and helped accelerate the latter's transformation into a more conservative organization.

After World War II, during the civil rights movement, Democrats in the South initially still voted loyally with their party. The signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, however, was the last straw for many Southern Democrats, who began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. The Republicans carried many Southern states for the first time since before the Great Depression."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats


If you are speaking of tax breaks for married couples then you have to say that single persons of all stripes and orientations are being discriminated against.

Agreed. Married people should not get special tax breaks.

If you are speaking of insurance rates for married couples then you have to say that single persons of all stripes and orientations are being discriminated against.

That's not through the state.

If you are speaking of contractual "rights" for married couples then you have to say that single persons of all stripes and orientations are being discriminated against.

Not sure what contractual rights you're talking about.

If you are speaking of adoption "rights" for married couples then you have to say that single persons of all stripes and orientations are being discriminated against.

Single parents can adopt.
 

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
This isn't about the rite...nobody's forcing churches to marry SSCouples.

Not yet, but I digress...

The majority of people who demand that homosexuals be given the 'right' to marry do not honor marriage. Its easy to give away something that has no value to you, but, for those who do value it, it is an anathema.
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
Horseshit. A trip to the local office store & a few pennies will get you all the legal help you need...Powers of Attorney. It's about changing our basic fundamental principle.
Power of attorney is not a civil union, nor will it afford you many of the same rights of access as does a civil union and/or a marriage (Registered).

Marriage, unlike civil unions, are recognized across state borders.
Marriage is recognized federally, civil unions are not.
Marriage affords you the rights to bring in relatives for immigration, civil unions do not
Marriage allows you to file joint taxes, civil unions do not
and on and on and on...including things like survivor benefits for SSecurity, leave from work for ailing partners, hospital visitation rights, end of life rights, etc etc.... Somewhere in excess of 1000 places where marriage differs from civil unions.
Joint parental rights of children
Joint adoption
Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
Crime victims recovery benefits
Domestic violence protection orders
Judicial protections and immunity
Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
Public safety officers death benefits
Spousal veterans benefits
Social Security
Medicare
Joint filing of tax returns
Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
Child support
Joint Insurance Plans
Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
Estate and gift tax benefits
Welfare and public assistance
Joint housing for elderly
Credit protection
Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

Power of Attourney is even weaker than civil union status..and can be repealed in court.

So you're back to the old argument.

Either equate the laws/rights for civil unions so that they match marriage 100% or allow equal access to marriage to all couples regardless of race, sex or religion.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
The majority of people who demand that homosexuals be given the 'right' to marry do not honor marriage.

bullshit.

but it is an argument that structurally resembles many others that have been used to oppose the extension of various rights to non_white_christian_land-owning_males, so you're in great company!!!
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
Not yet, but I digress...

The majority of people who demand that homosexuals be given the 'right' to marry do not honor marriage. Its easy to give away something that has no value to you, but, for those who do value it, it is an anathema.

I disagree. They do not value the exclusion of marriage to one group based solely on sexual orientation. I have just attended my second same-sex marriage recently..yes, in a church with family and friends present. Other than the fact that there were two women instead of one man and one woman, there was no difference in the emotions felt at this marriage vs. any other wedding I've attended.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
yeehah cletus! we shoulda never given wimmins the right to vote. they're just all emotional and shit, can't rationally decide, and don't understand politics anyway.
 

ResearchMonkey

Well-Known Member
LOL, civil rights praise to the party of the KKK. I love how revisionist history makes the democrats look like Saints. Traditionally it was the republicans who promoted and fought for civil rights based on race and sex. Republican support equal rights, not special rights.

Lets see, the Republican party was created to defeat the promotion and expansion of slavery of the Kansas-Nebraska Act..

1961 Abe Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

It was 1875 when two republicans got the Civil Rights Act of 1875 passed only to get is declared unconstitutional by the efforts of Guess who. Although 90 years later it was the foundation for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Who fought to push through the Thirteenth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and Fifteenth Amendment -- thats right, the Republicans -- The Republicans also played a leading role the passing of the Nineteenth Amendment

It was a conservative SCOTUS under Earl Warren that gave us Brown v. Board of Education (Ol Earl wrote my father a letter to help him get into Bezerkly)


image11b.png

lololol @ your own picture of fearmongering Democrats protesting SCOTUS during Brown vs BoE.

It was under Ike that the republicans proposed the Civil Rights Act of 1957. CRA-1957 was originally stronger than the CRA-1964, the democrats were pissed. Strom, a democrat at the time, pulled a filibuster and it was fought by people like John F Kennedy and Lyndon B Johnson. LBJ and the dems sent it back to committee where the act was hacked up and watered down by an anti-civil rights white supremest democrat led committee.



Jim Crow laws lolololol , which party was consistent in creating and supporting these laws.... that's right, the democrats at every level. Funny you believe the evil ones became Republicans; Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms switched. The racist ones became dixiecrats: Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, Clinton's mentor William Fulbright, Robert KKK Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. remained Democrats.

John F Kennedy, the last honorable democrat president would today be conservative. JFK fought the CRA-1957 and consistently stood in the way of civil rights until after he became POTUS. Once he was in office he did the right thing and became a president who listen to the will of the people in the face of his party. JFK embraced what became CRA-1964 even though it wasn't as strong as the CRA-1954 which he didn't support.

In today's measure of Democrats, when they begin to talk of civil rights one thing becomes clear.


1255233930407.png

:laugh3:
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Jim I'm not sure why you are ignorant of this history or typing this idiocy but here:

"After the Civil Rights Movement successfully challenged the Jim Crow laws and other forms of institutionalized racism, and after the Democrats as a whole came to symbolize the mainstream left of the United States, the form, if not the content, of Southern Democratic politics began to change. At that point, most Southern Democrats defected to the Republican Party, and helped accelerate the latter's transformation into a more conservative organization.

After World War II, during the civil rights movement, Democrats in the South initially still voted loyally with their party. The signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, however, was the last straw for many Southern Democrats, who began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. The Republicans carried many Southern states for the first time since before the Great Depression."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats

So by your own link the Democrats fled their racist, bigoted party for the party of freedom; and you think they went there because the Republican party was where the racist bigots hung out?

That is the most tortured reading of that portion of history that I have ever heard. You must have been reading Franken's books.

SOURCE

The supposed strident switch by Franken’s dad is somewhat curious considering the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed largely due to the support of Republicans. According to Congressional Quarterly, in the Senate, 82% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act, while only 69% of Democrats did. Twenty out of twenty-one southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. In the House, 80% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act versus 61% of Democrats. Ninety-two of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it.1

Upon signing the Civil Rights Act, President Johnson cited Republicans for their "overwhelming support" of the Act.2

Footnotes:

1 Congressional Quarterly, June 26, 1964, p. 1323. Also, John Fonte, "Conservatives Can Be Proud of Their Civil Rights Record," National Review, January 9, 2003. Retrieved from http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5436.

2 President Johnson's remarks are at http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/640702.asp.

Single parents can adopt.

But they are held to a much higher standard than married couples. Therefore they are discriminated against by your standard.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Power of Attourney is even weaker than civil union status..and can be repealed in court.

Maybe in Canada. A civil union is a contract and contract law is covered under the full faith and credit clause of our Constitution and spans state lines.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
it's amazing how things change huh? now you got all your social "conservatives" in the republican party. the same exact people that opposed civil rights for anybody but themselves. the same folks that didn't like the GOP because they couldn't get over lincoln and losing the civil war.

bigotry is still the same no matter what party label it wears.
 
Top