Oh, by the way

jimpeel said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that you're fooling yourself. A civil union is a state power, not a federal one.

A same-sex couple can have a civil union in Nevada, but their union is not recognized in Texas...nor are the contractual obligations thereof.
 
MrBishop said:
I'm afraid that you're fooling yourself. A civil union is a state power, not a federal one.

A same-sex couple can have a civil union in Nevada, but their union is not recognized in Texas...nor are the contractual obligations thereof.
Click to expand...

The people have spoken haven't they.
 
jimpeel said:
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?
Click to expand...

The racist Democrats left the party of freedom and turned Republican. The passage is pretty clear.


"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."

If you want to to find out which party currently contains most of the racists I suggest you go over to Stormfront and run a poll to see whether they generally vote Republican or Democrat. After reading their forums I'm pretty sure I know what the answer is. ;)

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

If they are discriminated against by the state they shouldn't be. I agree.

We got this all settled now Jim? So we shouldn't be discriminating against opposite sex couples either. Which party dominates denying same sex couples their civil rights?
 
2minkey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Take a look at our government since wimmins suffrage...you might be on to something
 
MrBishop said:
A civil union is a state power, not a federal one.
Click to expand...

Same for marriage.

Article VI (I think) makes it valid nationawide.

States have the right to limit marriage. If you want homosexual marriage, cool, go to your state & get a petition going. With enough valid signatories, you can get a vote on your ballot. So far, it's 0-31.

The people have spoken.
 
I'm going to get a petiton going saying red heads can't marry other redheads. Shit they're a minority. It'll be easy to have the State take away their freedoms.
 
As soon as the Majority of voters agree with you
then them redheads are gonna be outta luck.
 
spike said:
The racist Democrats left the party of freedom and turned Republican. The passage is pretty clear.


"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."
Click to expand...

The people who were not racists left the Democrat party and went to the GOP and started voting against the racists of their old party and supporting the non-racists of their new party.

That is what is clear.

If the R party was the racist party then why did the R party overwhelmingly vote FOR the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights act while the D party voted overwhelmingly AGAINST both acts?

spike said:
If you want to to find out which party currently contains most of the racists I suggest you go over to Stormfront and run a poll to see whether they generally vote Republican or Democrat. After reading their forums I'm pretty sure I know what the answer is. ;)
Click to expand...

Interesting. Yet you won't say the same thing about radical Islamists ...

spike said:
If they are discriminated against by the state they shouldn't be. I agree.

We got this all settled now Jim? So we shouldn't be discriminating against opposite sex couples either. Which party dominates denying same sex couples their civil rights?
Click to expand...

It won't be settled as long as you keep trying to rewrite history.
 
SOURCE

Mormons Back Salt Lake City Gay Rights Laws

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

SALT LAKE CITY — With a historic endorsement from the Mormon church, the Salt Lake City Council unanimously passed a pair of ordinances making it illegal to discriminate against gays in housing and employment.

Tuesday's action was the first time the Utah-based church — which has been steadfast in its opposition to gay marriage — has publicly supported gay rights legislation.

"The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage," Michael Otterson, the director of public affairs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said.

The vote makes Salt Lake City the first Utah community to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The measures make it illegal to fire someone from their job or evict someone from their residence because they are lesbian, bisexual, gay or transgender.

"What happened here tonight I do believe is a historic event," Brandie Balken, director of Equality Utah, which works on gay rights legislation.

But Otterson said the endorsement was not a shift in the church's position on gay rights, and he stressed it "remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman."

Though this was the church's first public endorement of legislation, in August 2008 the church issued a statement saying it supports gay rights related to hospitalization, medical care, housing or probate as long as they "do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches."

The church has been consistent in its position and has actively worked against marriage equality legislation since the 1990s.

Last year, the church came under fire for its high-profile role in the effort to pass Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that banned gay marriage. Since the November 2008 vote, the church has been widely criticized and its temples and meeting houses have been targeted with protests and vandalism.

Church support for the ordinances is due in part to the way they are drafted to carve out exceptions that protect the religious freedoms of all churches, according to Under the exceptions, for example, a church owned school that sets rules based on its religious principles would not be forced to change them if the ordinance becomes law.

Previous Utah legislation that sought statewide protections for the gay community did not contain those exceptions.

The church's support for an anti-discrimination ordinance may also have broad reaching effects in this highly conservative state where more than 80 percent of state lawmakers and the governor are church members.

The church rarely involves itself with political issues, but when it do does, lawmakers in both parties here tend to quickly fall in line with its position.

The church's silence on a package of gay rights bills known as the Common Ground Initiative doomed them this past legislative session, despite the bill having the support of the most popular governor in state history, Jon Huntsman. Huntsman resigned this summer to become U.S. ambassador to China.

His successor, Gov. Gary Herbert, has repeatedly said it shouldn't be illegal to discriminate against someone for being gay.
Click to expand...
 
jimpeel said:
The people who were not racists left the Democrat party and went to the GOP and started voting against the racists of their old party and supporting the non-racists of their new party.
Click to expand...

No Jim, this the passage is pretty clear. The Southern Democrats (the racist ones) defected to the Republican party. There's really no denying this.

If the R party was the racist party then why did the R party overwhelmingly vote FOR the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights act while the D party voted overwhelmingly AGAINST both acts?
Click to expand...

The Southern Democrats voted against the acts. The Northern Democrats voted overwhelmingly for the acts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party_and_region


"The bill divided and engendered a long-term change in the demographics of both parties. President Johnson realized that supporting this bill would risk losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party. Both Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Vice President Johnson had pushed for the introduction of the civil rights legislation. Johnson told Kennedy aide Ted Sorensen that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway."

Hope that cleared it up for you.

Interesting. Yet you won't say the same thing about radical Islamists ...
Click to expand...

Say what same thing? That seems like a weird attempt to try and change the subject. I have no idea what party they prefer, if I had to guess I would say there extremely conservative values would make them align with the Republicans if they had to pick.:shrug:

Anyway back on topic. It pretty obvious that the Stormfronters are very dominantly Republican. So your party has most of the extreme racists now.

It won't be settled as long as you keep trying to rewrite history.
Click to expand...

I didn't even discuss history with your point about adoption.

Mormons Back Salt Lake City Gay Rights Laws
Click to expand...

Sweet, progress is being made even with the Mormon church and bodes well for Gays having equality one day soon. Now if the church would just get behind legalizing same sex marriage.
 
the same people that are getting super duper up in arms about everything and anything islamic are the same exact people that opposed civil rights previously. it's a common thread of being against people that are different from oneself. whether it is skin color, religion, ideology, the coarse and transparent intolerance blooms. end of story.
 
The government should favor married couples over,
cohabitators, homosexuals and or fornicators!
 
2minkey said:
the same people that are getting super duper up in arms about everything and anything islamic are the same exact people that opposed civil rights previously. it's a common thread of being against people that are different from oneself. whether it is skin color, religion, ideology, the coarse and transparent intolerance blooms. end of story.
Click to expand...
true except for the 'skin color' part.

Winky said:
The government should favor married couples over,
cohabitators, homosexuals and or fornicators!
Click to expand...

government should get out of any of that stuff period imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top