Housing Benefits
•Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Consumer Benefits
•Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
Good list. Couple of questions:
1) Zoned "families only" - where they hell are these?
2) What falls under the other consumer discounts/incentives? Any examples?
...
Good Question.
My answer is, "I don't know".
I admit, I Cut/Pasted it from a website.
The point I was trying to make is that if there were no legal/financial benefits from marriage... and marriage was strictly rooted in religion... then the Churches could ban whatever marriages they wanted... even interracial marriages. The Church would have to field the protests that would surely come their way, should they decide to ban certain types of marriage.
The problem arises because all of those legal rights that are tied to marriage by the State. If we disengage the rights that are coupled with marriage, this would not be an issue.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
The idea here of calling all unions...
civil unions with equal rights in the eyes of the govt is what I would love to see now,
something I have been trying to get across in the other thread.
then leave the marriage business to the churches...
Housing Benefits
•Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Consumer Benefits
•Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
Good list. Couple of questions:
1) Zoned "families only" - where they hell are these?
2) What falls under the other consumer discounts/incentives? Any examples?
...
Good Question.
My answer is, "I don't know".
I admit, I Cut/Pasted it from a website.
The point I was trying to make is that if there were no legal/financial benefits from marriage... and marriage was strictly rooted in religion... then the Churches could ban whatever marriages they wanted... even interracial marriages. The Church would have to field the protests that would surely come their way, should they decide to ban certain types of marriage.
The problem arises because all of those legal rights that are tied to marriage by the State. If we disengage the rights that are coupled with marriage, this would not be an issue.
No, I get and agree with your point.
I was just wondering about those couple of questions. Anyhow, like I said, good list and I agree.
Call everything a civil union and leave the institution of marriage with the churches who use it as a religious rite.....
The thing is, I betcha that most of these 'marriage preservers' that, supposedly, want to keep the word marriage 'as intended' (by whom?) between man and woman, are against same sex unions, whatever they may be/however one wants to call them. It has nothing to do with 'tradition' but rather to do with intolerance - they just do not want gays to be 'married/unioned ( :? )' and have the same rights as them due to their twisted views on homosexuality. I doubt that these same people would be happy having their 'marriage' (civil - ie those not married in church) and rights put in the same hat as same sex ones - whatever one calls them and would happily vote in such an 'arrangement'.
Calling all unions a 'civil union' (or any other suitable label) with same rights, whilst sounding 'egalitarian' is going to meet just as much resistance from those 'marriage preservers' as the 'marriage' issue is meeting. In my opinion, it's not a feasible solution. (Not sure I explained myself very clearly...).
The idea here of calling all unions...
civil unions with equal rights in the eyes of the govt is what I would love to see now,
something I have been trying to get across in the other thread.
then leave the marriage business to the churches...
Perhaps this could unite people.
bj and you are not married. it is a civil union you two love-birds have. does that sound lovely to you, miss?
The idea here of calling all unions...
civil unions with equal rights in the eyes of the govt is what I would love to see now,
something I have been trying to get across in the other thread.
then leave the marriage business to the churches...
Perhaps this could unite people.
bj and you are not married. it is a civil union you two love-birds have. does that sound lovely to you, miss?
Yes it's the same thing ... we have a license
and it will be great that then my gay friends can have a license also
we will have the same civil matrimony with equal rights under the law...
they are already married in a church, have celebrated almost as many anniversaries
as Jay and I.
We will celebrate big time !!!
1) Zoned "families only" - where they hell are these?
2) What falls under the other consumer discounts/incentives? Any examples?
1) You might remember the 80s TV show "Kate and Allie" which featured two divorced mothers with their children living in an apartment. Technically, that would be illegal in many places because many apartments are zoned for "Single families." Meaning you can't have more than one family live there. It's a violation of zoning laws. They even addressed that in one episode. Had they been a recognized family, that would have been just fine but a gay couple living with their children would (and often do) run into legal trouble and have been evicted because they live in States that have made it illegal to recognize even civil unions.
2) many places like movie theaters or theme parks will offer a "family discount" for two parents with children. Like "pay for two kids and the whole family can come in" or "20% discount on food for families." Families with same-sex parents are often refused these discounts or special prices.
A more dangerous example of this will now raise it's ugly head in North Carolina where many children will lose their health insurance because their biological parent isn't the one with the "family coverage" form work.
Freshman Rep. James Lankford (R-Okla.) told ThinkProgress in a recent interview that he was against laws designed to protect employees from workplace discrimination based on their sexual orientation, because of his belief that being gay is a "choice."
"Race and sexual preferences are two different things. One is a behavior-related and preference-related and one is something inherently -- skin color, something obvious, that kind of stuff. You don’t walk up to someone on the street and look at them and say, 'Gay or straight?'" Lankford said. "I think it’s a choice issue. Are tendencies and such? Yes. But I think it’s a choice issue."
President Barack Obama's recent endorsement of same-sex marriage rights spurred a legislative push on such safeguards last week. The Washington Post's Greg Sargent reported that a bipartisan group of senators renewed calls for hearings on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a piece of legislation that would expand employee anti-discrimination language to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
Lankford isn't the only freshman Republican to express opposition to this type of bill. Last week, Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) said such protections were unnecessary because discrimination based on sexual orientation simply didn't happen.
"That don’t happen out here in the United States of America," he told ThinkProgress.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Some people believe so deeply in the 'Sanctity of Marriage'... they get married 3 or 4 times.
...
I wish there was a way to figure out how many people who believe in the sanctity of marriage and have one or more divorces under their belt.
My best gues would be, 'A lot'.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Some people believe so deeply in the 'Sanctity of Marriage'... they get married 3 or 4 times.
...
I wish there was a way to figure out how many people who believe in the sanctity of marriage and have one or more divorces under their belt.
My best gues would be, 'A lot'.
pretty fantastic statement. simple, direct and to the point. and a fact.
Freshman Rep. James Lankford (R-Okla.) told ThinkProgress in a recent interview that he was against laws designed to protect employees from workplace discrimination based on their sexual orientation, because of his belief that being gay is a "choice."
"Race and sexual preferences are two different things. One is a behavior-related and preference-related and one is something inherently -- skin color, something obvious, that kind of stuff. You don’t walk up to someone on the street and look at them and say, 'Gay or straight?'" Lankford said. "I think it’s a choice issue. Are tendencies and such? Yes. But I think it’s a choice issue."
President Barack Obama's recent endorsement of same-sex marriage rights spurred a legislative push on such safeguards last week. The Washington Post's Greg Sargent reported that a bipartisan group of senators renewed calls for hearings on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a piece of legislation that would expand employee anti-discrimination language to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
Lankford isn't the only freshman Republican to express opposition to this type of bill. Last week, Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) said such protections were unnecessary because discrimination based on sexual orientation simply didn't happen.
"That don’t happen out here in the United States of America," he told ThinkProgress.
Discrimination based on sexual orientation isn't already federally prohibited? It's certainly an explicit policy at my place of work; guess I just assumed that meant it was federal law as well, though my firm is big on diversity so maybe that was a silly assumption for me to make.
Discrimination based on sexual orientation isn't already federally prohibited? It's certainly an explicit policy at my place of work; guess I just assumed that meant it was federal law as well, though my firm is big on diversity so maybe that was a silly assumption for me to make.
Um... It's expressly legal to fire someone for being gay in 29 states.
"Those of us who favor same-sex marriage are rightly grateful to Obama for having come off the fence. But we should also thank religious conservatives for having put the president on the fence in the first place. Were it not for their opposition to same-sex marriage, it might have taken much longer for Americans to take up the cause."
I live in NC and I'm proud to say I'm not from NC....
lots of dumbasses and rednecks....
anyhoo, I'm not surprised by the outcome...
Why don't you leave North Carolina then? It's a beautiful state, located in the best region of the country, with great people. It's one of my favorite states. Perhaps you should return to the state from which you came. I'm sure they'll be happy to have you back.
Do you not realize that each state that has put gay marriage up for a vote by the people, has voted to ban gay marriage, or has voted to define marriage as only between a man and a woman? Not one single ballot measure in over thirty states has voted in favor of gay marriage. Not even California. Are you saying that California is a state filled with 'dumbasses and rednecks' as you so eloquently put it? Do you not realize that large amounts of black people and Latinos are opposed to gay marriage? Are those black folks and Latinos/Hispanics 'dumbasses and rednecks'?
United Center (Chicago): 8/24/09
Gibson Amphitheatre (Los Angeles): 10/7/09
I live in NC and I'm proud to say I'm not from NC....
lots of dumbasses and rednecks....
anyhoo, I'm not surprised by the outcome...
Why don't you leave North Carolina then? It's a beautiful state, located in the best region of the country, with great people. It's one of my favorite states. Perhaps you should return to the state from which you came. I'm sure they'll be happy to have you back.
Do you not realize that each state that has put gay marriage up for a vote by the people, has voted to ban gay marriage, or has voted to define marriage as only between a man and a woman? Not one single ballot measure in over thirty states has voted in favor of gay marriage. Not even California. Are you saying that California is a state filled with 'dumbasses and rednecks' as you so eloquently put it? Do you not realize that large amounts of black people and Latinos are opposed to gay marriage? Are those black folks and Latinos/Hispanics 'dumbasses and rednecks'?
this is why it is going to take a supreme court decision because states have never ever voted to grant rights to a minority population...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I live in NC and I'm proud to say I'm not from NC....
lots of dumbasses and rednecks....
anyhoo, I'm not surprised by the outcome...
Why don't you leave North Carolina then? It's a beautiful state, located in the best region of the country, with great people. It's one of my favorite states. Perhaps you should return to the state from which you came. I'm sure they'll be happy to have you back.
Do you not realize that each state that has put gay marriage up for a vote by the people, has voted to ban gay marriage, or has voted to define marriage as only between a man and a woman? Not one single ballot measure in over thirty states has voted in favor of gay marriage. Not even California. Are you saying that California is a state filled with 'dumbasses and rednecks' as you so eloquently put it? Do you not realize that large amounts of black people and Latinos are opposed to gay marriage? Are those black folks and Latinos/Hispanics 'dumbasses and rednecks'?
this is why it is going to take a supreme court decision because states have never ever voted to grant rights to a minority population...
Yep, the courts and state legislatures (in some jurisdictions) have and will continue to override what the citizenry has voted to put in place.
What's interesting is that Obama chickened out last week and said that this should be a state's rights issue. What????????????? But, Obama spoke out against the North Carolina ballot measure in the same breath, so he's quite obviously not respectful of a state's decision if its citizens vote to ban gay marriage or uphold traditional marriage.
Post edited by BamaPJFan on
United Center (Chicago): 8/24/09
Gibson Amphitheatre (Los Angeles): 10/7/09
Discrimination based on sexual orientation isn't already federally prohibited? It's certainly an explicit policy at my place of work; guess I just assumed that meant it was federal law as well, though my firm is big on diversity so maybe that was a silly assumption for me to make.
Um... It's expressly legal to fire someone for being gay in 29 states.
And you can be evicted from your home for being gay in 38 states.
And people wonder why I'm so angry all the time.
you are angry all the time? I hadn't noticed
what a ridiculous thing. discriminating based on biology...
I really wish people would wake up and see all others as the human beings they are...QUIT SEEING GROUPS ALREADY...it is much easier to support legislation when it is a group that is affected...groups don't have faces, groups don't have feelings, groups aren't real people...fuckers like this are ruining the right side of the aisle.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
What's interesting is that Obama chickened out last week and said that this should be a state's rights issue. What????????????? But, Obama spoke out against the North Carolina ballot measure in the same breath, so he's quite obviously not respectful of a state's decision if its citizens vote to ban gay marriage or uphold traditional marriage.
state votes should not matter when it is a human rights issue. gay marriage is a civil rights matter. in the 60s, the civil rights act would never ever have passed in mississippi, alabama, louisiana, etc if it were not for the civil rights act that lbj got passed. what good is a federal government that can not guarantee basic human rights in every state in the union? this is one of the reasons we have a federal government in the first place....
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
What's interesting is that Obama chickened out last week and said that this should be a state's rights issue. What????????????? But, Obama spoke out against the North Carolina ballot measure in the same breath, so he's quite obviously not respectful of a state's decision if its citizens vote to ban gay marriage or uphold traditional marriage.
state votes should not matter when it is a human rights issue. gay marriage is a civil rights matter. in the 60s, the civil rights act would never ever have passed in mississippi, alabama, louisiana, etc if it were not for the civil rights act that lbj got passed. what good is a federal government that can not guarantee basic human rights in every state in the union? this is one of the reasons we have a federal government in the first place....
The Civil Rights Acts during the mid-60s would not have passed in many (or most) non-Southern states as well. This was a very unpopular issue at the time throughout the country. So unpopular that George Wallace's message of segregation took hold in many areas of the North (particularly Michigan and Massachusetts) over issues such as public schools and busing students. Anyway, I digress.
You need to explain your statement above to Obama. He apparently doesn't understand this since he claims on record that he favors allowing the individual states to decide this issue.
United Center (Chicago): 8/24/09
Gibson Amphitheatre (Los Angeles): 10/7/09
What's interesting is that Obama chickened out last week and said that this should be a state's rights issue. What????????????? But, Obama spoke out against the North Carolina ballot measure in the same breath, so he's quite obviously not respectful of a state's decision if its citizens vote to ban gay marriage or uphold traditional marriage.
state votes should not matter when it is a human rights issue. gay marriage is a civil rights matter. in the 60s, the civil rights act would never ever have passed in mississippi, alabama, louisiana, etc if it were not for the civil rights act that lbj got passed. what good is a federal government that can not guarantee basic human rights in every state in the union? this is one of the reasons we have a federal government in the first place....
The Civil Rights Acts during the mid-60s would not have passed in many (or most) non-Southern states as well. This was a very unpopular issue at the time throughout the country. So unpopular that George Wallace's message of segregation took hold in many areas of the North (particularly Michigan and Massachusetts) over issues such as public schools and busing students. Anyway, I digress.
You need to explain your statement above to Obama. He apparently doesn't understand this since he claims on record that he favors allowing the individual states to decide this issue.
and george wallace got shot for preaching such a message too.
obama said that in the past. he changed his position. it happens.
he knows that you can't have some states allow it and some not.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
The Civil Rights Acts during the mid-60s would not have passed in many (or most) non-Southern states as well. This was a very unpopular issue at the time throughout the country. So unpopular that George Wallace's message of segregation took hold in many areas of the North (particularly Michigan and Massachusetts) over issues such as public schools and busing students. Anyway, I digress.
You need to explain your statement above to Obama. He apparently doesn't understand this since he claims on record that he favors allowing the individual states to decide this issue.[/quote]
and george wallace got shot for preaching such a message too.
obama said that in the past. he changed his position. it happens.
he knows that you can't have some states allow it and some not.[/quote]
A lot of folks would like to shoot the current president, but he has the finest security in the world. Thank goodness.
So, Obama is a wishy-washy flip-flopper? John Kerry anybody? He was against it before he was for it? Or, was he for it before he was against it? I can't keep up with his constant flip-flops. If your last sentence is true then Obama needs to take a do-over and say that he didn't really mean that it should be left up to the states like he told Robin Roberts last week. He's created a huge dilemma for himself heading into November. Not that he hadn't already with other issues, but this just made things even tougher and more complicated for his re-election bid.
United Center (Chicago): 8/24/09
Gibson Amphitheatre (Los Angeles): 10/7/09
Do you not realize that each state that has put gay marriage up for a vote by the people, has voted to ban gay marriage, or has voted to define marriage as only between a man and a woman?
And do YOU realize that the last time North Carolina voted to amend their constitution, it was to make interracial marriage illegal? :fp:
The rights of a minority should never be put up for a vote. It's unconstitutional. No, there is no constitutional right to marry but there IS a constitutional right to equal treatment. So if one couple can marry... all couples should be able to marry.
Quite honestly, I don't care if homophobic people voted away my rights. I really don't. They should never have been up for a vote and I'm not taking part in any silly votes to get them back. We're going to the Supreme Court again and again until they get it right.
Now another state, Washington, got a temporary ban with a petition and will
vote again in November ...
Opponents block Washington state gay marriage.
Washington's gay marriage law was blocked from taking effect Wednesday as opponents filed more than 200,000 signatures seeking a public vote on the issue in November.
Federal Court Finds DOMA Unconstitutional In Case Of NYC Couple
BY CELESTE KATZ
"Here's the new decision from the U.S. District Court/Southern District Of New York that finds the Defense Of Marriage Act unconstitutional -- the fifth such ruling on the matter -- as pertains to Edith "Edie" Windsor and the late Thea Spyer, a NYC couple who lived together for 44 years and had wed in Canada in 2007."
Federal Court Finds DOMA Unconstitutional In Case Of NYC Couple
BY CELESTE KATZ
"Here's the new decision from the U.S. District Court/Southern District Of New York that finds the Defense Of Marriage Act unconstitutional -- the fifth such ruling on the matter -- as pertains to Edith "Edie" Windsor and the late Thea Spyer, a NYC couple who lived together for 44 years and had wed in Canada in 2007."
Comments
Good Question.
My answer is, "I don't know".
I admit, I Cut/Pasted it from a website.
The point I was trying to make is that if there were no legal/financial benefits from marriage... and marriage was strictly rooted in religion... then the Churches could ban whatever marriages they wanted... even interracial marriages. The Church would have to field the protests that would surely come their way, should they decide to ban certain types of marriage.
The problem arises because all of those legal rights that are tied to marriage by the State. If we disengage the rights that are coupled with marriage, this would not be an issue.
Hail, Hail!!!
civil unions with equal rights in the eyes of the govt is what I would love to see now,
something I have been trying to get across in the other thread.
then leave the marriage business to the churches...
Perhaps this could unite people.
No, I get and agree with your point.
I was just wondering about those couple of questions. Anyhow, like I said, good list and I agree.
Calling all unions a 'civil union' (or any other suitable label) with same rights, whilst sounding 'egalitarian' is going to meet just as much resistance from those 'marriage preservers' as the 'marriage' issue is meeting. In my opinion, it's not a feasible solution. (Not sure I explained myself very clearly...).
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
and it will be great that then my gay friends can have a license also
we will have the same civil matrimony with equal rights under the law...
they are already married in a church, have celebrated almost as many anniversaries
as Jay and I.
We will celebrate big time !!!
1) You might remember the 80s TV show "Kate and Allie" which featured two divorced mothers with their children living in an apartment. Technically, that would be illegal in many places because many apartments are zoned for "Single families." Meaning you can't have more than one family live there. It's a violation of zoning laws. They even addressed that in one episode. Had they been a recognized family, that would have been just fine but a gay couple living with their children would (and often do) run into legal trouble and have been evicted because they live in States that have made it illegal to recognize even civil unions.
2) many places like movie theaters or theme parks will offer a "family discount" for two parents with children. Like "pay for two kids and the whole family can come in" or "20% discount on food for families." Families with same-sex parents are often refused these discounts or special prices.
A more dangerous example of this will now raise it's ugly head in North Carolina where many children will lose their health insurance because their biological parent isn't the one with the "family coverage" form work.
James Lankford, GOP Rep, Opposes Laws Against Gay Employee Discrimination
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/1 ... 14559.html
Freshman Rep. James Lankford (R-Okla.) told ThinkProgress in a recent interview that he was against laws designed to protect employees from workplace discrimination based on their sexual orientation, because of his belief that being gay is a "choice."
"Race and sexual preferences are two different things. One is a behavior-related and preference-related and one is something inherently -- skin color, something obvious, that kind of stuff. You don’t walk up to someone on the street and look at them and say, 'Gay or straight?'" Lankford said. "I think it’s a choice issue. Are tendencies and such? Yes. But I think it’s a choice issue."
President Barack Obama's recent endorsement of same-sex marriage rights spurred a legislative push on such safeguards last week. The Washington Post's Greg Sargent reported that a bipartisan group of senators renewed calls for hearings on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a piece of legislation that would expand employee anti-discrimination language to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
Lankford isn't the only freshman Republican to express opposition to this type of bill. Last week, Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) said such protections were unnecessary because discrimination based on sexual orientation simply didn't happen.
"That don’t happen out here in the United States of America," he told ThinkProgress.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
...
I wish there was a way to figure out how many people who believe in the sanctity of marriage and have one or more divorces under their belt.
My best gues would be, 'A lot'.
Hail, Hail!!!
pretty fantastic statement. simple, direct and to the point. and a fact.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
At least we all survived that thread. At least I think we did.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Um... It's expressly legal to fire someone for being gay in 29 states.
http://sites.hrc.org/sites/passendanow/index.asp
And you can be evicted from your home for being gay in 38 states.
And people wonder why I'm so angry all the time.
I get it.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Those of us who favor same-sex marriage are rightly grateful to Obama for having come off the fence. But we should also thank religious conservatives for having put the president on the fence in the first place. Were it not for their opposition to same-sex marriage, it might have taken much longer for Americans to take up the cause."
Why don't you leave North Carolina then? It's a beautiful state, located in the best region of the country, with great people. It's one of my favorite states. Perhaps you should return to the state from which you came. I'm sure they'll be happy to have you back.
Do you not realize that each state that has put gay marriage up for a vote by the people, has voted to ban gay marriage, or has voted to define marriage as only between a man and a woman? Not one single ballot measure in over thirty states has voted in favor of gay marriage. Not even California. Are you saying that California is a state filled with 'dumbasses and rednecks' as you so eloquently put it? Do you not realize that large amounts of black people and Latinos are opposed to gay marriage? Are those black folks and Latinos/Hispanics 'dumbasses and rednecks'?
Gibson Amphitheatre (Los Angeles): 10/7/09
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Yep, the courts and state legislatures (in some jurisdictions) have and will continue to override what the citizenry has voted to put in place.
What's interesting is that Obama chickened out last week and said that this should be a state's rights issue. What????????????? But, Obama spoke out against the North Carolina ballot measure in the same breath, so he's quite obviously not respectful of a state's decision if its citizens vote to ban gay marriage or uphold traditional marriage.
Gibson Amphitheatre (Los Angeles): 10/7/09
you are angry all the time? I hadn't noticed
what a ridiculous thing. discriminating based on biology...
I really wish people would wake up and see all others as the human beings they are...QUIT SEEING GROUPS ALREADY...it is much easier to support legislation when it is a group that is affected...groups don't have faces, groups don't have feelings, groups aren't real people...fuckers like this are ruining the right side of the aisle.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
The Civil Rights Acts during the mid-60s would not have passed in many (or most) non-Southern states as well. This was a very unpopular issue at the time throughout the country. So unpopular that George Wallace's message of segregation took hold in many areas of the North (particularly Michigan and Massachusetts) over issues such as public schools and busing students. Anyway, I digress.
You need to explain your statement above to Obama. He apparently doesn't understand this since he claims on record that he favors allowing the individual states to decide this issue.
Gibson Amphitheatre (Los Angeles): 10/7/09
obama said that in the past. he changed his position. it happens.
he knows that you can't have some states allow it and some not.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
You need to explain your statement above to Obama. He apparently doesn't understand this since he claims on record that he favors allowing the individual states to decide this issue.[/quote]
and george wallace got shot for preaching such a message too.
obama said that in the past. he changed his position. it happens.
he knows that you can't have some states allow it and some not.[/quote]
A lot of folks would like to shoot the current president, but he has the finest security in the world. Thank goodness.
So, Obama is a wishy-washy flip-flopper? John Kerry anybody? He was against it before he was for it? Or, was he for it before he was against it? I can't keep up with his constant flip-flops. If your last sentence is true then Obama needs to take a do-over and say that he didn't really mean that it should be left up to the states like he told Robin Roberts last week. He's created a huge dilemma for himself heading into November. Not that he hadn't already with other issues, but this just made things even tougher and more complicated for his re-election bid.
Gibson Amphitheatre (Los Angeles): 10/7/09
And do YOU realize that the last time North Carolina voted to amend their constitution, it was to make interracial marriage illegal? :fp:
The rights of a minority should never be put up for a vote. It's unconstitutional. No, there is no constitutional right to marry but there IS a constitutional right to equal treatment. So if one couple can marry... all couples should be able to marry.
Quite honestly, I don't care if homophobic people voted away my rights. I really don't. They should never have been up for a vote and I'm not taking part in any silly votes to get them back. We're going to the Supreme Court again and again until they get it right.
vote again in November ...
Opponents block Washington state gay marriage.
Washington's gay marriage law was blocked from taking effect Wednesday as opponents filed more than 200,000 signatures seeking a public vote on the issue in November.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... ethru.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailyp ... nyc-couple
Federal Court Finds DOMA Unconstitutional In Case Of NYC Couple
BY CELESTE KATZ
"Here's the new decision from the U.S. District Court/Southern District Of New York that finds the Defense Of Marriage Act unconstitutional -- the fifth such ruling on the matter -- as pertains to Edith "Edie" Windsor and the late Thea Spyer, a NYC couple who lived together for 44 years and had wed in Canada in 2007."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act