Obama backed marriage equality in 1996.
By on Jan 13th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Obama backed marriage equality in 1996.
Politico’s Ben Smith notes a new report in the Windy City Times showing that President-elect Obama supported marriage equality as recently as 1996. In a questionnaire filled out for a Chicago LGBT newspaper, Obama then wrote, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” Obama now says that he opposes gay marriage, although he supports civil unions and has come out against a federal ban on gay marriage.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
“…would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”
…has come out against a federal ban on gay marriage.
OK, the policy is consistent. Perhaps he realized that saying “I favor it” or “I oppose it” is completely meaningless up until somebody talks about drafting a law. The Federal government doesn’t have anything to do with marriage licenses.
Of course, the symbolic leadership of the President is extremely important, and his refusal to be on the right side of this is disappointing at the very least.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:01 pmObama now says that he opposes gay marriage, although he supports civil unions and has come out against a federal ban on gay marriage.
Good note in history. He’s 2/3 right on this issue, I have confidence that that he’ll eventually be 100% right.
Regardless, I think I’m wrong to run my mouth against Obama on this issue, because the economy is front-and-center. Then again California may actually have an economy if Proposition 8 didn’t pass (remember all that wedding business the state was getting?).
January 13th, 2009 at 7:02 pmOh well, next best thing to global warming…
January 13th, 2009 at 7:02 pmIf Obama had come out in favor of gay marriage, we’d be awaiting the inauguration of President-Elect McCain.
It’s a political fact. I don’t like it, but that’s how it goes in this idiotic country.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:06 pmObama wasn’t kidding about ‘change.’ Seems that describes his revolving policy positions.
In business, there is a law against it called “Bait & Switch.”
Offshore oil, FISA, Telecom immunity, Iran, round and round he goes….
January 13th, 2009 at 7:07 pmIsn’t it refreshing to see that we have a president who will change his mind rather than stubbornly hold on to original beliefs. Whew.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:20 pmAll you Obama bashers aroud here, what’s taking you so long? You’re not going to leave hanshiro hanging by himself are you?
January 13th, 2009 at 7:20 pmWhat else is refreshing is that there are things he said that we didn’t agree with but he said them to get elected not because he is a religious nut or a closet conservative.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:23 pmWell, of course! In 96 he was running for state legislator in a liberal district answering questions for a Gay-Lesbian newspaper. What else was he supposed to say? And like Zooey said at 4, he said what he had to to get elected President. It’s politics, he is a politician….hardly surprising.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:24 pm7. Shayne Says:
All you Obama bashers aroud here, what’s taking you so long? You’re not going to leave hanshiro hanging by himself are you?
“Obama bashers” otherwise known as voters who are sick to death of being lied to. (How ’bout them AT&T totebags at the Dem convention, which also was paid-for and brought to you by The Telecom Industry!)
Obama’s also indicating bush’s crimes may be too much trouble to deal with; if that happens, you’ll see what ‘bashing’ really means…
January 13th, 2009 at 7:28 pmZooey Says:
“…awaiting the inauguration of President-Elect McCain.”
The “what if” of that crosses my mind sometimes, and I can’t help but crack up at the thought of bumble buns trying to pick cabinet appointees and deal with setting up an administration.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:29 pmHe would have blown his cork half a dozen times by now, and Palin would have been shrieking for attention from coast to coast.
They would probably have nominated Joe the Plumber for Secretary of State…
We can all count our blessings. Change is coming, it just won’t happen overnight.
i actually agree with obama on this position, and its not that i don’t support gay marriage its that i want to try to find a viable solution.
so my take on it is that the government should not have anything to do with “marriage” let the religious right have that word. In the eyes of the government there should be nothing but civil unions whether it be by straight couples, gay couples, transgendered couples, whatever.
The religious right is fighting so hard to keep the word marriage as between a man and a woman, let them have it. Lets have our state governments abandon the religious institution of gay marriage and allow civil unions for all those who are “married”
on another interesting tangent, this would allow say elderly widows to have a partner in another widow it wouldn’t be a marriage but a civil union to ease their tax burdens and make their mutual lives easier.
NO MARRIAGE FOR ANYONE, in the eyes of the state that is. Get a civil union from the state, if you want to get married on your own time, go for it. This way the bigots can keep the sacred definition of their word and lets have an actual separation of church and state as “marriage” is a religious institution.
CIVIL UNIONS FOR ALL. the simple solution.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:33 pmhanshiro Says:
Offshore oil, FISA, Telecom immunity, Iran, round and round he goes….
Hey, if you’ve got links to what his positions were previously, I’d love to see them. Most of this stuff is things that his position never changed on, it’s just that most of the far Left was too busy projecting their fantasies on to him to listen. Then when they found out what his position was, they blamed him for not conforming to their imagination.
What changed on Iran? I don’t even know that one.
.
hanshiro Says:
(How ’bout them AT&T totebags at the Dem convention, which also was paid-for and brought to you by The Telecom Industry!)
YEAH! HOW DARE HE LIE TO US ABOUT THE TOTEBA – wait, what?
January 13th, 2009 at 7:34 pmWhich one you guys would be first give obama a bj in the oval office? I bet zooey would.
Change is coming? How many Clintonista’ has he appointed. Looks like politics as usual.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:37 pmcalavzma Says:
CIVIL UNIONS FOR ALL. the simple solution.
Agreed! This is just one of those issues that I feel like both sides would fight against the only actual solution that solves the issue in the long term.
The left needs to ralize that it’s just a fact that a solid majority of the country considers “marriage” to be a holy sacrament, a religious institution, and they don’t want the state messing with it. The right needs to realize that they simply don’t get to have special rights for heterosexuals. In the long run, the courts will smack them down on this, because it’s simply a violation of equal protection under the law.
It’s a separation of church & state issue. The biblethumpers should also consider the fact that the state licenses reverends solely for the purpose of officiating weddings. Because they do so, those licenses are getting handed out to Church of Satan reverends, Wiccan reverends, etc. So the state is already legitimizing a number of religious practices that the biblethumpers are at odds with. Which is the sort of thing that happens whenever you mix religion with politics.
All existing marriages should be converted to civil unions and the government should grant only civil unions, whether to gay or straight couples.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:41 pmBEAKING NEWS!: scientists have discovered that most of America has NO desire to legalize gay marriage.
Obama is just reflecting this.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:41 pmMcCain would have nominated builder54 for Housing and Urban Development.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:42 pmIt’s kind of a toss-up whether he’d get confirmed by Harry Reid before it was revealed that he’d given McSame a bj in the oval office.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:48 pmthanks elbruce…
to cd @ #16. its not a question of whether or not most of america has a desire to legalize gay marriage. its a constitutional issue that has to do with giving every american citizen the same rights.
there was a point in our history, not all that long ago, where the majority were not in favor of giving african americans the vote. the constitution simply did not support the ability to deny them that right.
the issue of gay marriage is the same fundamental issue. if you read the constitution without bias there is no justification for denying homosexuals, or anyone for that matter, their right to marry whomever they please.
some day people will look back on denying this group the rights granted to them under the constitution as backwards, much as the vast majority of people now feel that way about jim crow laws.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:48 pmcd Says:
January 13th, 2009 at 7:50 pmBEAKING NEWS!: scientists have discovered that most of America has NO desire to legalize gay marriage.
[citation needed]
13. ElBruce Says: Hey, if you’ve got links to what his positions were previously, I’d love to see them. Most of this stuff is things that his position never changed on, it’s just that most of the far Left was too busy projecting their fantasies on to him to listen. Then when they found out what his position was, they blamed him for not conforming to their imagination.
What changed on Iran? I don’t even know that one.
Glenn Greenwald on Obama’s recent ABC interview:
There’s more:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
Scroll down, there’s a lot of good information. Obama changed on telecom immunity, offshore drilling and FISA. In fact, he led the vote for telecom immunity just after he secured the nomination:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/09/fisa_vote/
Catch up ;-)
January 13th, 2009 at 7:53 pmbuilder54 Says:
Change is coming? How many Clintonista’ has he appointed. Looks like politics as usual.
Man, I’m so sick of this. Who would you appoint? Someone from the Bush administration? Or are you going to skip Clinton and drag up a fossil from Bush 41 or Reagan? Reach back all the way to the 1970’s for an ex-Carter person? Ooh I know, how about appoint an entire Cabinet of people who’ve never had any government experience at all!
So, who? You got nothing.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:53 pmCan someone cough up just one reasoned argument as to the problems marriage equality would create? It makes no sense to me. So I have some sort of imaginary right to all kinds of weapons I don’t need but somehow people loving and minding their own business is some sort of weird threat? It makes no sense…
January 13th, 2009 at 7:54 pmDancing a fine line around the Crazy Religious Rightards.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:56 pmYou sound new to politics, welcome.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:57 pm…And as for the totebag:
And yet, immunity vote from the very heavens…praise Jaysus!
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/20/dnc/
Even though these issues are discussed elsewhere, I’ve excerpted Greenwald’s blog ‘cuz they’re all in one convenient spot.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:01 pm23. dbadass Says: Can someone cough up just one reasoned argument as to the problems marriage equality would create? It makes no sense to me. So I have some sort of imaginary right to all kinds of weapons I don’t need but somehow people loving and minding their own business is some sort of weird threat? It makes no sense…
Sounds like you understand perfectly. See ‘Red Herring…’
January 13th, 2009 at 8:03 pmI think he came to the belief, as I have, that same sex “marriage” is never going to happen but the alternative of civil unions is way more likely to happen in our lifetimes. Personally I have never understood why it is so important to gay’s that they are able to have the word “marriage” attached to their bond. What’s wrong with civil union that gives you all the same rights and privileges.
I think there should be two ways to get hitched. The first is church sanctioned “marriage”. That would be governed by church law. The second is civil unions sanctioned by states and the Federal Government. This one gives you all the rights and privileges of today’s marriage. If the people who get “married” in a church want the rights and privileges, they will just have to go through a civil union also.
The beauty of a system like this is that the church can forbid divorce. It goes against all of the church’s teachings and I don’t think they would tolerate it if they had a choice.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:32 pmThe US Constitution……Remember that, Mr. Constitutional lawyer, Obama?
Equal Rights and all that jazz?
BTW, hanshiro is 100% in all the Wall Street, Telecom, Oil Company, Zionist, and Military butt-kissing the next president is doing. Did we forget the vote for the bailout/extortion? Did we forget the lies about Russia and Georgia? Do we forget the lies about who broke the ceasefire on November 5th in Gaza?
A Frankenstein combination of Bush and Clinton’s worse picks.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:43 pmSo how is instituting civil unions not “equal rights”. It’s a union between two people with a different name but equal rights and responsibilities.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:43 pm30. Bilbo Hussein Baggins Says: So how is instituting civil unions not “equal rights”. It’s a union between two people with a different name but equal rights and responsibilities.
Yes, what’s the phrase?…”Separate but Equal?”
January 13th, 2009 at 8:50 pmIt would be nice if Obama weren’t a bigot and supported the civil rights whole heartedly, but unfortunately he is a bigot. C’est la vie. He’s still better than Bush in a lot of respects, but not a whole lot better on the issue of civil rights.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:08 pmOh and we knew he was a bigot. Both he and Biden said they didn’t support gay marriage in the debates. I still voted for the bigot. But my dream of discovering he wasn’t a bigot hasn’t come true. Maybe he’ll come around and support civil rights eventually. Clinton never did, but there’s still hope for the new guy.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:10 pmGeez, how do I get you to hate ME, RHF?
lol
PS.. If you put on an orange hat, put your pinkies up your nostrils and face East, you might be able to pick up some of the Secretary of State nominee’s SMART POWER…
January 13th, 2009 at 9:10 pm(Don’t mention it, happy to help….)
Luis M Says:
January 13th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Gay marriage is once again illegal in the state of California which is one of the most liberal states in the Union.
Hence it is reasonable to assume that any state with a population more conservative than California is against gay marriage.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:11 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
So how is instituting civil unions not “equal rights”. It’s a union between two people with a different name but equal rights and responsibilities.
The 14th Amendment was tested in Brown vs Board of education. Equal Rights means exactly what it says, not some Bushian or Clintonian double talk.
Civil marriage is a personal choice that should not be denied by our government to couples just because they are of the same sex. Marriage is commitment between two people. Just like heterosexual couples, gay and lesbian couples grow up dreaming of meeting a partner, getting married and growing old together. They should not be denied their portion of the American dream simply because their chosen partner is of the same sex.
Marriage is a pro-family ideal that protects the rights of couples and provides stability and security to families. There are over 1000 federal rights and more than 300 state rights and obligations that protect married couples and families, including:
Social Security survivor and pension benefits
Hospital visitation rights
Medical decision making rights
Inheritance rights
End-of-life decisions (burial)
Family leave under the federal “Family Medical Leave Act”
Adoption
IMO, if Obama is such a “Christian”, maybe he should read the Essene/Gnostic writings of Jesus instead of the politically expedient bible. Enough of this compromising with the Military-Industrial Complex, Zionists, Wall Street Crooks, Surveillance, Oil Companies, Credit Card companies, and Right Wing Religious fanatics.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:15 pmGlad you all made it.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:17 pmObama taught constitutional law at the Univ of Chicago…there’s absolutely NO WAY that he legitmately believes that any prohibition of gay marriage is acceptable. But the man ran a winning campaign — he ran conservative (or fairly conservative) on issues for which the nation leans further right: race (affirmative action should be class based & I’m (somewhat) ok with welfare reform), Gender/sexuality (civil unions) & war (after it became clear from the polls that the nation wasn’t going to accept a president that didn’t have a responsible policy on IRAQ he began saying that the conditions on the ground would dictate his response).
January 13th, 2009 at 9:27 pmThank GOD he ran like a conservative on these issues, otherwise we’d be talking about president-elect Mccain.
Ok I hear a lot of “straights” saying that marriage is between a “man” and “woman” only. And it bothers the shyte out of them “straights”)when same sex couples want the rights of marriage while they prefer the word “marriage.”
Keep your sacred word.
Let “straights” have civil unions too, if they want. Let people live the way they want repugs.
Civil Union for all the people. This way “civil union” won’t just refer to same sex couples.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:30 pmWhat does Hillary think?
January 13th, 2009 at 9:50 pmrhf rivals only Sarah Palin in his quest for victimhood.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:50 pmThere’s lots of psychics around here that know what Obama will do on every issue before he’s even inaugurated. He’s done a lot of things people don’t like and I’m sure he’ll do more. But now he’s a bigot. Who knew.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:51 pm42. brownie Says: Obama taught constitutional law at the Univ of Chicago…there’s absolutely NO WAY that he legitmately believes that any prohibition of gay marriage is acceptable.
Um…this the same Perfesser O that just voted to retroactively legalize illegal domestic spying? D’ohh!
Heckuva job, brownie….
January 13th, 2009 at 9:57 pm49. Shayne Says: There’s lots of psychics around here that know what Obama will do on every issue before he’s even inaugurated.
Ah, no, I cited things he’s already done which is indicative of his integrity, particularly when he does an about-face over numerous campaign promises and floats hackneyed cliches to fob-off outrage.
Telecom Immunity isn’t just some ‘area of partisan disagreement,’ Obama voted to cover up Constitutional violations by the thousands. Violations by a war criminal whom Obama let off the hook for no good reason but ‘political expediency.’ ‘Ol Perfesser O just flipped-off the Constitution.
Please, Shayne, explain away covering up egregious and illegal violations of our Constitution by trying to generalize it in trite apologist terms of ‘a lot of things people don’t like.’
When your mother was pregnant with you, she should’ve been busted for smuggling dope!
January 13th, 2009 at 10:09 pmOne constitutional scholar at the time said he believed Obama was voting for the bill because it was so poorly written that it wouldn’t offer any real immunity and he didn’t want them to have time to rewrite it. And, that at least they start following existing fisa laws which they hadn’t been doing.
But you want to talk about my mother you worthless peace of dog feces?
January 13th, 2009 at 10:23 pmbuilder54 Says:
You are ignorant and disgusting. Did you learn to think that way the last time you accompanied Rush to the Domincan Republic and helped him test out his viagra? Did the fat one stretch you out or were you loose enough already?
January 13th, 2009 at 10:38 pm52. Shayne Says: One constitutional scholar at the time said he believed Obama was voting for the bill because it was so poorly written ..heehaw…heehaw…
Excuses, excuses…how about a citation or a link or a real reason instead of hearsay? Obama voted for cloture, meat whistle! Hell, if Obama was filmed screwing a goat, you’d blame the shepherd!
You Obama acolytes are as bad as the 23%-ers, even to the extent of making crap up to explain your savior’s trespasses and Constitutional indifference. All so you won’t admit the egg on your face.
It’s a long way down, minion…
January 13th, 2009 at 10:51 pmSo what would make you all happy?
January 13th, 2009 at 11:13 pmHanshiro, why do you act like you feel that Obama isn’t progressive enough when we both know that’s not your real issue is it. Acolytes? Because we didn’t want McCain elected? Franly I don’t care who is screwing who that’s why I’m progressive. What are you?
January 13th, 2009 at 11:14 pmThey are happy db. Guessing what Obama is going to do next that will piss them off amuses the hell out of them.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:15 pmMost of America STILL has NO desire to legalize gay marriage.
Or have you forgetten Prop 8?
January 13th, 2009 at 11:28 pm55. dbadass Says: So what would make you all happy?
1.) Prosecute the bush administration like it was Nuremberg:The Sequel.
2.) End the Iraq war.
3.) Investigate where the bailout money went, detain the money managers whose job it was to provide oversight until answers are forthcoming.
4.) Repeal the bush tax cuts.
5.) Strengthen the G.I. bill.
6.) Transparency.
7.) Rebuild New Orleans; investigate thoroughly the handling of Katrina. Thoroughly.
8.) Confiscate the bush library funds as part of the reparations to the Iraqi victims unfairly imprisoned at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. (After fair trials)
9.) Restore Habeas Corpus.
10.) Retool the idiotic Medicare debacle and the Bankruptcy Bill. Allow price negotiations for pharma drugs.
11.) Streamline the Airport procedures, thoroughly examine the validity of each policy.
12.) Launch an authentic independent investigation of 9-11.
13.) Dump all electronic voting machines; mandatory paper trail.
14.) True Universal Healthcare.
15.) Sex education taught in schools. Condom information replacing idiotic abstinence policy.
16.) Dump Faith-based initiatives that exclude any faiths or non-faiths whatsoever.
17.) Streamline the tax system.
18.) Dump deregulation.
That’s just for starters…
January 13th, 2009 at 11:31 pm56. Shayne Says: Hanshiro, why do you act like you feel that Obama isn’t progressive enough when we both know that’s not your real issue is it.
No, my real issue is being lied to..repeatedly.
Acolytes? Because we didn’t want McCain elected?
No, because you whine when valid criticism is leveled at Obama for lying and pissing on the Constitutional protections after promising not to, then you follow up by labeling people “Obama bashers.”
Franly I don’t care who is screwing who that’s why I’m progressive. What are you?
The gay rights issue alone doesn’t make one a ‘progressive.’ I’m what you’re pretending to be, that’s why I recognize you for the faux, poseur kind of ‘progressive’ that acts as Obamapologist, trying to dismiss a big ‘ol turd like the telecom immunity vote; unaware of Obama’s voting record and 180º spins and, yes, bigotry; that’s why the Constitution matters more to me than it does to you.
Now go away before I taunt you a second time…
January 13th, 2009 at 11:45 pmI thought states determined what laws governing marriage would be? Of course Obama doesn’t favor a federal law for marriage. He seems pretty consistent throughout and is also right not to get involved. We wouldn’t want an “imperial presidency” would we? Taking over marriage laws for the states would be about as imperialistic as it gets. What I want to know is why everyone is trying to intimidate the state of California into capitulating to gay marriage agitators? The people voted, move to Massachusetts if you want to be legally “married”. There will be many people who welcome “married” gays there. If you wait 10 more years California will probably allow gays to “marry” so they can increase tax revenues just like Massachusetts. Patience, gay people.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:46 pmHi drew3rd
http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=20647
Let me know when you are done reading, listening, and learning more.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:51 pmBTW, Obama can’t be a bigot he’s black. You have to have power over people to be a bigot. As a white man, I have power over everyone, at least that is what I’ve been told by the powerless. I am a proud bigot. Bigots on gay “marriage” are people who understand that marrying your sister, first cousin or someone of the same sex is really Appalachia, Deliverance style. Gays not being able to “marry” doesn’t change the fact that evolution will render gays extinct since they can’t reproduce their own kind. Unless your a crazy right winger who believes it’s learned behavior. Phffft, Please!
January 13th, 2009 at 11:53 pm64. drew3rd Says: What I want to know is why everyone is trying to intimidate the state of California into capitulating to gay marriage agitators?
I’ll take a stab…because mormon agitators already pumped $$ from out-of-state to influence and misrepresent a referendum that they had no business interfering in, for no good reason but to impose their religious beliefs on others.
Let’s level the playing field and repeal the tax-exempt status for churches, since they want to dabble in legislating law.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:54 pm#62
January 13th, 2009 at 11:57 pmA noble list.
Who do you feel could accomplish all while still juggling the rest presumbably while working within the system as it exists. I challenge not the nobility but more some the pragmatism.
67. drew3rd Says: BTW, Obama can’t be a bigot he’s black. You have to have power over people to be a bigot. As a white man, I have power over everyone, at least that is what I’ve been told by the powerless….
Did the aliens forget to remove your anal probe?
January 13th, 2009 at 11:57 pmCome on drew3rd. I have all day…
January 13th, 2009 at 11:58 pmYour blaming Mormons? They spent 1/10th the money the gay rights supporters poured into California. Gays lost, straight up (pun intended) and now they don’t care what the laws are, they are going to be “married”. So much for the tolerant left. Being a democrat is difficult enough without the loony left always making the rest of us in the mainstream look like a bunch of backcountry butt pirates. When did the democrat party become the bastion of every white trash, Jerry Springer psychosis? I always thought republicans were the only ones who wanted to live in a trailer and have sex with their sisters. Now it’s my party fighting for the right to marry whomever. I am opposed to that thinking, so defeat me at the ballot box. You sure aren’t going to get it done in this echochamber.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:00 am67. drew3rd Says: Gays not being able to “marry” doesn’t change the fact that evolution will render gays extinct since they can’t reproduce their own kind.
The stupid…it buuurns…Don’t know how to break this to you Cletus, but the #1 producers of homosexuals are (*drumroll*) heterosexuals! As long as there are ’straight’ people…
Oh, and drew, friends don’t let friends drink and type…go sleep it off ‘mano.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:02 amI am not going anywhere…
January 14th, 2009 at 12:03 am72.drew3rd Says: I am opposed to that thinking, so defeat me at the ballot box.
That’s what your type said about interracial marriage. It, too, had to be imposed because it was the right thing to do to restore civil rights, whether you aryans and hillbillies wanted it or not.
You’re just one more steaming pile that progress will have to step over…
January 14th, 2009 at 12:09 amWait, I thought being gay was inherited, I didn’t know it could be learned. I thought they couldn’t help it. This is becoming soooooo confusing. Why, if I didn’t know better, I’d think that maybe no one knows why gays are gay. I do know why they shouldn’t marry. Because man has, for the past 2000 years anyway, never sanctioned marriage between a man and his sister, his cousin, his best buddy, horse or dog. A lot of it has to do with medical and hereditary problems. But, really, it turns out that whoever decided this was the way to go was RIGHT!!!! How ’bout that? 2000 years ago they knew that if you diddle your sister your offspring might come out retarded and that if your dabblin with your buddy, well there are some nasty viruses and if you want to do your horse, well, do I really need to say it’s just wrong. Whoa, of course I do, I’m on thinkprogress.org. Where progress is diddling your sister and calling everyone who disagrees with you a person who lived 60+ years ago in Germany.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:11 amSo being gay is the same thing as being black? Wow, I’d like to be a fly on the wall when the next black man overhears you say that. Me, I think skin color is something your born with and gay is something you choose. I also believe one has nothing to do with the other. Of course, as many of you have pointed out, I ain’t real smart. So explain to the great unwashed, how is being black the same as being gay again?
January 14th, 2009 at 12:16 amdbadass Says: #62 A noble list.
Who do you feel could accomplish all while still juggling the rest presumbably while working within the system as it exists. I challenge not the nobility but more some the pragmatism.
Start with Kucinich and Feingold and Bobby Scott. As far as the pragmatism, the current system subsists on secrecy and backroom payments. Inject transparency; suspend the lobbying access, reveal the corporate influence and give the electorate the information they need.
I’d start there.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:17 amhanshiro, you still there, or did I win?
January 14th, 2009 at 12:21 am78. drew3rd Says: Because man has, for the past 2000 years anyway, never sanctioned marriage between a man and his sister, his cousin…
Impressive, 2000 years worth of history you know absolutely nothing about. You couldn’t be more wrong.
Actually, that’s not true, if you were twins, you’d be twice the cretin you are now…
January 14th, 2009 at 12:21 amWow such intellect. rhf, you are truly unable to follow the simplest of posts and I’ve yet to hear why marriage has been what it is for 2000 years and now gays are the same as blacks. This is a new level of stupid.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:23 amActually rhf, Jesus instituted marriage as between one man and one woman. Got that?
January 14th, 2009 at 12:23 am82. drew3rd Says: hanshiro, you still there, or did I win?
c.) None of the above.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:24 amHey drew3rd>
January 14th, 2009 at 12:24 amWhat gives? Still reading and learning and posting less? Bad idea wasn’t that?
hanshiro, you do know that comparing the plight of blacks in America to gays wanting spercial rights doesn’t fly right? If you don’t, find a black person and have this discussion. Report back on how that goes, exactly.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:26 am80
January 14th, 2009 at 12:26 amPossibly but how shall we get there. Incrementally by giant leaps? I don’t know. I am just asking…
Hey ddumba$$, why don’t you help rhf and hanshiro extricate themselves from this mess of a thread they created. Obama is consistent and everyone cracks on him because he doesn’t cave to militant gays? I admire him. You guys don’t. Convince me you are right. So far your boys havwe offended Christians, Catholics, blacks AND thinking people all over the world.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:27 amRHF, do you ever have a post where you’re not strawmanning Republican pundits?
January 14th, 2009 at 12:27 amWow, mausium, good to see another thinker in here.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:29 amdrew3rd Says:
and I’ve yet to hear why marriage has been what it is for 2000 years…
_________
Actually, I’m pretty sure that if you did any SERIOUS research, you’d LEARN that “marraige’ has been many different things over the centuries, depending on the time, place, and the culture.
_________
and now gays are the same as blacks. This is a new level of stupid.
_________
Actually, it’s not. The Nazis did round up gays, along w/ Jews and gypsies, and put them in concentration camps.
Matthew Shepard was murdered, simply because he was gay.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:30 amSo far we’ve got rhf claiming Catholics invented marriage around 1200 and hanshiro saying that the civil rights movement for blacks is the same as it should be for gays.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:31 amHyey drew3rd:
Have I ever challenged you intellect or called you by any name other than that which you post. You created the situation, now deal with it
http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=20647
It is unwise to challenge the intellect of those whose intellect you know not. Manners are a virtue. Learn some!
January 14th, 2009 at 12:32 amrepublic, a descriptive I see. Your post is weak. What gays have to do with blacks is beyond me. You’re born with skin color, nothing you can do about it. It doesn’t make you ineligible to marry. Now things that do make you ineligible to marry are sisters, first cousins and gays. seems reasonable to me. Just because everyone in Arkansas wants to marry their sister doesn’t make it a civil rights issue. It makes it a special rights issue. This isn’t real tough to get if you are not an ideologue.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:35 amYes ddumba$$ you have, earlier today you referred to my need for medication. If you cannot counter my point do not raise your womanly anger and cry “unfair”. Think before you delve into a discussion with me, I grant each of you the same courtesy. I do not post drivel. I post points I believe to be accurate. As I am a Truman/JFK/Reagan democrat I have a viewpoint that is right of most people on this board. I am willing to bring a voice more centered to this board because I cannot stomach the loony left remaining unopposed.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:40 amdrew3rd Says:
——————————————————————————–
Yes ddumba$$ you have, earlier today you referred to my need for medication. If you cannot counter my point do not raise your womanly anger and cry “unfair”. Think before you delve into a discussion with me, I grant each of you the same courtesy. I do not post drivel. I post points I believe to be accurate. As I am a Truman/JFK/Reagan democrat I have a viewpoint that is right of most people on this board. I am willing to bring a voice more centered to this board because I cannot stomach the loony left remaining unopposed
—
This is interesting. Might I trouble you to show us all where. Just cut and paste that post and I will acknowledge it.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:50 amIf you can’t produce it I assume you will acknowledge your mistake…
I’ll wait…
Hey republicans hate facts.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:53 amNumerous folks are looking for you to stand up and support the claims you have made over at that other thread. Shall I start pasting your false statements her as well?
I sort of figured…
January 14th, 2009 at 12:59 amdrew3rd Says:
republic, a descriptive I see. Your post is weak. What gays have to do with blacks is beyond me. You’re born with skin color, nothing you can do about it. It doesn’t make you ineligible to marry.
____________
Actually, in the past, there were laws about that, Sonny. Perhaps you need to read more than a comic book, or your well-worn Victoria’s Secret catalog.
The link between blacks and gays is the discrimination, STUPID. To deny someone the same rights as others, whether due to skin color or sexual orientation, is well… pretty much discrimination.
Marriage is pretty much considered a civil right protected by the Constitution.
But you’d have to READ A BOOK to get that, huh?
I know when you’re as intellectually weak as you are, having to THINK IT THRU just gives ya a headache, huh?
__________
Now things that do make you ineligible to marry are sisters, first cousins and gays. seems reasonable to me.
___________
From the level of maturity you display here, I’d be thinking not marrying your sister or cousin would be HEARTBREAKING to you. Care to explain WHY family members and first cousins aren’t allowed to marry?
And how, pray tell, do gays affect that? Sadly enough, your homophobia is so ingrained you don’t even question it, and appear to assume others should automatically see it the same way. Sad, and weak…
____________
Just because everyone in Arkansas wants to marry their sister doesn’t make it a civil rights issue.
____________
This is just flat out STUPID, but hey, you gotta be you…
____________
It makes it a special rights issue. This isn’t real tough to get if you are not an ideologue.
____________
I don’t think of “gay rights” as “special rights”. Apparently you do. I tend to think of them as “the same rights even a pointless ignoramus like drew3rd gets to take for granted rights”.
Idealogue? Me? Hardly.
You? An ignorant, self-important fool.
Get an education. Read a book.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:14 amThe whole “civil union” argument is for naught the moment a church, any church, recognizes a marriage between a same-sex couple.
The government cannot choose which church-sanctioned marriages to recognize and which to reject without violating the 1st Amendment.
And defining marriage as between a man and a woman is gender-based discrimination, which runs afoul of the 14th Amendment.
Prop 8 is unconstitutional. It’s just as unconstitutional as if the country voted to repeal the 13th Amendment and reinstitute slavery.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:33 amJeez, I wandered off and missed all this… damn! Catchup time.
.
Bilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
So how is instituting civil unions not “equal rights”. It’s a union between two people with a different name but equal rights and responsibilities.
States don’t necessarily recognize civil unions granted by other states, as they do with marriage. That goes ditto for employers, insurance companies, etc. incorporated in a different state.
.
republicans hate facts Says:
So you’re advocating bigotry for the sake of political expediency? Wow, how cynical and disgusting of you!
You’re advocating that McCain should have won. How’s that supposed to help?
.
cd Says:
Gay marriage is once again illegal in the state of California which is one of the most liberal states in the Union.
Hence it is reasonable to assume that any state with a population more conservative than California is against gay marriage.
As if democracy were ever that neat and tidy.
.
Game of Life Says:
Keep your sacred word.
Let “straights” have civil unions too, if they want. Let people live the way they want repugs.
Civil Union for all the people. This way “civil union” won’t just refer to same sex couples.
This is the only solution that’s going to work in the long term. It’s frustrating that neither LGBT groups nor biblethumpers take even a passing notice of it.
.
hanshiro Says:
… that’s why I recognize you for the faux, poseur kind of ‘progressive’…
I remember when punks and goths used to have these arguments too.
.
drew3rd Says:
I thought states determined what laws governing marriage would be? Of course Obama doesn’t favor a federal law for marriage. He seems pretty consistent throughout and is also right not to get involved. We wouldn’t want an “imperial presidency” would we? Taking over marriage laws for the states would be about as imperialistic as it gets.
Don’t I usually disagree with you? I agree with that 100%.
.
drew3rd Says:
What I want to know is why everyone is trying to intimidate the state of California into capitulating to gay marriage agitators?
Ah, there it is, I thought you’d show your bigot hand. That would be because granting special rights to heterosexuals is a violation of both the California and U.S. constitutions. Unless you’re complaining about the Mormons.
.
drew3rd Says:
BTW, Obama can’t be a bigot he’s black. You have to have power over people to be a bigot. As a white man, I have power over everyone, at least that is what I’ve been told by the powerless. I am a proud bigot.
You are a proud idiot. First of all, Obama is not underclass in terms of sexual orientation. Second of all, underclass members can be just as stupid as anybody else.
.
drew3rd Says:
Bigots on gay “marriage” are people who understand that marrying your sister, first cousin or someone of the same sex is really Appalachia, Deliverance style. Gays not being able to “marry” doesn’t change the fact that evolution will render gays extinct since they can’t reproduce their own kind.
I am agog. Are you really that stupid, or are you just messing with us? You do know that heredity is combinatory, right? Have you heard of epigenetics? How about the wide variety of social species in which some animals exhibit self-destructive behavior to help the group?
.
drew3rd Says:
Your blaming Mormons? They spent 1/10th the money the gay rights supporters poured into California. Gays lost, straight up (pun intended) and now they don’t care what the laws are, they are going to be “married”.
Obviously if they’re taking it to court, they do care about the law. See, courts rule on laws.
.
Being a democrat is difficult enough without the loony left always making the rest of us in the mainstream look like a bunch of backcountry butt pirates. When did the democrat party become the bastion of every white trash, Jerry Springer psychosis? I always thought republicans were the only ones who wanted to live in a trailer and have sex with their sisters. Now it’s my party fighting for the right to marry whomever.
So homosexuality = incest? That’s very Santorum-like of you to say there. Also, please stop calling yourself a Democrat. We all know that little game.
.
drew3rd Says:
I am opposed to that thinking, so defeat me at the ballot box.
The United States came up with this “guaranteed rights” thing to protect the minority from the majority. It’s kind of one of the founding principles of Democracy. You can’t vote to take away rights from some people and/or grant special rights to others. So, no.
.
drew3rd Says:
Wait, I thought being gay was inherited, I didn’t know it could be learned. I thought they couldn’t help it. This is becoming soooooo confusing. Why, if I didn’t know better, I’d think that maybe no one knows why gays are gay.
I’m guessing this is what you people do to indicate sarcasm? It’s hard to tell because it just looks like you shifted gears slightly from stupid to a-little-more-stupid. I’ll go with sarcastic. You seem to be suggesting that homosexuality is nothing but a matter of conscious choice. Ah, I see you say so another post down.
I’ll also assume that you are a heterosexual male, and therefore find women attractive. Why did you choose to do that? Why aren’t you attracted to men? If it’s so easy to switch, please prove it.
Go gay.
Just for about a month, to prove a point, then you can go back to being straight. You don’t even have to act on it. Just start actually lusting after men for a while. That will prove your point. Once you’ve actually, really gone totally queermo for one year, I’ll believe you that people can switch on demand.
.
drew3rd Says:
I do know why they shouldn’t marry. Because man has, for the past 2000 years anyway, never sanctioned marriage between a man and his sister, his cousin, his best buddy, horse or dog. A lot of it has to do with medical and hereditary problems. But, really, it turns out that whoever decided this was the way to go was RIGHT!!!! How ’bout that? 2000 years ago they knew that if you diddle your sister your offspring might come out retarded and that if your dabblin with your buddy, well there are some nasty viruses and if you want to do your horse, well, do I really need to say it’s just wrong.
Do you believe that the Torah was authored 2000 years ago? Let’s just start there with what you don’t know. Let’s add to that your apparent belief that sexually transmitted diseases apparently can’t be transmitted between males and females.
But all I really need to do is point out the circular logic of saying that homosexuality is bad because it says so in a book that says homosexuality is bad, and the book is right so homosexuality is bad. How do we know the book is right? Because homosexuality is bad. See, you’ve proven nothing.
.
drew3rd Says:
…gays wanting spercial rights…
Actually, they just want access to the same right heterosexuals have. Heterosexuals currently hold it as a special right.
.
drew3rd Says:
So far we’ve got rhf claiming Catholics invented marriage around 1200…
rhf’s post:
republicans hate facts Says:
Actually the catholic church sanctioned gay marriage until the 12th century…
drew3rd, you do realize we have the ability to scroll up, don’t you? Banning gay marriage and inventing marriage are not the same thing, are they? Why would you try to say they are?
.
drew3rd Says:
Actually rhf, Jesus instituted marriage as between one man and one woman. Got that?
Chapter and verse, please. Will have to be from one of the four Gospels. Also, if you find anything in the Old Testament that shows that marriage was already around before Jesus showed up, feel free to ignore that fact as being too inconvenient to exist.
.
drew3rd Says:
As I am a Truman/JFK/Reagan democrat…
No, you’re an Operation Chaos freeper. Bible thumping stupidity such as you’ve demonstrated here isn’t the same thing as being “right of most” Democrats. It’s being a social radical-conservative
.
dbadass Says:
Hey republicans hate facts.
Numerous folks are looking for you to stand up and support the claims you have made over at that other thread.
I think rhf is so freaked out and worked up that he doesn’t even know or care what thread he’s in any more.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:58 amNice cop out ElBruce.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:29 ami wonder what he has to say about this…
http://www.broowaha.com/article.php?id=4468
January 14th, 2009 at 2:46 am#39 – cd Says:
—————————————————–
“Hence it is reasonable to assume that any state with a population more conservative than California is against gay marriage.”
January 13th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
So, MA, VT and CT are all more liberal than California? Looks like your debating skills need a bit of a re-fresher in order to make cogent arguments, because this gem of yours doesn’t pass muster.
January 14th, 2009 at 6:09 amI don’t believe that Obama or Hillary genuinely oppose gay marriage. I think they realise that no presidential candidate who supports gay marriage will ever win Ohio, Florida or states in the Midwest and so just say they oppose gay marriage to stay competitive.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:19 amcd Says:
Nice cop out ElBruce.
No, I take your point, it’s just that exceptions occur do to situational factors. One given state might run a better short-term campaign for instance. Things would be much simpler if we could completely rely on predictions based on a few votes and then relative demographics for the rest.
Still, the California Prop8 vote pretty much lays down the political reality that the cause of equal rights has to face right now. That doesn’t mean it’s insoluble, just that a new approach may be necessary.
.
republicans hate facts Says:
I think you’re such a zealot you don’t care about progressive issues anymore as long as you get to worship at your cult.
I think you’re a twelve-foot-tall talking eggplant. There, am I doing your version of “dialogue” right?
.
Democrat Soldier Says:
So, MA, VT and CT are all more liberal than California?
I’d say so. California actually has a fairly conflicted voting demographic. It’s blue enough that the wingnuts don’t even try it, but it’s not the rich, deep cerulean of those three states.
.
CitizenGeek Says:
I don’t believe that Obama or Hillary genuinely oppose gay marriage.
I hope that’s the case, but as we’ve learned from the wingnuts, mixing up hopes with beliefs leads to madness. Until I hear otherwise, I remain sadly disappointed with both of them.
January 14th, 2009 at 10:23 amCitizenGeek Says:
I don’t believe that Obama or Hillary genuinely oppose gay marriage. I think they realise that no presidential candidate who supports gay marriage will ever win Ohio, Florida or states in the Midwest and so just say they oppose gay marriage to stay competitive.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:19 am
EXACTLY.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:44 pmElBruce, where have you been? I missed you! You said “How about the wide variety of social species in which some animals exhibit self-destructive behavior to help the group?” I’m glad you recognize homosexuality as being self-destructive.
Jesus said in Matthew 19 and also Mark 10 4″Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” Until this time poligamy and divorce were fairly commonplace for the wealthy. Monogamous marriage was first commanded by Jesus. You can’t find any earlier text that commands monogamous marriage. Interestingly, progressive societies from that time made laws stating exactly that, a man and a woman may marry as long as they aren’t siblings or first cousins. Homosexuality was never legally sanctioned in progressive societies. It’s only become chic recently to write laws allowing gays to marry.
As far as incest and homosexuality being the same, no they aren’t. At least one has the natural use of the reproductive organs in play, both are wrong.
I am a bible thumping southern democrat who is to the right of you. I draw inspiration from Truman, JFK and Reagan. Don’t try to diminish the ugliness the destruction of the family has brought to our country. Gays marrying continues to weaken the strength of the family in America. You don’t care about the family, maybe yours sucked, but it is the best hope of a civilized, progressive people, not a quaint notion of a bygone era.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:53 pmdrew my man….
when will you realize that your religious arguments against homosexuals being allowed to marry have no ground.
separation of church and state is clearly stated in the constitution. if you can find some constitutional evidence to support your case then fine. There isn’t however constitutional support for denying people rights based on their sexual orientation.
if you insist on letting your religion be the only thing that guides your politics then you are doing a disservice to your country by ignoring the constitution. be more then just your religion and have some respect for the constitution that has framed the society you seem to care about.
i’m not going to address your opinions on the matter, i disagree with you whole heatedly but its your right to believe those things. Turn to the constitution for your answers on government. not your religion. please have respect for the separation of church and state.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:54 pmcalavzma Says:
drew my man….
when will you realize that your religious arguments against homosexuals being allowed to marry have no ground.
separation of church and state is clearly stated in the constitution. if you can find some constitutional evidence to support your case then fine. There isn’t however constitutional support for denying people rights based on their sexual orientation.
if you insist on letting your religion be the only thing that guides your politics then you are doing a disservice to your country by ignoring the constitution. be more then just your religion and have some respect for the constitution that has framed the society you seem to care about.
i’m not going to address your opinions on the matter, i disagree with you whole heatedly but its your right to believe those things. Turn to the constitution for your answers on government. not your religion. please have respect for the separation of church and state.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Actually the Constitution of the United States doesn’t mention the “separation of church of state” at all. The First Amendment states that the Federal Government was not going to have a state church, the way many of the colonies had, and that people could worship however they chose.
The phrase “wall of separation” from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist has been used in three SCOTUS decisions, most recently in 1947 and the only time in the twentieth century. It is this 1947 decision that seems to have influenced the nation to remove God from the public square.
bit would like to see your constitutional evidence that the U.S. Constitution was intended to support, allow, or endore immorality, especially licentiousness.
. There isn’t however constitutional support for denying people rights based on their sexual orientation.
Where in the U.S. Constitution is the suggestion that two same-same gender persons could enter into a relationship called a marriage, so called.
Marriage is, and will continue to be, a relationship between a man and a woman.
if you insist on letting your religion be the only thing that guides your politics then you are doing a disservice to your country by ignoring the constitution. be more then just your religion and have some respect for the constitution that has framed the society you seem to care about.
Have some respect for the heritage of the nation. Without the influence of Christianity and the Bible there would not be the United States that we know. You can decide whether or not the nation is worth preserving without the continuing influence of Christianity and the Bible.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:29 pmWhere in the U.S. Constitution is the suggestion that two same-same gender persons could enter into a relationship called a marriage, so called.
Marriage is, and will continue to be, a relationship between a man and a woman.
its not that it says they can, its that it doesn’t say they can’t and grants equal protection of rights to all citizens. thus they have the same right as anyone to get married.
i do respect the christian heritage… i personally think the state should stay out of marriage and you can see my post at #12.
we can have a christian heritage and still have respect for the fact that we have a separation of church and state. thus if you cannot make an argument without deriving the support for said argument without citing the bible and religious texts alone. you are not respecting what are forefathers wrote in the basic text that runs our government.
are you saying the christian heritage actually trumps what the founding fathers wrote in the constitution, because it sure sounds like it.
There is no state religion, there is no state language. welcome to the united states. maybe you should read up a little bit on our constitution and our forefathers they were very smart men and not all of them (payne, jefferson) were friendly towards the church. read about it.
i respect your right to believe what you want to believe, but i don’t support people installing their religious beliefs into law in our government that has a clear separation between church and state.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:12 pm“Where in the U.S. Constitution is the suggestion that two same-same gender persons could enter into a relationship called a marriage, so called.
Hi bit:
January 14th, 2009 at 5:25 pmSo where is the part that says it they can’t or any part that says man and woman can? I am a little concerned bit. Are you okay? This is really weak. I would not have expected such an obvious slip…
She the problem continues to be that those that enjoy that book or whatever don’t have any business telling those that don’t how things are gonna be in a society that claims to be about liberty and individual freedoms…
January 14th, 2009 at 5:26 pmShe is really See…
January 14th, 2009 at 5:26 pmare you saying the christian heritage actually trumps what the founding fathers wrote in the constitution, because it sure sounds like it.
The Christian heritage is in the U.S. Constitution. You’re 21st century view of the document doesn’t determine what it meant. The writers of the Constitution didn’t intend to keep God out of the public square.
There is no state religion, there is no state language. welcome to the united states. maybe you should read up a little bit on our constitution and our forefathers they were very smart men and not all of them (payne, jefferson) were friendly towards the church. read about it.
What do you suggest will keep the “united” in United States without a common language or a common faith. Do you think the two-letter postal code will make the citizens want to give-up their loyalty, treasure, or lives to keep the country together?
i respect your right to believe what you want to believe, but i don’t support people installing their religious beliefs into law in our government that has a clear separation between church and state.
bit will respect the views that make the country worth preserving.
Psalms says righteousness exalts a nation.
(Just put it in the context of a governor selling a Senate seat.)
January 14th, 2009 at 5:40 pm“The Christian heritage is in the U.S. Constitution. You’re 21st century view of the document doesn’t determine what it meant. The writers of the Constitution didn’t intend to keep God out of the public square.”
Can bit back this statement of opinion up with anything of substance?
January 14th, 2009 at 5:48 pmthere is no common faith, there is no common language. they are not mandated by the constitution. americans speak english, spanish, french, german, thai, cambodian, chinese, japanese, vietnamese, farsi, russian, whatever. and americans are christians, jews, muslims, buddhists, hindus, wiccans, whatever.
are you saying those americans that don’t conform to your narrow view of what constitutes an american.
here’s a non 21st century point of view. the founding fathers declared the separation of church and state to avoid religious persecution so that people could believe in whatever religion they so choose. therefore the state could not embrace a singular religion.
i’m not the one interpreting. i take the constitution for the words on the page. your views are the ones supposing beliefs of the founding fathers and it is selective, thomas jefferson once said the clergy should fear him.
your point of view is simply not constitutionally sound. why can’t you respect the beliefs of people that don’t think like you by keeping the government out of it. you can still believe whatever you want as can your american neighbors who may not have a common language or religion with you.
i keep citing the constitution, you keep citing religious interpretations of the constitution and “the christian tradition of the united states.” which arguments do you suppose holds more weight?
the proof is in the document. READ THE CONSTITUTION.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:52 pmActually, it’s not. The Nazis did round up gays, along w/ Jews and gypsies, and put them in concentration camps.
Matthew Shepard was murdered, simply because he was gay.
http://www.narth.com/docs/increasing.html
Bart Allen was murdered simply because he did wanted to give-up homosexuality.
Wouldn’t Bart’s story make for a better folk legend?
Bart wanted to choose life
January 14th, 2009 at 6:00 pmAh the ever popular tale of Bart… We never hear much about the Tale of Matt Shepard…
January 14th, 2009 at 6:04 pmYou Libs are funny. You take the bait so well. I like reading this site. It gives me great insight into what you may beleive. You know your flavor of the day. Because from what I read and hear I don’t what you stand for.
January 14th, 2009 at 7:52 pmIs it me or does that not only not flow well while also not really making sense?
January 14th, 2009 at 7:59 pmI have been debating whether or not to bring this issue up. My partner and I have made a good living in the construction business. This is because the progressives and the left leaning repubs. and the flatout greedy. You people have allowed us access to cheap labor. we pay no fica taxes. We pay no health or pension benefits.
January 15th, 2009 at 10:30 amWe pay pay them hourly what we feel is right. We can exploit this kind of labor all we want. Thanks to you people.
If these immigrants came here legally. They would be allowed and afforded the rights of our labor laws. The way it is now you people make feel good about even hiring them. Like I’m doing them a service! So thank you. Oh and don’t try and tell me how these people would really like to assimilate to our culture. Some do and are great. I listen to what there real 3 year plans are .
and this relate to the topic how?
January 15th, 2009 at 12:24 pmDang Bruces January 14th, 2009 at 10:23 am was good.
Still I forsee a day in which even Mass outlaws most gay marriages.
January 16th, 2009 at 1:11 pm