Rubio goes on homophobic rant ending political career.

[peach174]

Why can't laws be made in order for them to get their rights under the law?

Laws were made to take away their rights, and now those law are being tossed into the garbage, where they belongs. Rights, BTW, aren't up for a popular vote.

By forcing to marry them.
Laws should be made so that they are not discriminated against, not by force by others who disagree.
Which is what I have been saying all along is that the Federal Government should not be in the business of any laws on social issues.
It should be up to the States.

Nobody is being "forced" to do anything.

It hasn't been "up to the states" since Loving v Virginia in the 60s.

Talk to the many parents who are upset and feel that the school is forcing the teaching that it's ok to have two mommies or daddies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why can't laws be made in order for them to get their rights under the law?

Laws were made to take away their rights, and now those law are being tossed into the garbage, where they belongs. Rights, BTW, aren't up for a popular vote.

By forcing to marry them.
Laws should be made so that they are not discriminated against, not by force by others who disagree.
Which is what I have been saying all along is that the Federal Government should not be in the business of any laws on social issues.
It should be up to the States.

Social issues are rights issues and the federal government is the supreme authority on rights issues.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Talk to the many parents who are upset and feel that the school is forcing the teaching that it's ok to have two mommies or daddies.

Why, they are more childish than their children? BTW, it is okay.

 

[Seawytch]

Why can't laws be made in order for them to get their rights under the law?

Laws were made to take away their rights, and now those law are being tossed into the garbage, where they belongs. Rights, BTW, aren't up for a popular vote.

By forcing to marry them.
Laws should be made so that they are not discriminated against, not by force by others who disagree.
Which is what I have been saying all along is that the Federal Government should not be in the business of any laws on social issues.
It should be up to the States.

Nobody is being "forced" to do anything.

It hasn't been "up to the states" since Loving v Virginia in the 60s.

Talk to the many parents who are upset and feel that the school is forcing the teaching that it's ok to have two mommies or daddies.

What does that have to do with civil marriage?

And they aren't forced to go to public school.

So sorry you can't opt out of tolerance in public schools.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

...the Federal Government should not be in the business of any laws on social issues.
It should be up to the States.

Whomever did you learn that nonsense from BTW? And that's what it is.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So you think that depriving them of civil rights is okay as long as you can avoid the 'hate' label?

lol...he doesn't hate them, he just wants to treat them hatefully...

Where have I ever said that their civil rights should be deprived?
Where has Rubio ever said that?

Does Rubio support equal marriage rights for gays?

Why can't laws be made in order for them to get their rights under the law?

For example?

Change the laws on inheritance, health insurance and hospital visits, are just a few that come to mind.

Letting the homosexuals marry fixes all that, with one Supreme Court decision. Nice eh?

 

[peach174]

PEACH174 SAID:

“Where have I ever said that their civil rights should be deprived?
Where has Rubio ever said that?”

Here:

'Mr. Rubio opposes same-sex marriage, saying he believes “the institution of marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman.”'

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/us/politics/marco-rubio-on-the-issues.html

To seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment, as Rubio advocates doing, in fact seeks to deny gay Americans their civil rights.

Rubio's position on the issue exhibits his ignorance of the law, his contempt for the Constitution and its case law, and the rule of law.

!4th Amendment was written for race (color) discrimination not a lifestyle.

 

[Statistikhengst]

No....it's a sincerely held religious belief. See...this is America. You have the right to religious freedom and free speech.

Only Libturds want to squash religious freedom and free speech. That is the real intolerance and bigotry. All of you should be ashamed.

So if human sacrifice is a 'sincerely held religious belief' the US govt. should be powerless to stop the practice?

We as a Nation from it's beginning have never been the Aztecs and we never will be.
Do come back to the real world.

So you don't really want religious freedom. You want the GOVERNMENT to decide which religions are acceptable and which aren't.

Bingo.

 

[peach174]

...the Federal Government should not be in the business of any laws on social issues.
It should be up to the States.

Whomever did you learn that nonsense from BTW? And that's what it is.

American History College class.

 

[Seawytch]

PEACH174 SAID:

“Where have I ever said that their civil rights should be deprived?
Where has Rubio ever said that?”

Here:

'Mr. Rubio opposes same-sex marriage, saying he believes “the institution of marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman.”'

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/us/politics/marco-rubio-on-the-issues.html

To seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment, as Rubio advocates doing, in fact seeks to deny gay Americans their civil rights.

Rubio's position on the issue exhibits his ignorance of the law, his contempt for the Constitution and its case law, and the rule of law.

!4th Amendment was written for race (color) discrimination not a lifestyle.

And yet it says all persons not all persons of color.

 

[Seawytch]

...the Federal Government should not be in the business of any laws on social issues.
It should be up to the States.

Whomever did you learn that nonsense from BTW? And that's what it is.

American History College class.

Let me extend your education. Loving v VA, Turner v Safely and Zablocki v WI.

 

[peach174]

No....it's a sincerely held religious belief. See...this is America. You have the right to religious freedom and free speech.

Only Libturds want to squash religious freedom and free speech. That is the real intolerance and bigotry. All of you should be ashamed.

So if human sacrifice is a 'sincerely held religious belief' the US govt. should be powerless to stop the practice?

We as a Nation from it's beginning have never been the Aztecs and we never will be.
Do come back to the real world.

So you don't really want religious freedom. You want the GOVERNMENT to decide which religions are acceptable and which aren't.

Bingo.

Just because you think that, does not make it correct.
Like I said, come back to reality.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

...the Federal Government should not be in the business of any laws on social issues.
It should be up to the States.

Whomever did you learn that nonsense from BTW? And that's what it is.

American History College class.

Next time go to a real school. What you attended obviously wasn't.

 

[peach174]

PEACH174 SAID:

“Where have I ever said that their civil rights should be deprived?
Where has Rubio ever said that?”

Here:

'Mr. Rubio opposes same-sex marriage, saying he believes “the institution of marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman.”'

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/us/politics/marco-rubio-on-the-issues.html

To seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment, as Rubio advocates doing, in fact seeks to deny gay Americans their civil rights.

Rubio's position on the issue exhibits his ignorance of the law, his contempt for the Constitution and its case law, and the rule of law.

!4th Amendment was written for race (color) discrimination not a lifestyle.

And yet it says all persons not all persons of color.

It does not apply to social lifestyles.

 

[Seawytch]

PEACH174 SAID:

“Where have I ever said that their civil rights should be deprived?
Where has Rubio ever said that?”

Here:

'Mr. Rubio opposes same-sex marriage, saying he believes “the institution of marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman.”'

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/us/politics/marco-rubio-on-the-issues.html

To seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment, as Rubio advocates doing, in fact seeks to deny gay Americans their civil rights.

Rubio's position on the issue exhibits his ignorance of the law, his contempt for the Constitution and its case law, and the rule of law.

!4th Amendment was written for race (color) discrimination not a lifestyle.

And yet it says all persons not all persons of color.

It does not apply to social lifestyles.

You mean like religion? Divorced status? Inmate status?

 

[peach174]

...the Federal Government should not be in the business of any laws on social issues.
It should be up to the States.

Whomever did you learn that nonsense from BTW? And that's what it is.

American History College class.

Next time go to a real school. What you attended obviously wasn't.

You think the University of Denver is not a real school?
Wow

 

[Seawytch]

...the Federal Government should not be in the business of any laws on social issues.
It should be up to the States.

Whomever did you learn that nonsense from BTW? And that's what it is.

American History College class.

Next time go to a real school. What you attended obviously wasn't.

You think the University of Denver is not a real school?
Wow

Stop deflecting and look up the SUPREME COURT cases I cited.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No....it's a sincerely held religious belief. See...this is America. You have the right to religious freedom and free speech.

Only Libturds want to squash religious freedom and free speech. That is the real intolerance and bigotry. All of you should be ashamed.

So if human sacrifice is a 'sincerely held religious belief' the US govt. should be powerless to stop the practice?

We as a Nation from it's beginning have never been the Aztecs and we never will be.
Do come back to the real world.

So you don't really want religious freedom. You want the GOVERNMENT to decide which religions are acceptable and which aren't.

Bingo.

Just because you think that, does not make it correct.
Like I said, come back to reality.

You don't want polygamists to have religious freedom in this country do you? You want the GOVERNMENT to keep polygamists from having any religious rights, don't you?

 

[Lilah]

Why can't laws be made in order for them to get their rights under the law?

Laws were made to take away their rights, and now those law are being tossed into the garbage, where they belongs. Rights, BTW, aren't up for a popular vote.

By forcing to marry them.
Laws should be made so that they are not discriminated against, not by force by others who disagree.
Which is what I have been saying all along is that the Federal Government should not be in the business of any laws on social issues.
It should be up to the States.

Nobody is being "forced" to do anything.

It hasn't been "up to the states" since Loving v Virginia in the 60s.

Talk to the many parents who are upset and feel that the school is forcing the teaching that it's ok to have two mommies or daddies.

Is it not okay?

 

[NYcarbineer]

PEACH174 SAID:

“Where have I ever said that their civil rights should be deprived?
Where has Rubio ever said that?”

Here:

'Mr. Rubio opposes same-sex marriage, saying he believes “the institution of marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman.”'

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/us/politics/marco-rubio-on-the-issues.html

To seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment, as Rubio advocates doing, in fact seeks to deny gay Americans their civil rights.

Rubio's position on the issue exhibits his ignorance of the law, his contempt for the Constitution and its case law, and the rule of law.

!4th Amendment was written for race (color) discrimination not a lifestyle.

And yet it says all persons not all persons of color.

It does not apply to social lifestyles.

Is forced female circumcision lifestyle, or religion?