Why do so many Goppers oppose Gay Marriage ?

[2aguy]

Lots of my friends on here being "not bothered" about gay marriage.

America is so lucky to have such a liberal population.

Yeah…..you missed the post where Norway may put a woman in prison for 3 years for saying men can’t be lesbians…

 

[buttercup]

Yeah…..you missed the post where Norway may put a woman in prison for 3 years for saying men can’t be lesbians…

They usually dismiss the "slippery slope" argument, but in many cases it's observably true. Come to think of it, that's exactly how the subversive PTSB operate.... they do everything gradually and incrementally, that's their M.O.

 

[BackAgain]

Because it violates equal protections. Your argument has failed repeatedly throughout the civil rights era. Some just never learn from history.
What’s old is new again.

View attachment 672922

View attachment 672923
View attachment 672924

You’re stubbornly obtuse. Racial discrimination is forbidden by the explicit terms of the Constitution. Therefore, you can’t have a valid law denying an interracial couple the right to be married. That would deny equal protection on the basis of race — which is forbidden.

Your idiotic and mindless claim is that you cannot deny a same sex couple the right to get married — on the basis of a denial of equal protection — despite the fact that sexual discrimination is not forbidden by the US Constitution.

The denial of equal protection based on race is forbidden (14th Amendment) :: show me that the denial of equal protection based on sexual orientation is similarly forbidden.

Hell. I’m open to it. But it ain’t there as things stand. So, amend the US Constitution to provide such protection against the denial of equal protection on the basis of sexual orientation, OR change the marriage law of the state in question, OR amend the state Constiturion of the state in question.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

that's exactly how the subversive PTSB operate

PTSB?

 

[buttercup]

PTSB?

Haha. Powers That Shouldn't Be. (as opposed to the usual "powers that be.")

 

[beautress]

SCOTUS and same-sex marriage: What could be in store?

Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade, sending abortion policy back to the states, could the court do th

www.politifact.com

This seems a very unconservative stance. It is more akin to an authoritariaan stance. I understan that 150 gops voted against protecting Gay marriage. The same number voted against rotecting inter racial marriage.

What sort of country would America become if these rights were over turned by your crazy Supreme Court.

Good evening, everyone.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You’re stubbornly obtuse. Racial discrimination is forbidden by the explicit terms of the Constitution. Therefore, you can’t have a valid law denying an interracial couple the right to be married. That would deny equal protection on the basis of race — which is forbidden.

Your idiotic and mindless claim is that you cannot deny a same sex couple the right to get married — on the basis of a denial of equal protection — despite the fact that sexual discrimination is not forbidden by the US Constitution.

The denial of equal protection based on race is forbidden (14th Amendment) :: show me that the denial of equal protection based on sexual orientation is similarly forbidden.

Hell. I’m open to it. But it ain’t there as things stand. So, amend the US Constitution to provide such protection against the denial of equal protection on the basis of sexual orientation, OR change the marriage law of the state in question, OR amend the state Constiturion of the state in question.

Nope. It’s forbidden by law.
How is racial discrimination forbidden in the 14th when there was 100 subsequent years of “states rights” Jim Crow, dope?

 

[BackAgain]

Nope. It’s forbidden by law.
How is racial discrimination forbidden in the 14th when there was 100 subsequent years of “states rights” Jim Crow, dope?

Racial discrimination is forbidden by our republic’s highest law: the Constitution. There were additional laws enacted to support that Amendment.

How was it forbidden when the Amendment was nonetheless subsequently violated by Jim Crow laws? Man, is that a stupid question. It was broken by the Jim Crow laws and the failure of the Federal government to enforce the Amendment.

Your ignorant questions deflect your attention away from even trying to answer the not so difficult one I posed to you.

I’m a helluva guy. So, in deference to your obviously limited intellect, I’ll rephrase it:

What US Constitutional Amendment prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in any way akin to how the 14th Amendment clearly prohibits racial discrimination?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Racial discrimination is forbidden by our republic’s highest law: the Constitution. There were additional laws enacted to support that Amendment.

How was it forbidden when the Amendment was nonetheless subsequently violated by Jim Crow laws? Man, is that a stupid question. It was broken by the Jim Crow laws and the failure of the Federal government to enforce the Amendment.

Your ignorant questions deflect your attention away from even trying to answer the not so difficult one I posed to you.

I’m a helluva guy. So, in deference to your obviously limited intellect, I’ll rephrase it:

What US Constitutional Amendment prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in any way akin to how the 14th Amendment clearly prohibits racial discrimination?

Your understanding of the country in which you
allegedly reside is appalling.

If the 14th does what you assert, there would have been no need for separate legislation expressly forbidding discrimination.

Check out title VII of the civil rights act of 1964.
It applies to sexual orientation as well.

 

[BackAgain]

Your understanding of the country in which you
allegedly reside is appalling.

If the 14th does what you assert, there would have been no need for separate legislation expressly forbidding discrimination.

Check out title VII of the civil rights act of 1964.
It applies to sexual orientation as well.

Your complete lack of comprehension is no surprise.

I asked you a very specific question, you dolt. You’re dodging it like a motherfucker. Let’s try again:

What US Constitutional Amendment prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in any way akin to how the 14th Amendment clearly prohibits racial discrimination?

 

[Independent thinker]

SCOTUS and same-sex marriage: What could be in store?

Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade, sending abortion policy back to the states, could the court do th

www.politifact.com

This seems a very unconservative stance. It is more akin to an authoritariaan stance. I understan that 150 gops voted against protecting Gay marriage. The same number voted against rotecting inter racial marriage.

What sort of country would America become if these rights were over turned by your crazy Supreme Court.

You seem to want the other side to have empathy for others and yet you deny the other side empathy for their religious beliefs.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Your complete lack of comprehension is no surprise.

I asked you a very specific question, you dolt. You’re dodging it like a motherfucker. Let’s try again:

What US Constitutional Amendment prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in any way akin to how the 14th Amendment clearly prohibits racial discrimination?

I said it was protected by law, dope.

 

[BackAgain]

I said it was protected by law, dope.

And I said that the Constitution forbids racial discrimination, you obtuse imbecile.

That makes a denial of equal protection on the basis of race illegal and unconstitutional.

Then I proceeded to challenge you to show me (or anyone for that matter) what Constitutional provision provides similar protection against “discrimination” based on sexual orientation.

I see you’re still dodging the question. It’s ok. We all know why.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

And I said that the Constitution forbids racial discrimination, you obtuse imbecile.

That makes a denial of equal protection on the basis of race illegal and unconstitutional.

Then I proceeded to challenge you to show me (or anyone for that matter) what Constitutional provision provides similar protection against “discrimination” based on sexual orientation.

I see you’re still dodging the question. It’s ok. We all know why.

Because it’s irrelevant, dope.
Are you suggesting any and all civil rights legislation is somehow invalid?

 

[BackAgain]

Because it’s irrelevant, dope.
Are you suggesting any and all civil rights legislation is somehow invalid?

Hey, imbecile.

It is not irrelevant. It is, in fact, the most relevant point.

Try to follow along, you total retard.

The reason a Federal law exists is limited to its legitimate Federal purpose. Therefore, you asshole, the Federal government can and indeed should pass laws to put into effect the very purpose of a Constitutional Amendment. The denial of equal protection on the basis of race is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.

You still haven’t provided the analog for a law prohibiting the denial of equal protection on the basis of sexual orientation. That a federal law provides for it is therefore limited to the things over which the Feds have jurisdiction such as federal hiring, allotting federal contracts to suppliers of goods and services and the military for example.

But that very same federal law (absent a foundation associated with a U.S. Constitutional requirement or prohibition) doesn’t apply to the States. So, if any particular State doesn’t want to redefine marriage to include same sex partners, that state is currently free to do so.

You and I may not like that. I don’t. But then the point is — as I said earlier— Pass an appropriate US Constitutional Amendment akin to the prohibition against official racial discrimination, OR if you’re a citizen of such a State, get the legislature to pass a law redefining marriage to include same sex partners, OR seek a State Constitutional Amendment.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Hey, imbecile.

It is not irrelevant. It is, in fact, the most relevant point.

Try to follow along, you total retard.

The reason a Federal law exists is limited to its legitimate Federal purpose. Therefore, you asshole, the Federal government can and indeed should pass laws to put into effect the very purpose of a Constitutional Amendment. The denial of equal protection on the basis of race is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.

You still haven’t provided the analog for a law prohibiting the denial of equal protection on the basis of sexual orientation. That a federal law provides for it is therefore limited to the things over which the Feds have jurisdiction such as federal hiring, allotting federal contracts to suppliers of goods and services and the military for example.

But that very same federal law (absent a foundation associated with a U.S. Constitutional requirement or prohibition) doesn’t apply to the States. So, if any particular State doesn’t want to redefine marriage to include same sex partners, that state is currently free to do so.

You and I may not like that. I don’t. But then the point is — as I said earlier— Pass an appropriate US Constitutional Amendment akin to the prohibition against official racial discrimination, OR if you’re a citizen of such a State, get the legislature to pass a law redefining marriage to include same sex partners, OR seek a State Constitutional Amendment.

This is a thread regarding House Republicans who have opted not to support the codification of same sex marriage, dope.

You are arguing nothing that has anything to do with that.

 

[BackAgain]

This is a thread regarding House Republicans who have opted not to support the codification of same sex marriage ….

So what, retard? Try to focus on the actual discussion. Codifying it without a Constitutional basis will only apply to those things over which the Federal government has authority.

You are arguing nothing that has anything to do with that.

I am the only one arguing about what is at issue. You are merely flapping your proverbial lips. As always.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So what, retard? Try to focus on the actual discussion. Codifying it without a Constitutional basis will only apply to those things over which the Federal government has authority.

I am the only one arguing about what is at issue. You are merely flapping your proverbial lips. As always.

So you are then asserting that any and all existing civil rights legislation is invalid?

 

[BackAgain]

So you are then asserting that any and all existing civil rights legislation is invalid?

Again, you remain massively stupid. No.

Where the Federal government as they authority to address an issue via legislation, it may proceed accordingly. So, as to the companies they hire or the military etc, their laws are absolutely valid and effective.

But when they write a law directed at the states or the people on a matter over which they don’t have actual jurisdiction (think about limited government and ENUMERATED powers), their attempts are not valid.

This is why they DO have valid authority over a problem like the denial of equal protection on the basis of racial discrimination. But you seem unwilling and unable to point to which Constitutional provision gives them such authority over a claimed denial of equal protection on the basis of sexual orientation “discrimination.”

And again, I think this is unfortunate in. This case. But it is curable. Pass a state of federal constitutional amendment or pass a state law which will have to be then applied equally to all in that State.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I'm assuming you're aware that there are those zealots out there who, given half a chance, would outlaw gay marriage, right?

Rainbow Bows Out

Straights not only have half a chance, we have more than half of the Supreme Court. Your disgusting Mommy and Daddy play-acting is going down the tubes.