The only way there will ever be a constitutional right to same-sex marriage is if Anthony Kennedy and at least four other justices who have signed on to the homosexual agenda decide to concoct one out of thin air, and proclaim it. The Court did just that with abortion forty years ago, in its notoriously arbitrary decision in Roe v. Wade, so I expect it can also cook up a constitutional "right" for homosexuals to marry each other.
As to your question, I do not knowingly associate with homosexuals, nor am I interested in what political party any particular homosexual belongs to.
So i think about 2016, and dems have still done very little to earn those votes, except the repub contenders are so extremely anti gay that all the dems have to do is show some sympathy and that's it, they get the votes.
I mean all the repubs would have to do now is shut up about it. They don't have to like or accept homosexuality, but if they would just *tolerate* it, they'd be in roughly the same position as the dems who up until very recently were guilty of the same intolerance
If anything the GOP is the "Christian" Party. Tea Partisans dominate. There is no denying that and there shouldn't be any surprise that Log Cabin would be told "No, not with us."
Last edited by Risky Thicket; 04-17-15 at 11:00 AM.
"When Faith preaches Hate, Blessed are the Doubters." - Amin Maalouf
As Justice Scalia observed in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence, Stevens' idea is radical--at odds with what had been taken for granted in every state in this country for 200 years, and with the norms of every civilized society. I think Scalia was dead right. The belief of a majority in a state that an act--adult incest, bestiality, bigamy, prostitution, adultery, etc.--is immoral and unacceptable IS a rational basis for a law against it, just as it always had been thought to be. Where most of the people in a state believe it is immoral and unacceptable for two persons of the same sex to marry each other, they should be free to exclude such couples from the state's marriage law. And in states where most people do not believe that, they should be free to make same-sex marriages legal. The Court had it right in Bowers, its first "gay" decision, and it got it wrong in Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor.
You are attempting to tie the GOP to the group that is hosting this convention, because the people hosting this convention more than likely vote Republican. Yet when presented with analogies of people who presumably vote for the Democrats, you for some very odd reason try to tie who these people are protesting into the mix.
I'm smart enough to see right through it. And call you out on it.
Your incessant eye rolling in every one of your posts needs to be directed at yourself if you can't even follow your own failed arguments.
Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields
Based on what premise?In the same way, every state should be free to exclude same-sex couples from its marriage laws.
ONly if one does not mind certain people deprived of their freedom.The matter does not raise any constitutional question.
No, the proponents of the existence of homosexual agenda are ignorant bigots.The proponents of the homosexual agenda are statists
If your arguments were better, you would not need to rely on personally attacking people who disagree with them. And your statement about what the Supreme Court might do is not an argument at all.Really? Is that the best argument you can concoct to support bigotry? Why not try this for size? How about the Supreme Court striking down laws that neither federal or state government has the authority to enact?
No premise in involved--just basic constitutional law. All the powers the states did not either cede to the United States in the Constitution, or deny to themselves, are reserved to the states. The notion that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment ever meant its guarantee of equal protection to apply to homosexual marriage does not even pass the laugh test, but statists do not give a damn about the Constitution. For them it is just a tool for making their experiments in centralized social engineering look legitimate.Based on what premise?
Let me get out my violin. Everyone in this country is deprived of some freedom by his state's laws every day, without those laws violating anything in the Constitution. Next you'll be trying to tell us the vehicle statute that makes you stop at red lights deprives you of your liberty of movement without due process of law.ONly if one does not mind certain people deprived of their freedom.
"Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct."