What mindless drivel. If criticizing the statist notions many Republicans embrace is destroying the Republican Party, then it deserves to be destroyed. Some of us do not share the contempt the proponents of the homosexual agenda, to use Justice Scalia's term, have for the Constitution.
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.
I think about 2004, when Bush won like a million gay votes. Thing is, the dems did nothing to earn those votes. Kerry wasn't gonna stop or even discourage the wave of anti gay laws. I think back to 2008 and palin just had to say "i agree" in the debate, about joe biden opposing gay rights.
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
However the implication and the message is: "We don't want to be associated with you. We only want your vote." There's an underlying message as well and that is that "gay people can't be Christians and we do not accept them as equals."
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 12:00 PM.
"When Faith preaches Hate, Blessed are the Doubters." - Amin Maalouf
When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one individual who perceives a solution and is willing to take command. Very often, that person is crazy. ~Dave Barry
No, I had not seen it, but I understand the cases and constitutional arguments in it pretty well. Justice Kennedy seems to be leading the charge for the "no rational basis" equal protection argument, which is probably the one the Court will rely on if and when it decrees a constitutional "right" for homosexuals to marry each other. It seems to be part of the basis for the majority opinion he authored in Windsor, and he used variants of it in his opinions in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 and in Romer v. Evans in 1996. It can be traced back to Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986, in which he claimed that the belief of a majority that an act is immoral and unacceptable is not reason enough to make the act illegal.
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.
My brain works well enough to be able to follow what's posted.
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
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?
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.
The phrase is Justice Scalia's, from Lawrence v. Texas, and it is an accurate description. The fact you would slander him as an "ignorant bigot" shows just how weak your game is.
"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."