Civil Rights & Democratic Cowards

C

Cancel7

Banned
With polls showing consistent, super-majority support for the overturning of DADT, it’s been a real struggle to figure out why President Obama has so stubbornly insisted on his nebulous path of “It’ll be overturned on my watch” while his Justice Department continues to appeal judicial decisions overturning the policy.

Politically, it seems asinine. There is no political price to pay for overturning this, TODAY. It would excite the base, get out the vote, and Independents and even many Republicans support it. Oh, and it’s the right thing to do.
It dawned on me rather suddenly that it’s not out of “arrogance” or stubbornness” that Obama chooses this path. It’s because the overturning of DADT isn’t the end.

It’s the beginning.

What happens when gays and gay advocates succeed in overturning this policy? Do they go home and spend the next ten years happily voting Democratic and saying “oh no, you’ve done enough”? No. They continue the march for full civil rights and after DADT the next stop is marriage equality.

And the Democratic party wants no part of that. Too cowardly to take a stand, petrified that they will be forced to before the 2012 election, they are attempting to let DADT stand as long as they can in order to delay the inevitable; the battle for marriage equality.

Personally I don’t believe this administration has earned the votes of gay rights advocates. And if they stay home, they are well within their rights.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/24/gay-voters-angry-at-democ_n_773184.html

CHICAGO — Kate Coatar is seriously considering voting for Green Party candidates instead of Democrats, whom she normally supports. James Wyatt won't cast a ballot at all because he no longer trusts anyone to fight for causes important to him.

If Democratic candidates are counting on long-standing support from gay voters to help stave off big losses on Nov. 2, they could be in for a surprise.

Across the country, activists say gay voters are angry – at the lack of progress on issues from eliminating employment discrimination to uncertainty over serving in the military to the economy – and some are choosing to sit out this election or look for other candidates.
 
To this day I do not understand why so many politicians fear this issue. From the center right out to the far left, the nation supports removing DADT and civil unions for everyone.

Only the far right opposes removing DADT. F them. Do it.

As for marriage... just get the government out of it all together. Civil unions for everyone who wants the inheritance/visitation/tax/etc... benefits provided by the government. Leave marriage to the religious institutions. Done.

This is one of those issues that people make far more complex than it needs to be.
 
Superfreak said:
To this day I do not understand why so many politicians fear this issue. From the center right out to the far left, the nation supports removing DADT and civil unions for everyone.

Only the far right opposes removing DADT. F them. Do it.

As for marriage... just get the government out of it all together. Civil unions for everyone who wants the inheritance/visitation/tax/etc... benefits provided by the government. Leave marriage to the religious institutions. Done.

This is one of those issues that people make far more complex than it needs to be.
Click to expand...

There are churches who will marry same-sex couples. I would like to see full-equality on this. Frankly I feel that when heterosexuals who have been married three times and had kids with three different people, are legally free to marry a fourth time, and call it marriage, and there are churches that will do it! then we really have lost the whole "marriage is a sacred institution" argument. If anyone has desecrated marriage it's been heterosexuals. And the far right religious ones are the worst offenders, judging by the ones I know.
 
Superfreak said:
To this day I do not understand why so many politicians fear this issue. From the center right out to the far left, the nation supports removing DADT and civil unions for everyone.

Only the far right opposes removing DADT. F them. Do it.

As for marriage... just get the government out of it all together. Civil unions for everyone who wants the inheritance/visitation/tax/etc... benefits provided by the government. Leave marriage to the religious institutions. Done.

This is one of those issues that people make far more complex than it needs to be.
Click to expand...


They tried to repeal DADT. The Republicans in the Senate filibustered.
 
I'm guessing it's because congressmen are all old. Even though they are malleable due to pressure from constituents it's still difficult to push against the anti-gay political momentum of their generation.
 
NigelTufnel said:
They tried to repeal DADT. The Republicans in the Senate filibustered.
Click to expand...

Okay, true. But they knew going in they didn't have the votes. Do you think they would have raised repeal in the Senate if they did have the votes? I don't. And why does Obama insist on appealing these rulings?
 
Darla said:
There are churches who will marry same-sex couples. I would like to see full-equality on this. Frankly I feel that when heterosexuals who have been married three times and had kids with three different people, are legally free to marry a fourth time, and call it marriage, and there are churches that will do it! then we really have lost the whole "marriage is a sacred institution" argument. If anyone has desecrated marriage it's been heterosexuals. And the far right religious ones are the worst offenders, judging by the ones I know.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are.... and the government should give the same level of credence to them as to straight couples... NONE. Just keep out of it. Let the churches 'marry' whomever they choose. All the legal aspects can be done through civil unions. There is NO reason for the government to be involved in determining 'marriage'.

Leave it to the religious institutions... as you stated, there are some that will marry gay couples, there are others that will marry straight people for the 18th time.

when you take government out of it, then you end the stupidity from the far right. They know they have no leg to stand on if they were to try and tell other religious organizations what beliefs to follow.

If anyone can provide reasons why they feel the government should be involved, enlighten me.
 
NigelTufnel said:
They tried to repeal DADT. The Republicans in the Senate filibustered.
Click to expand...

yes.... they did... and Reid had the votes and then started playing games and lost the votes he needed. Both parties were playing political games.

Again, as I stated, last I saw it was well over 70% of the population supports its removal.

As Darla stated, the Dems lacked the leadership or desire to get it done. Obama did little. Reid blew it up. Pelosi got the job done in the House (though admittedly she has an easier time than Reid in the Senate).

the Senate vote reminded me of Pelosi's 'leadership' on the bank bailout. Arrogance led that initial bill to fail. Which caused the market to tank on a perceived lack of leadership. Reid in this case was the one who failed because he tried to force through the defense bill with no other amendments other than DADT. That is where he lost support.

I think Darla is correct. The Dems don't want this to pass and then have to face the bigger issue.
 
The Noahide Laws expressly forbid homosexuality. It is punishable by death.

By law it is the responsibility of all americans to transmit the Noahide Laws.

H.J.RES.104 -- To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)

--H.J.Res.104--

H.J.Res.104


One Hundred Second Congress of the United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, the third day of January,

one thousand nine hundred and ninety-one

Joint Resolution

To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'.

Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;

Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;

Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos;

Whereas society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society;

Whereas the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future;

Whereas the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world;

Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26, 1991;

Whereas in tribute to this great spiritual leader, `the rebbe', this, his ninetieth year will be seen as one of `education and giving', the year in which we turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws; and

Whereas this will be reflected in an international scroll of honor signed by the President of the United States and other heads of state: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 26, 1991, the start of the ninetieth year of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c102:H.J.RES.104.ENR:
 
Darla said:
There are churches who will marry same-sex couples. I would like to see full-equality on this. Frankly I feel that when heterosexuals who have been married three times and had kids with three different people, are legally free to marry a fourth time, and call it marriage, and there are churches that will do it! then we really have lost the whole "marriage is a sacred institution" argument. If anyone has desecrated marriage it's been heterosexuals. And the far right religious ones are the worst offenders, judging by the ones I know.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree. How can a morale man leave his wife with cancer for another younger woman and feel that he treat marriage scared?
 
AssHatZombie said:
The Noahide Laws expressly forbid homosexuality. It is punishable by death.

By law it is the responsibility of all americans to transmit the Noahide Laws.

H.J.RES.104 -- To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)

--H.J.Res.104--

H.J.Res.104


One Hundred Second Congress of the United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, the third day of January,

one thousand nine hundred and ninety-one

Joint Resolution

To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'.

Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;

Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;

Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos;

Whereas society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society;

Whereas the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future;

Whereas the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world;

Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26, 1991;

Whereas in tribute to this great spiritual leader, `the rebbe', this, his ninetieth year will be seen as one of `education and giving', the year in which we turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws; and

Whereas this will be reflected in an international scroll of honor signed by the President of the United States and other heads of state: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 26, 1991, the start of the ninetieth year of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c102:H.J.RES.104.ENR:
Click to expand...
It is also an abomination to eat shrimp and for women to dress as men, but we don't see them getting all bent out of shape over these antiquated laws! I have seen many a good Christian eating shellfish and pig!
 
Rana said:
It is also an abomination to eat shrimp and for women to dress as men, but we don't see them getting all bent out of shape over these antiquated laws! I have seen many a good Christian eating shellfish and pig!
Click to expand...

damn it froggie... now I am thinking about a pulled pork sandwich... and its not time for lunch yet...
 
Superfreak said:
Yes, there are.... and the government should give the same level of credence to them as to straight couples... NONE. Just keep out of it. Let the churches 'marry' whomever they choose. All the legal aspects can be done through civil unions. There is NO reason for the government to be involved in determining 'marriage'.

Leave it to the religious institutions... as you stated, there are some that will marry gay couples, there are others that will marry straight people for the 18th time.

when you take government out of it, then you end the stupidity from the far right. They know they have no leg to stand on if they were to try and tell other religious organizations what beliefs to follow.

If anyone can provide reasons why they feel the government should be involved, enlighten me.
Click to expand...

Okay, well putting aside the churches, I don't understand the significance of the "civil unions". That's just pandering to the crazy religious whacks. Civil unions are civil marriage. We already have civil marriages, and the government is involved with that the same way they would be if you changed the term to "civil unions", and for obvious reasons.

So it's civil marriage we are talking about anyway, but if you can find a church that will marry you, then that is fine too. I don't think anyone is talking about forcing churches to marry same-sex couples. You're not going to get the government out of marriage ,because marriage is a contract and when the partnership breaks up, who is going to equitably dissolve the partnership? It's civil marriage.
 
Superfreak said:
yes.... they did... and Reid had the votes and then started playing games and lost the votes he needed. Both parties were playing political games.

Again, as I stated, last I saw it was well over 70% of the population supports its removal.

As Darla stated, the Dems lacked the leadership or desire to get it done. Obama did little. Reid blew it up. Pelosi got the job done in the House (though admittedly she has an easier time than Reid in the Senate).

the Senate vote reminded me of Pelosi's 'leadership' on the bank bailout. Arrogance led that initial bill to fail. Which caused the market to tank on a perceived lack of leadership. Reid in this case was the one who failed because he tried to force through the defense bill with no other amendments other than DADT. That is where he lost support.

I think Darla is correct. The Dems don't want this to pass and then have to face the bigger issue.
Click to expand...



Well, maybe you could list the Republican senators that have stated they would vote to repeal DADT if it weren't for Reid hurting their feelings or whatever.

I can't come up with a single one. I mean, it's pretty convenient for you to blame it on Reid but where are these Republican votes coming from?
 
Rana said:
It is also an abomination to eat shrimp and for women to dress as men, but we don't see them getting all bent out of shape over these antiquated laws! I have seen many a good Christian eating shellfish and pig!
Click to expand...


Those dietary laws are for jews only. The noahide laws are for all humanity.

http://www.hasidicuniversity.org/index.php?page=hu_theocracy/th05_adultery.htm

Universal Theocratic Law
for Non-Jews

5. Commandments Against Immoral Relations
(32 commandments)



Biblical:
+212)

To have multiple children

+213)

To marry a woman

+214)

For a groom to rejoice with his wife for one year


- 52)

No intermarriage between Jews and gentiles

- 262)

Not to withhold food, clothing, or intercourse from one’s wife

- 311)

Not to send a groom to duties away from home in his 1st year of marriage

- 330)

No relations with one’s mother

- 331)

No relations with one’s father’s wife

- 332)

No relations with one’s sister

- 333)

No relations with one’s father’s daughter

- 334)

No relations with one’s son’s daughter

- 335)

No relations with one’s daughter’s daughter

- 336)

No relations with one’s daughter

- 337)

No relations with a woman and with her daughter

- 338)

No relations with a woman and with her son’s daughter

- 339)

No relations with a woman and with her daughter’s daughter

- 340)

No relations with one’s father’s sister

- 341)

No relations with one’s mother’s sister

- 342)

No relations with the wife of one’s father’s brother

- 343)

No relations with the wife of one’s son

- 344)

No relations with the wife of one’s brother

- 345)

No relations with the sister of one’s wife

- 346)

No relations with a woman in her monthly period

- 347)

No adultery with a married woman

- 348)

For a man not to have relations with an animal

- 349)

For a woman not to have relations with an animal

- 350)

No homosexual relations

- 351)

No homosexual relations with one’s father

- 352)

No homosexual relations with the brother of one’s father

- 353)

No immodest contact that draws close to forbidden relations

- 355)

Not to have intercourse outside of formal marriage

- 356)

Not to remarry one’s divorced wife after she has remarried
 
AssHatZombie said:
Those dietary laws are for jews only. The noahide laws are for all humanity.

http://www.hasidicuniversity.org/index.php?page=hu_theocracy/th05_adultery.htm

Universal Theocratic Law
for Non-Jews

5. Commandments Against Immoral Relations
(32 commandments)



Biblical:
+212)

To have multiple children

+213)

To marry a woman

+214)

For a groom to rejoice with his wife for one year


- 52)

No intermarriage between Jews and gentiles

- 262)

Not to withhold food, clothing, or intercourse from one’s wife

- 311)

Not to send a groom to duties away from home in his 1st year of marriage

- 330)

No relations with one’s mother

- 331)

No relations with one’s father’s wife

- 332)

No relations with one’s sister

- 333)

No relations with one’s father’s daughter

- 334)

No relations with one’s son’s daughter

- 335)

No relations with one’s daughter’s daughter

- 336)

No relations with one’s daughter

- 337)

No relations with a woman and with her daughter

- 338)

No relations with a woman and with her son’s daughter

- 339)

No relations with a woman and with her daughter’s daughter

- 340)

No relations with one’s father’s sister

- 341)

No relations with one’s mother’s sister

- 342)

No relations with the wife of one’s father’s brother

- 343)

No relations with the wife of one’s son

- 344)

No relations with the wife of one’s brother

- 345)

No relations with the sister of one’s wife

- 346)

No relations with a woman in her monthly period

- 347)

No adultery with a married woman

- 348)

For a man not to have relations with an animal

- 349)

For a woman not to have relations with an animal

- 350)

No homosexual relations

- 351)

No homosexual relations with one’s father

- 352)

No homosexual relations with the brother of one’s father

- 353)

No immodest contact that draws close to forbidden relations

- 355)

Not to have intercourse outside of formal marriage

- 356)

Not to remarry one’s divorced wife after she has remarried
Click to expand...
Why do they get to pick and choose?
 
http://www.hasidicuniversity.org/index.php?page=hu_theocracy/mitzvah_profile.php?mitzvah=-350

-350) No homosexual relations
Application to gentiles:
Required
Mandated punishment for violation:
Death penalty
Brief description:
For a man not to have intercourse with another man. Relations between two women are not considered true intercourse, and thus female homosexuality would not be enforced with capital punishment under this commandment. Nevertheless, lesbianism is a violation of the rules against immodesty (see commandment -353), and is therefore also forbidden.
Category:
Adultery Commandments
Biblical source(s) (Rambam): Lev. 18:22; Deut. 23:18
Biblical source (Sefer HaChinuch): Lev. 18:22
Number in Sefer HaChinuch: 209
Sources explaining relevance to gentiles:
(See bibliography)
Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Issurei Biah 14:10; Melachim 9:5-6
Homosexual relations prohibited for gentiles with death penalty.
 
Darla said:
Okay, well putting aside the churches, I don't understand the significance of the "civil unions". That's just pandering to the crazy religious whacks. Civil unions are civil marriage. We already have civil marriages, and the government is involved with that the same way they would be if you changed the term to "civil unions", and for obvious reasons.

So it's civil marriage we are talking about anyway, but if you can find a church that will marry you, then that is fine too. I don't think anyone is talking about forcing churches to marry same-sex couples. You're not going to get the government out of marriage ,because marriage is a contract and when the partnership breaks up, who is going to equitably dissolve the partnership? It's civil marriage.
Click to expand...

The significance is that it shouldn't matter what the government calls it.

Marriage is a religious ceremony and should stay there. It amazes me that people who so adamantly shout out for the separation of church and state want the government to be involved in a religious ceremony.

F the RR on this issue.

Gay couples will get exactly what they want if we simply do as I stated above. The government will not be declaring ANYTHING a marriage. The benefits currently provided will be available to EVERY couple. Every couple will then be treated in the EXACT SAME MANNER by the government.

Again... what possible reason is there to have the government involved in ANYTHING to do with 'marriage'.

The 'contract' would be the civil union.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top