Anti-Gay, GOP State Rep Caught With Male Teen

[Whosyer]

It has always been my belief, that everyone is a freak.( to some degree ) It also appears, that the more you try to appear like a square, the freakier you are.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I'll bet if you talked to a priest or a psychologist, you'd find that, at your most freaky, you're still a depressingly normal human being.

 

[Whosyer]

I'll bet if you talked to a priest or a psychologist, you'd find that, at your most freaky, you're still a depressingly normal human being.

That's the key to the whole thing, it's a "subjective", not necessarily "objective" term.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Since the beginning of Constitutional analysis.

Again, what states recognized the marriage of homosexuals in 1791? I'll answer it myself, none.



By passing the Fourteenth Amendment. Loving struck down the 1924 Virginia statute via the Fourteenth. We do not have the right to marry whomever we please.

If you want to pass the Gay Marriage Amendment or the Anyone Can Marry Anyone Else Including Groups or Animals Amendment, then pass it and start striking down the old, eeevil restrictive state laws.

Does anyone really think they have a right to get married? You need a stinkin license for that too.

The reason for the "marriage license" was so one could marry outside of their own race.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

(snipped)

The reason for the "marriage license" was so one could marry outside of their own race.

Do you have a reference for this statement?

 

[hornadylnl]

Did a man and woman have to go to the local courthouse or other such government entity to get a marriage license in 1791 or was that started sometime afterward? I believe in a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman but I no longer believe in the state definition of marriage. I'd be surprised if you could even find a pastor and church that would perform a ceremony without a state marriage license.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Do you have a reference for this statement?

Marriage licence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page down to the United States and read. It is just Wiki but do some other homework if you like. I do not just make this crap up to stir the pot....ok sometimes but not this time

 

[CarmelHP]

Marriage licence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page down to the United States and read. It is just Wiki but do some other homework if you like. I do not just make this crap up to stir the pot....ok sometimes but not this time

Nonsense, that article does not support your sweeping statement. It says that in the early twentieth century licenses (or their denial one supposes) was used for this purpose, not that they originated for that purpose. Licensing existed prior to that time and in places in which there was no thought as to preventing race mixing (such as 14th century England and Wales)

 

[Jake46184]

No, miscegenation statutes were struck down based on the 13th and 14th Amendment as badges of slavery. There was no recognized "right to marry whomever we pleased." No one conceived, enunciated or claimed any such right until relatively recently in history.

+1 mrjarrell - your analogy is flawed.

 

[RoyalTenenbaum]

People hate in others what they fear most in themselves.

 

[Pocketman]

Did a man and woman have to go to the local courthouse or other such government entity to get a marriage license in 1791 or was that started sometime afterward? I believe in a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman but I no longer believe in the state definition of marriage. I'd be surprised if you could even find a pastor and church that would perform a ceremony without a state marriage license.

I've done a lot of genealogy research and find virtually all the marriages recorded in church records. The earliest marriage registration I have is from from an Ohio county clerk in 1825. It's a registration, not a license. This is by no means the ultimate answer, but is indicative of early marriages not requiring a license.

 

[CarmelHP]

I've done a lot of genealogy research and find virtually all the marriages recorded in church records. The earliest marriage registration I have is from from an Ohio county clerk in 1825. It's a registration, not a license. This is by no means the ultimate answer, but is indicative of early marriages not requiring a license.

18th century and prior, licenses were for the unchurched, the churches were expected to police issues such as consanguinity, etc by issuing marriage banns, asking questions and observing. If one was unchurched, the state took up the policing.

 

[Roadie]

Doesnt necessarily make you a crusader for the cause, but if you oppose gay marriage you are anti gay. How can it be any other way? You are wanting to deny two consenting adults the same rights you have because they are different.

I dont want to see a gay male couple do what they do, but why should I or anyone else deny them the same rights I have? People use religion as a crutch but that is just weak. Two guys getting married has nothing to do with you, your beliefs, or your life at all. If God really has an issue with it, let him handle it, you dont need to.

The arrogance of some to think they should be the judge and jury for others lives is laughable.

So, homosexuals that are against gay marriage, are anti gay?
Why some gays are against gay marriage

 

[CarmelHP]

So, homosexuals that are against gay marriage, are anti gay?
Why some gays are against gay marriage

Apparently so, is there some gay Supreme Council somewhere that decides what all gays must believe and what all heterosexuals must believe in order not to be "anti-gay?" Is it a religion in which you're excommunicated for straying from the rigid elements of faith?

 

[Roadie]

Apparently so, is there some gay Supreme Council somewhere that decides what all gays must believe and what all heterosexuals must believe in order not to be "anti-gay?" Is it a religion in which you're excommunicated for straying from the rigid elements of faith?

Indeed. There are even *gasp* Gay Republicans! They must be really out of favor with the "Gay Supreme Council" lol

 

[dross]

Ok, time to raise an age-old question. He's an elected representative. He is SUPPOSED to keep with the desires of his constituents almost to the exclusion of his personal values.

All politicians (or at least the good ones) are to a certain extent "hypocritical" in the sense that they have the ability to separate their personal views when they vote the will of their constituents.

ETA:
Depending on who is pissed off at you, a legislator is either hypocritical for voting his conscience when it departs from the will of the electorate, or hypocritical for voting the will of the electorate if it contradicts his own personal values.

I disagree that they are "supposed" to vote the will of their constituents. My belief is that they are supposed to tell their constituents what they stand for and if their constituents agree with what they stand for, they vote for them. If their constituents change their collective mind, as they tend to do, that doesn't mean their elected representative has some obligation to change his vote. He's still supposed to vote what he believes in, IMO.

 

[jsharmon7]

I disagree that they are "supposed" to vote the will of their constituents. My belief is that they are supposed to tell their constituents what they stand for and if their constituents agree with what they stand for, they vote for them. If their constituents change their collective mind, as they tend to do, that doesn't mean their elected representative has some obligation to change his vote. He's still supposed to vote what he believes in, IMO.

I tend to agree with this viewpoint as well. The candidate says "hey this is what I believe and this is the direction I want the country/state/city to go, if you're with me then vote for me." I do, however, expect them to generally stick with that direction though. I think that's a pipe dream at this point though.

 

[Expat]

If they are required to vote as their constituents desire, then we are nothing more than the mob rule of a democracy.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

is there some gay Supreme Council somewhere that decides what all gays must believe and what all heterosexuals must believe in order not to be "anti-gay?"

Yes, that would be MSNBC.

 

[Fargo]

Doesnt necessarily make you a crusader for the cause, but if you oppose gay marriage you are anti gay. How can it be any other way?

That is a load of crap. Just because a person doesn't think you should get tax breaks for committing to stick it into only fella, does not make one a gay hater. It makes you a person who believes that you shouldn't change definitions with the political winds.

Remember, what the gays want is to REDEFINE a word and an institution. This has nothing to do with "rights", it has to do with wanting to change definitions of words.

You are wanting to deny two consenting adults the same rights you have because they are different.

Hell yeah two dudes or two chicks committing to stick with playing with each other is way outside the definition of the word and institution of marriage. If two gays want to go get someone to declare them married, g'luck. That doesn't mean the state should redefine its terms to recognize that as within a definition that per se excludes such things.

I dont want to see a gay male couple do what they do, but why should I or anyone else deny them the same rights I have? People use religion as a crutch but that is just weak. Two guys getting married has nothing to do with you, your beliefs, or your life at all. If God really has an issue with it, let him handle it, you dont need to.

You know what is really weak; people who demand that things be redefined so they can be all politically correct and pretend like there is no difference between a homosexual and heterosexual relationship...

This is especially so when my tax dollars are going to go to support these things.

The arrogance of some to think they should be the judge and jury for others lives is laughable.

The arrogance of those who want to redefine words and institutions to make them all inclusive so we can all get together and feel mushy-good about ourselves is what is really laughable.

Joe